5 ms·

Phew, i do know that some of their reactors are pretty old but imho nuclear overall is pretty safe and one of the best ways available still for producing vast a

Phew, i do know that some of their reactors are pretty old but imho nuclear overall is pretty safe and one of the best ways available still for producing vast amounts of electricity. Hopefully they will build new ones to phase out the old

tobltobs 10y ago
"pretty old" is an embellishment in this case. They run the OLDEST nuclear reactor of the world. To repeat it, one of the richest countries of the world runs the oldest nuclear reactor in the middle of central Europe. If this one blows up Switzerland and Southern Germany is toast forever. There will be no lucky wind directions. And it doesn't help that the Swiss don't have a independent regulating authority for nuclear energy.
- guscost 10y ago
  It's a PWR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Technical_specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Tec... A PWR isn't going to "blow up" when it gets too old, or at all really. Chernobyl, the only large-scale plant to ever actually blow up, had a crazy dangerous design compared to any of these older reactors (and you're not kidding about them being old, they are seven years older than Chernobyl).
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Incidentally, you can find a more complete discussion on PWR stability as compared to Chernobyl here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Moderator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Mode...
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    11 Chernobyl type reactors are still in operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK (some of the design problems have been addressed in the still operating reactors)
    - guscost 10y ago
      Oh wow, hope the retrofits are safe enough.
    - m_mueller 10y ago
      Looking at the chain of events during the tests that lead to the accident I'd say it was mostly human error as well as the flawed hierarchical structure of soviet organisation. The critical reactor design flaws were all accounted for in protocols that were not followed by the higher up being present against the strong advice of the engineers. Had these been followed, nothing would have happened, although there is one flaw they probably didn't account for: the power spike during control rod insertion, which has been fixed with an updated control rod design and protocols. I'd argue that any reactor design that doesn't just allow to be shut down and walked away from, is inherently unsafe - it's just that RBMK have far worse consequences when humans screw up, which can be seen as their fundamental flaw, they basically miss a safety net in the form of an auxillary containment. Fukushima showed what could happen in reactors like the ones used in Switzerland - IMO that's way more manageable than climate change, although the question remains whether 'china syndrome' is possible and how such a true worst case would look like. I once did some rough calculations on how much radioactive material is present in typical reactors, and it's really quite staggering - dispersed in bad ways you basically get lethal doses for hundreds of millions of people. So the only sane way forward IMO is to finally replace all these old designs with ones that have passive cooling systems in an emergency, meanwhile passing housing laws for new houses that require a certain percentage of solar roof, x amount of kWh battery per inhabitant as well as the ability to feed the grid from both roof and battery in order to create a stable renewable grid. Unfortunately no green party is pragmatic enough - their anti nuclear stances mean that we'd have to increase carbon reliance before being able to decrease it, which poses IMO greater dangers than even the worst case imaginable with nuclear. Therefore I'd rather vote for those who want to keep nuclear rather than those who promote renewables.
      - lucaspiller 10y ago
        I can't find a source for it now, but I remember reading about an incident at Ignalia-1 in Lithuania, that foresaw the design issues that caused the Chenobyl incident a few years before. Apparently it was reported, but the Soviet leadership decided not to do anything about it and keep it secret. Even though Ignalia-2 had the most advanced safety features of any RBMK reactor, a condition of Lithuania's EU membership was the plant be shutdown. As such the Baltic states have been very dependant on Russia for energy since the shutdown. Belarus is in the process of building a plant on the Lithuanian border. Although it's PWR and has many safety features RBMK didn't have, thanks to politics the lack of transparency over safety issues is rather concerning: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-fire-for-dangerous-errors-at-nuclear-plant https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-...
- 1wd 10y ago
  ENSI is Switzerland's independent regulatory supervisory authority for nuclear safety and for the security of nuclear installations since 1 January 2009. This satisfies the requirement for the independence of the regulatory body as stipulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Nuclear_Safety_Inspectorate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Nuclear_Safety_I...
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  "They run the OLDEST nuclear reactor of the world" This is prudent and a wise financial choice, and it might be a hint why they are one of the richest countries in the world. No need to replace this simply because it is old: Rather, that an upgrade would pay for itself or mechanical reasoning. However, I'd assume there is regular testing and maintenance done to avoid some of the mechanical reasoning.
  - config_yml 10y ago
    It's not a wise financial choice, since they currently generate a net loss of 1 billion each year, with no better prospects for the next 10 years. They companies running the reactors even tried to give them away for free to Électricité de France, with no luck. I am against ruling out nuclear tech, like this initiative wanted, but the current state of nuclear power in Switzerland is a debacle. Ultimately the state will have to to pay for the shutdown anyway, be it now or in 2025. It would have been a wise financial choice to shut them down now.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  The plant is old, but that doesn't mean there would be anything wrong with it. When it is properly maintained, any worn components are replaced and it's completely stable. Safety systems improve all the time.
  - hrktb 10y ago
    Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but do you have actual insights that these particular power plants are properly maintained, components replaced, and there safety systems being improved in any way ? There seem to be a generic feeling of "nuclear is fine" in reaction to all the anti-nuclear bashing going on, but few people seem to be really paying attention to the case at hand. From what I read these reactors are not just old, they are built on an area that can have up to M7 earthquakes. The seismic risk was taken into account when building the power plants, but after a new security audit following Fukushima, it appears the risk was vastly underestimated, and from there all plans of building replacement plants in the area got nerfed. Basically these reactors are not actually deemed to be safe, it's just not practical to shut them down now without any alternative plan to cover for the electric needs of the whole country, when there is enough chance of no major earthquakes until they get decommissioned.
    - 1wd 10y ago
      Not deemed safe by whom? The ENSI deemed them safe. > In 2011, in response to Fukushima, ENSI called for a rapid review of seismic safety at all nuclear power plants in Switzerland. The results were to be submitted within a year and concentrated on the most important aspects. They showed that all Swiss nuclear power plants are sufficiently protected against earthquakes and flooding potentially caused by a breach in a dam following a seismic event. Further investigations also revealed that all nuclear power plants in Switzerland have a safety margin. https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-assumptions-require-new-safety-cases-to-be-drawn-up-for-swiss-nuclear-power-plants/?noredirect=en_US https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-ass...
      - hrktb 10y ago
- albinofrenchy 10y ago
  I'm continually shocked at how many people think nuclear reactors are just nuclear bombs one failure from exploding. The nuclear plants in Switzerland are safer and more efficient than coal power plants.
  - akamaka 10y ago
    We just had a nuclear disaster which is fresh in those people's minds. To put it into perspective, the Fukushima disaster has made 800000 hectares of land unusable for farming, which is more than the area of land under cultivation in the entire country of Switzerland.
  - p1mrx 10y ago
    > more efficient than coal How do you compare the efficiency of two systems with dissimilar inputs?
    - maushu 10y ago
      By calculating the price of the input per energy and the effects of the waste generated.
tonfa 10y ago
The plan of shutting down half the plants by next year was pretty insane and had no chance of passing. Switzerland is still getting out of nuclear and won't build any new plant, just not on that ridiculously short timeframe.
config_yml 10y ago
I don't think they'll build new ones, way to expensive, unprofitable and the general strategy is to phase out nuclear until 2050.
- petre 10y ago
  And replace base load nuclear power stations with what? Coal? Gas from Russia? I don't know if they have any usable geothermal resources but that would be the only sound renewable replacement for nuclear.
  - pif 10y ago
    > And replace base load nuclear power stations with what? Indeed, that's the fundamental question! It's easy to be against something for its drawbacks. But a serious discussion must start from either an alternative with similar value and fewer negatives, or a plan to give up the benefits at all. Just saying "No this, no that" is immature, in my humble opinion.
  - 1wd 10y ago
    > Currently, no electricity is being produced from geothermal sources in Switzerland. [...] > The potential for geothermal electricity production in Switzerland is very high, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding the associated costs and feasibility. [...] > Experts anticipate that, by 2030, around a dozen geothermal plants will be in operation which will produce a combined total of 800 GWh of electricity. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00501/?lang=en http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00501/?lang=en (Nuclear power in Switzerland in 2015 produced 23'000 GWh.)
- p1mrx 10y ago
  If the externalities of CO₂ emission were included in energy prices, then nuclear wouldn't seem so expensive. Let's account for the externalities, and then let all energy sources compete on a level playing field.
  - the8472 10y ago

tobltobs 10y ago

"pretty old" is an embellishment in this case. They run the OLDEST nuclear reactor of the world. To repeat it, one of the richest countries of the world runs the oldest nuclear reactor in the middle of central Europe. If this one blows up Switzerland and Southern Germany is toast forever. There will be no lucky wind directions. And it doesn't help that the Swiss don't have a independent regulating authority for nuclear energy.

guscost 10y ago
It's a PWR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Technical_specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beznau_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Tec... A PWR isn't going to "blow up" when it gets too old, or at all really. Chernobyl, the only large-scale plant to ever actually blow up, had a crazy dangerous design compared to any of these older reactors (and you're not kidding about them being old, they are seven years older than Chernobyl).
- Natsu 10y ago
  Incidentally, you can find a more complete discussion on PWR stability as compared to Chernobyl here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Moderator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Mode...
- maxerickson 10y ago
  11 Chernobyl type reactors are still in operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK (some of the design problems have been addressed in the still operating reactors)
  - guscost 10y ago
    Oh wow, hope the retrofits are safe enough.
  - m_mueller 10y ago
    Looking at the chain of events during the tests that lead to the accident I'd say it was mostly human error as well as the flawed hierarchical structure of soviet organisation. The critical reactor design flaws were all accounted for in protocols that were not followed by the higher up being present against the strong advice of the engineers. Had these been followed, nothing would have happened, although there is one flaw they probably didn't account for: the power spike during control rod insertion, which has been fixed with an updated control rod design and protocols. I'd argue that any reactor design that doesn't just allow to be shut down and walked away from, is inherently unsafe - it's just that RBMK have far worse consequences when humans screw up, which can be seen as their fundamental flaw, they basically miss a safety net in the form of an auxillary containment. Fukushima showed what could happen in reactors like the ones used in Switzerland - IMO that's way more manageable than climate change, although the question remains whether 'china syndrome' is possible and how such a true worst case would look like. I once did some rough calculations on how much radioactive material is present in typical reactors, and it's really quite staggering - dispersed in bad ways you basically get lethal doses for hundreds of millions of people. So the only sane way forward IMO is to finally replace all these old designs with ones that have passive cooling systems in an emergency, meanwhile passing housing laws for new houses that require a certain percentage of solar roof, x amount of kWh battery per inhabitant as well as the ability to feed the grid from both roof and battery in order to create a stable renewable grid. Unfortunately no green party is pragmatic enough - their anti nuclear stances mean that we'd have to increase carbon reliance before being able to decrease it, which poses IMO greater dangers than even the worst case imaginable with nuclear. Therefore I'd rather vote for those who want to keep nuclear rather than those who promote renewables.
    - lucaspiller 10y ago
      I can't find a source for it now, but I remember reading about an incident at Ignalia-1 in Lithuania, that foresaw the design issues that caused the Chenobyl incident a few years before. Apparently it was reported, but the Soviet leadership decided not to do anything about it and keep it secret. Even though Ignalia-2 had the most advanced safety features of any RBMK reactor, a condition of Lithuania's EU membership was the plant be shutdown. As such the Baltic states have been very dependant on Russia for energy since the shutdown. Belarus is in the process of building a plant on the Lithuanian border. Although it's PWR and has many safety features RBMK didn't have, thanks to politics the lack of transparency over safety issues is rather concerning: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-fire-for-dangerous-errors-at-nuclear-plant https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/belarus-under-...
1wd 10y ago
ENSI is Switzerland's independent regulatory supervisory authority for nuclear safety and for the security of nuclear installations since 1 January 2009. This satisfies the requirement for the independence of the regulatory body as stipulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Nuclear_Safety_Inspectorate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Nuclear_Safety_I...
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
"They run the OLDEST nuclear reactor of the world" This is prudent and a wise financial choice, and it might be a hint why they are one of the richest countries in the world. No need to replace this simply because it is old: Rather, that an upgrade would pay for itself or mechanical reasoning. However, I'd assume there is regular testing and maintenance done to avoid some of the mechanical reasoning.
- config_yml 10y ago
  It's not a wise financial choice, since they currently generate a net loss of 1 billion each year, with no better prospects for the next 10 years. They companies running the reactors even tried to give them away for free to Électricité de France, with no luck. I am against ruling out nuclear tech, like this initiative wanted, but the current state of nuclear power in Switzerland is a debacle. Ultimately the state will have to to pay for the shutdown anyway, be it now or in 2025. It would have been a wise financial choice to shut them down now.
ptaipale 10y ago
The plant is old, but that doesn't mean there would be anything wrong with it. When it is properly maintained, any worn components are replaced and it's completely stable. Safety systems improve all the time.
- hrktb 10y ago
  Perhaps I'm misreading your comment, but do you have actual insights that these particular power plants are properly maintained, components replaced, and there safety systems being improved in any way ? There seem to be a generic feeling of "nuclear is fine" in reaction to all the anti-nuclear bashing going on, but few people seem to be really paying attention to the case at hand. From what I read these reactors are not just old, they are built on an area that can have up to M7 earthquakes. The seismic risk was taken into account when building the power plants, but after a new security audit following Fukushima, it appears the risk was vastly underestimated, and from there all plans of building replacement plants in the area got nerfed. Basically these reactors are not actually deemed to be safe, it's just not practical to shut them down now without any alternative plan to cover for the electric needs of the whole country, when there is enough chance of no major earthquakes until they get decommissioned.
  - 1wd 10y ago
    Not deemed safe by whom? The ENSI deemed them safe. > In 2011, in response to Fukushima, ENSI called for a rapid review of seismic safety at all nuclear power plants in Switzerland. The results were to be submitted within a year and concentrated on the most important aspects. They showed that all Swiss nuclear power plants are sufficiently protected against earthquakes and flooding potentially caused by a breach in a dam following a seismic event. Further investigations also revealed that all nuclear power plants in Switzerland have a safety margin. https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-assumptions-require-new-safety-cases-to-be-drawn-up-for-swiss-nuclear-power-plants/?noredirect=en_US https://www.ensi.ch/en/2016/05/31/updated-seismic-hazard-ass...
    - hrktb 10y ago
albinofrenchy 10y ago
I'm continually shocked at how many people think nuclear reactors are just nuclear bombs one failure from exploding. The nuclear plants in Switzerland are safer and more efficient than coal power plants.
- akamaka 10y ago
  We just had a nuclear disaster which is fresh in those people's minds. To put it into perspective, the Fukushima disaster has made 800000 hectares of land unusable for farming, which is more than the area of land under cultivation in the entire country of Switzerland.
- p1mrx 10y ago
  > more efficient than coal How do you compare the efficiency of two systems with dissimilar inputs?
  - maushu 10y ago
    By calculating the price of the input per energy and the effects of the waste generated.

tonfa 10y ago

The plan of shutting down half the plants by next year was pretty insane and had no chance of passing. Switzerland is still getting out of nuclear and won't build any new plant, just not on that ridiculously short timeframe.

config_yml 10y ago

I don't think they'll build new ones, way to expensive, unprofitable and the general strategy is to phase out nuclear until 2050.

petre 10y ago
And replace base load nuclear power stations with what? Coal? Gas from Russia? I don't know if they have any usable geothermal resources but that would be the only sound renewable replacement for nuclear.
- pif 10y ago
  > And replace base load nuclear power stations with what? Indeed, that's the fundamental question! It's easy to be against something for its drawbacks. But a serious discussion must start from either an alternative with similar value and fewer negatives, or a plan to give up the benefits at all. Just saying "No this, no that" is immature, in my humble opinion.
- 1wd 10y ago
  > Currently, no electricity is being produced from geothermal sources in Switzerland. [...] > The potential for geothermal electricity production in Switzerland is very high, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding the associated costs and feasibility. [...] > Experts anticipate that, by 2030, around a dozen geothermal plants will be in operation which will produce a combined total of 800 GWh of electricity. http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00501/?lang=en http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00501/?lang=en (Nuclear power in Switzerland in 2015 produced 23'000 GWh.)
p1mrx 10y ago
If the externalities of CO₂ emission were included in energy prices, then nuclear wouldn't seem so expensive. Let's account for the externalities, and then let all energy sources compete on a level playing field.
- the8472 10y ago