"Nuclear power is a subject that divides, imbued with emotions and political debate. In the face of the challenges of the energy transition and our growing electricity needs, can we afford to exclude this technology permanently?" asks Michael Frank, director of AES.
Fourteen years ago, nine days after I took office as head of the Swiss Association of Electricity Companies (AES), I received a call informing me of a major industrial accident that had occurred in Japan: the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The emotion was intense, calls to abandon nuclear power multiplied, and the debates ignited.
Following this tragedy, many measures were taken. In Switzerland, the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) notably decreed a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants. The gradual phase-out of nuclear power as well as the ban on building new plants were endorsed by the Swiss population in 2017, when the Energy Strategy 2050 was adopted.
Switzerland is today facing many challenges regarding energy supply. The decarbonization of the economy requires increased electrification of our uses – from heating to mobility – leading to a significant rise in electricity demand.
One observation is unavoidable: even if the production targets set by law are achieved, additional capacity will be necessary beyond 2050, particularly during the winter months.
To address these challenges, guarantee our security of supply and reach our energy and climate targets, we must significantly accelerate the development of renewable energies. These are, moreover, our absolute priority in the short and medium term.
One observation is unavoidable: even if the production targets set by law are achieved, additional capacity will be necessary beyond 2050, particularly during the winter months. The form this production will take will depend on our collective will, but does that mean we must definitively rule out the nuclear option?
Several European countries, such as France and Finland, are extending the lifetimes of their facilities or investing in new technologies, notably small modular reactors (SMRs), presented as more flexible and safer. This approach shows that a nuanced reflection is possible.
In Switzerland, any new construction remains prohibited by law to this day, a provision that seems out of step with technological advances and our future energy needs. This ban limits our future options and makes us more vulnerable to imports.
The "Stop au Blackout" initiative and the Federal Council's indirect counter-proposal agree on the need to reconsider our technological choices. However, while the initiative may prove counterproductive for crisis management and create a conflict of norms, the counter-proposal deserves to be praised.
Lifting the principle-based ban would in no way mean the immediate launch of new nuclear power plant projects. Moreover, such an option would not constitute an answer to short- and medium-term challenges.
In a world where demand is constantly evolving and climatic and geopolitical conditions are becoming more complex, it would be imprudent to restrict our room for maneuver by ruling out today technologies that could prove valuable in the future.
Before a new plant becomes a serious option, numerous steps will have to be taken: further political debates, legislative decisions and, if necessary, referendums and popular votes. In addition, the current legal framework does not provide the investment conditions necessary to guarantee the profitability of such a project.
The Federal Council's counter-proposal is not about a concrete project, but proposes a strategic option. Its primary objective is not to impose a direction, but to reopen the debate on nuclear power, to preserve the attractiveness of sites, to ensure the sustainability of the industry and to maintain research and skills in this field. Above all, it is about guaranteeing our future freedom of action, without prejudging the technological choices that will actually be made.
The question is not to renounce our past commitments, and this approach in no way calls into question our absolute priority: the rapid implementation of the Electricity Act and thus the acceleration of the development of national renewable energy production.
But in a world where demand is constantly evolving and climatic and geopolitical conditions are becoming more complex, it would be imprudent to restrict our room for maneuver by ruling out today technologies that could prove valuable in the future.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
Interview with Philip Mäder, head of media relations at BKW.
At this stage, the investigations reveal an overvoltage problem that led to the failure, but do not yet allow its root cause to be identified.