"In an energy context marked by significant uncertainties, can Switzerland afford to rule out certain sources of production from the outset?" asks Dominique Rochat, Energy & Infrastructure Project Manager at economiesuisse.
For those who did not experience them, Switzerland is today experiencing a rapid return to the 1980s. Parliament's approval of the counter-proposal to the "Blackout" initiative has brought back the "Nuclear? No thanks" stickers, revived arguments heard a thousand times, and put a new vote on the horizon after a referendum was launched.
However, we are in a completely different scenario than forty years ago, and it would be wrong to reduce this vote to a simple decision for or against nuclear power. The real issue lies elsewhere: it concerns Switzerland's security of supply.
Let's first go back to 2017, at the vote on the Energy Act. Contrary to what is often heard, the people's yes did not ban nuclear power from Switzerland forever. Indeed, the full set of regulations governing the construction and operation of plants remains written into law.
But for a project to be realized, it would have to pass three stages. The Federal Council would first have to grant it a general authorization, subject to an optional referendum. Next would come the authorization to construct, then to operate, both of which could be subject to appeals.
At present, however, the government can no longer grant a general authorization, and it is precisely this lock that the counter-proposal removes. But the essential point remains: the people retain the final say on any potential power plant projects. Approving the counter-proposal therefore is not bringing back nuclear power, but reclaiming the right to choose.
Why would opponents of nuclear power fear a vote, when they would have no difficulty sinking a project with good arguments? The complete change in the energy landscape is probably part of the reason. Russia's aggression against Ukraine in 2022 brutally highlighted one reality: the security of electricity supply is not a given. It has even become a major strategic priority for Switzerland, whose ambition is to make electricity the main energy carrier in order to progressively replace fossil fuels and thus reach the goal of net-zero emissions.
Realizing such an ambition requires establishing a robust supply. This implies widely diversifying production, adapting networks, strengthening interconnection with our European neighbors, and moderating consumption, while keeping costs under control for end customers. To be honest, we are still a long way off.
Switzerland faces an a priori rather simple equation to solve. The shift from fossil fuels to electricity will increase its consumption by at least a third. At the same time, nuclear production will disappear. Over the course of the year, it accounts for a quarter of total production, but its share reaches 40% in winter. The solution, therefore, is to develop new production capacity sufficiently and in time, focusing on winter.
Currently, we are turning this relatively simple problem into an equation with multiple unknowns. Admittedly, renewable electricity production is making clear progress, but not enough to reach the targeted goals. It is especially lacking in diversity, because its development is concentrated on photovoltaics, which is very productive in summer and much less in winter. Its winter complements, wind and hydropower, are developing very slowly, or not at all.
At this rate, the electricity deficit in winter can only widen, which will greatly increase our dependence on imports or the need to build gas-fired power plants, as the Germans are preparing to do.
In this context of great uncertainty, can Switzerland afford to rule out certain sources of production outright? Many European countries are asking the same question and are re-evaluating their position on nuclear power. Our parliamentarians have taken note of the evolution of the energy context and have chosen to strengthen supply security. Supporting their decision will not cause new nuclear power plants to spring up, but will place this option back among the possible solutions and hand the key to the Swiss people.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"How far is it fair to make tenants bear the burden of the incentives granted to owners to produce their electricity and thereby make savings, or even profits?" wonders Christian Rod, an energy transition expert and founder of the company CREST.
"The entry barrier to electrification is high, but, once that obstacle is overcome, substantial savings are possible," recalls Dominique Bidou, the author of "Recivilisation".
"For millions of people active in emerging markets, sustainability is not an abstract ESG objective; it is a matter of access to energy, economic resilience and, often, survival," reminds Louiza Savchenko of MK Global Kapital.
"While our economic systems are remarkably sophisticated when it comes to measuring certain forms of value, that generated by a healthy ecosystem remains largely absent from ordinary mechanisms," regrets David French, CEO of My Drop In The Oceans.
Already a member or subscriber? Simply enter your email address to receive instant access to the article. Enjoy!