Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:06AM   Printer-friendly
from the End-of-an-Era dept.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/switzerland-votes-phase-nuclear-energy-121710224.html

Swiss voters have backed government plans to replace the power from ageing nuclear reactors with renewable energy.

A total of 58.2 per cent of voters supported the phaseout of nuclear energy in a binding referendum on Sunday. Under the Swiss system of direct democracy, voters have the final say on major policy issues.

The plan will provide billions of pounds in subsidies for renewable energy, ban the construction of nuclear plants and decommission the country’s five existing ones, which produce about a third of the country’s electricity.

[...] The move echoes efforts across Europe to reduce dependence on nuclear energy and has been in the making following Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011. Germany has announced it will close all nuclear plants by 2022 and Austria banned it decades ago.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:24AM (2 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:24AM (#513923) Journal

    I haven't noticed that nuclear power is either left or right.

    Are you saying that nuclear power is "good"? I don't really think you can make a case for that. Nuclear power is better than no power. Our civilization would have to be rebuilt to cope with no power. Nuclear power is arguably better than coal power, at least it's not dumping tons of pollutants into the atmosphere 24/7/365. But, it's hard to make a case that nuclear is "good". The US, Russia, and Japan each has a history of nuclear accidents. The accidents are far to damned serious to shrug off. The next accident COULD cost a million lives, and make an entire state uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.

    Nuclear power is not the best of all possible alternatives. The best alternative really is renewable. We don't yet have the technology to harvest power reliably out of the air, but it's coming. Solar panels have been around for most of my life now. The first ones were little more than novelties, really. Big, clunky, ugly panels that could keep a lead-acid battery charged, most of the time, unless you had three or four cloudy days in a row. Today, they are getting more efficient, and a lot less ugly. Not to mention, a lot cheaper. Whether it takes another twenty years, fifty, or a hundred years, one day, renewables will be about all there is.

    And, THAT is a "good thing". All the power you want or need, with zero pollution. No crap running into the sea, nothing blowing in the wind, then falling on your head with the rain. No poisons in the ground, waiting to be harvested with your garden vegetables. And, best of all, no radiation mutating your kids and the wildlife into unrecognizable creatures from your worst nightmares. Just clean, pure energy, at your fingertips.

    Maybe I'm a little overly optimistic, but I think you'll admit that "the best of all possible worlds" would have zero pollutants from any energy source. That isn't happening in my lifetime, and probably not in any Soylentil's lifetime - but that doesn't mean it can never happen.

    Salutes to all the people who are helping such a future to happen.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:36AM (#514020)

    In my opinion there is an astroturfing campaign in effect to try to frame nuclear as a standard right wing view. I generally post on more conservative sites to try to keep myself balanced, and have noticed a sharp spike -out of nowhere- amount of pro-nuclear propaganda, for lack of a more nuanced term. It's also generally framed in a sharply partisan fashion, "leftists are anti-science"/anti-energy, etc. There's 0 basis in reality for the position, but I think the number 1 rule of American politics is that frame things in a political fashion and people turn into mind-blanked followers.

    At the same time there is an intentional misinformation campaign about renewables being propagated. For instance cloudy days are supposed to drop the output of solar percent to near 0%, even under optimal conditions a solar panel might be enough to keep a flash light turned on, etc. The entire rhetoric is trying to formulate some sort of a machismo 'nuclear is for men', 'renewables are for soy latte sippin' tree huggers.'

  • (Score: 2) by Alphatool on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:09AM

    by Alphatool (1145) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:09AM (#514126)

    The next accident COULD cost a million lives, and make an entire state uninhabitable for the foreseeable future

    No, it really couldn't. There is no mechanism that could possibly kill more than a few thousand people from an incident at a nuclear power plant. Even a worst case (i.e. well beyond design basis) accident or sabotage is highly unlikely to cause more than 100 fatalities. Once you start looking at a realistic accident in a western nuclear power plant then everyone walks away unharmed. The plant might never restart, but everyone who worked there or lived nearby would be absolutely fine.

    If you don't believe me, there has been lots of research on what can happen (e.g. here [candu.org], here [inl.gov] or here [nrc.gov] as a starting point, but there is plenty of detailed information in the scientific literature and also in publications from regulators if you want to find out more) and we also have thousands of reactor-years experience to look at. In all of that time there have only been 3 major nuclear accidents at power plants - Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Chernobyl killed less than 100 people, Fukushima killed 0 but hurt a handful and everyone was fine at Three Mile Island. All three incidents were tragic in their own way and nobody should ever die at work, but in the scheme of industrial accidents they're a long way down the list.

    Chernobyl and Fukushima both have exclusion zones around them, but the zones are political constructs rather than actually being uninhabitable areas. Worst case, living there might slightly increase your risk of cancer - a far smaller increase than comes from smoking - and with active decontamination and dose minimization programs even this potential increase in cancer risk could be avoided. I won't provide references for this part, but if you really doubt it you can go visit the exclusion zones and see for yourself. If they were truly uninhabitable this just wouldn't be possible.