Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Swiss Vote to Phase Out Nuclear Power

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

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Swiss Vote to Phase Out Nuclear Power | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 37 comments | Search Discussion
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: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:24PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:24PM (#514441) Journal

    So why wouldn't you include a third option to keep the nukes but replace with renewable? You wouldn't be committing a certain logical fallacy [wiktionary.org] would you?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday May 23 2017, @08:05PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @08:05PM (#514499)

    Explain how your phrasing differs in actual effect from my second option. Both have an end state of decommissioned nukes, no replacement nukes and a lot of very expensive to build and operate alt energy supplemented with imported peak power from places who didn't decommission their nukes. Problem is everyone in Europe is in a panic to switch off their nukes.... somebody hasn't thought this through because it is a classic NIMBY situation in that everybody admits on some level that nukes have to be connected to the grid while everyone is saying THEY are too Holy and too valuable to allow one near them.