Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results 1 - 5 of 5. Search took: 0.015 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] - Nuclear in Switzerland: Percent of Electricity from Nuclear: 40%. Nuclear facilities: 2 Nuclear Research reactors at the University of Basle (Swimming pool Type) and EPF Lausanne; 5 Nuclear Power Plants: KKB I / II: Westinghouse; PWR; each 365 MWe (1969,1971), KKM: General Electric; BWR 355 MWe (1972), KKG: Siemens / KWU; PWR; 970 MWe (1979), KKL: General Electric; BWR; 1165 MWe (1984). Interim Storage for nuclear waste: ZWILAG. - Public acceptance: Acceptance of existing NPP: 70.3%; Acceptance of replacing old NPP by new NPP: 52%; Therefore: Only talk about replacing the 3 old ones by one or more new NPP at an existing site. Women: Only 45% accept replacing NPP. New and additional NPP do not get a majority (43,5%). - Energy policy: Referendum for the project of a new NPP (about 2011); DOE study about the security of supply shows Nuclear is needed; Reorganization of Nuclear Inspectorate Nuclear waste management policy; Positive decision of Federal Council on deep geological repository for spent fuel / high and low level waste 2007. - Nuclear research: Paul Scherrer Institute, Wuerenlingen, New Master study in Nuclear Engineering Fall 2008, Generation IV and ITER research. - Nuclear competences challenge in Switzerland: Nuclear Revival is coming in Switzerland only if we win the referendum. Therefore we need: Personal information and dialogue with the public, especially women about the necessity to replace the older NPP by new ones at the existing sites, because we need CO2-free base load capacity; Sun and wind cannot replace nuclear because it is not base load. The sun sets every night. Nuclear plants cannot be replaced by fossil plants because of CO2- emissions. Switzerland could not meet the Kyoto-targets if the now CO2- free electricity production (40% Nuclear, 60% Hydro) would be given up with the construction of a gas fired power plant. - WIN - Switzerland Main achievements: Activities of 2007 WIN Switzerland: Visit of the special waste site in Switzerland to compare the requirements for radioactive waste and special waste since the DOE programme for the site selection for the deep geological nuclear waste repository has started. Preparation of campaigns for the communication of replacing the old NPP with new NPP. 7 new members joined WIN in 2008. Number of WIN members: 55
[en] In 1998 the four Swiss Scientific Academies formed a working group to study sustainability of electricity production. Having been a member of this group since the beginning I witnessed the evolution of the discussion that led to a consensus. The group found the criteria of sustainability to be special for nuclear energy. While the resource uranium is not needed for any other purpose and thus the use of uranium is sustainable, the possible harm to future generations by nuclear reactors is difficult to evaluate: the potential damage can be large but the probability of its occurrence is very small. Therefore some people judge nuclear power as an environmentally friendly source of electricity production and an important contribution towards a sustainable energy future whereas others look at the potential damage and value nuclear power as not sustainable. The discussion of alternatives then reveals that it is definitely not sustainable to replace nuclear power by fossil fuels. This was a consensus reached by the members of the working group, which consists of the pro and anti nuclear camp. Sustainable energy production is a complex topic and not easy to tackle with our everyday methods. The group decided to solve the problem with a systemic approach to get to know the hidden and indirect effects of electricity production and usage. A system approach brings a new concept into the often blocked discussion of proponents and antinuclear people. In order to assure that a holistic evaluation results which reaches a high degree of consensus, several subgroups were formed representing divergent views on the issues analysed. These groups do not communicate their findings while work on their cross impact matrices (CIMs) is under way. The results are compared and discrepancies are discussed. Usually this shows that once the wording of the variables is corrected and their interpretations are shared by the parties involved, consensus concerning evaluations is achieved
[en] Surveys in most countries show, that women's attitude towards nuclear energy differ quite a bit from that of men. Why is this so and what can be done about it? The difference is that a cigarette is a familiar risk. But only few women are familiar with nuclear risks, especially radioactivity, be it scientifically or emotionally. Women in general are less inclined to technical subjects. Technical matters still are male. Technical issues are - by education and in schools - (at least in Switzerland) no female subjects. Therefore we have to change this in order to change women's attitudes towards technical subjects. How can women become more technology-oriented?
[en] As nuclear community sometimes feel desperate because the nuclear energy is a very special subject triggering so much controversy among women and young persons especially it has been found that the battle against nuclear energy is just a pretext. Comparing the campaign on a referendum against hydropower - voted in Switzerland in may 1992 it was found astonishingly that exactly the same arguments were applied as during the campaign for the phase out of nuclear energy in 1990. The results were presented at PIME 1991. Voting behaviour for nuclear energy and hydro power are comparable: the gender gap (32% acceptance by men versus 48% by women) found in the 1992 vote about stopping hydropower plants in Switzerland was bigger than the one found in the 1990 vote about nuclear energy. A detailed analysis of these data is presented