The general assumption (wrong in my opinion) is that we need more and more energy, hence the chase for the most powerful and profitable source. The problem should be tackled at the root, that is, from energy efficiency, to decreasing waste, to intelligent use of energy and what consumes it, to thrift. All the reasoning I read, for or against one of the two energy "roads," sounds like "wanting to fill a bucket that has huge holes in it," which therefore will never be full enough. These arguments have a common root, namely the economic dogma of infinite growth, which on a planet with limited resources, is the real utopia that blinds our reasoning. Another mistake, in my opinion, is always reasoning about centralized energy production (including photovoltaics and wind power), instead of aiming at self-production and autonomy. Possibly reserving some large plants to provide for industrial consumption, but certainly not for domestic and mobility consumption. Transporting energy increases waste (in CH alone: 4.4GW of losses in 2021, federal data)

Nuclear power is the only solution to fulfill the goals of Energy Strategy 2050.

I have spent the past five years researching and exploring the topic of energy in Switzerland. I wrote an article with numbers, data and sources that addresses the issue of Swiss electricity.



Without nuclear power there are only the following 2 possibilities:

1) import electricity from the European Union (at the price and conditions they want)

2) produce it with gas-fired power plants (CO2 emissions and not compatible with targets)



Nuclear power is an extremely clean and safe source, the waste has never killed anyone and is also recyclable. Suffice it to say that from 100% energy content, when they leave the reactor as "waste" they still have about 95% usable energy.



PV is a good energy source to complement nuclear and hydro, it can't act as a replacement.