Greenpeace demands Swiss shut world's oldest nuclear plant

August 20, 2015
Switzerland's oldest nuclear power plant Beznau, near Doettingen, northern Switzerland
Switzerland's oldest nuclear power plant Beznau, near Doettingen, northern Switzerland

Greenpeace said Thursday it had launched legal action to demand that Switzerland shut down Beznau, the world's oldest commercial nuclear plant, for security reasons.

The plant, located in the northern Swiss canton of Aargau, near the German border, has been running for 46 years.

"The Beznau nuclear plant would not resist a ," the environmental protection group said in a statement.

The organisation said it, along with the Swiss Energy Foundation and the Tri-national Nuclear Protection Association, had filed the suit on Wednesday demanding "the definitive closure of the installation."

Following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, Swiss authorities launched probes to determine how all of the country's four would withstand an earthquake.

In July 2012, they determined that all were fit to withstand a severe earthquake, and could keep running since they posed no threat to the population or the environment.

But Greenpeace and the other plaintiffs in the case said the experts' calculations were based on erroneous technical norms.

The organisations said they had asked in a letter that the Federal Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety (IFSN) "correct its July 2012 decision and order the closure of the Beznau plant."

If the IFSN maintains its decision, it should announce this publicly, Greenpeace said.

The plaintiffs would then take the case to a federal administrative court, and if necessary all the way up to the supreme court, it said in a statement.

Beznau, which opened in 1969 and counts two reactors that are currently undergoing repairs, became the world's oldest after the 2012 closure of Britain's Oldsbury reactor.

Switzerland is considered to have only a "moderate" earthquake risk, but some 10,000 quakes that have hit the Alpine country since the 13th century, and 12 have caused significant damage, according to seismologists.

The most powerful earthquake in Swiss history hit Basel in 1356, measuring 6.6 on the Richter scale and levelling a large part of the city.

Explore further: Swiss environmental groups want Beznau nuclear plant shut

Related Stories

Swiss protest nuclear power

May 23, 2011

About 20,000 people took part in an anti-nuclear demonstration in north Switzerland on Sunday ahead of a government decision on the future of atomic energy in the country.

Recommended for you

Chinese fans trash blackout as Google AI wins again

May 25, 2017

Chinese netizens fumed Thursday over a government ban on live coverage of Google algorithm AlphaGo's battle with the world's top Go player, as the programme clinched their three-match series in the ancient board game.

46 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Zzzzzzzz
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2015
Greenpeace defines itself as an environmental organization. I used to believe it was true. However, opposition to Nuclear Power has been proven to be an anti-environmental position. I now see Greenpeace simply as a collection of seriously misguided activists who have set out to prove that a good cause can be turned into extremely harmful action in practice. Opposition to Nuclear Power simply promotes AGW. Pure and simple. Greenpeace has become indistinguishable from any other misinformation arm of the Koch brothers.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2015
I'd like to hear about Greenpeace demanding to be shut down those environmentally hypocritical means of energy production (solar/wind farms) that are butchering millions birds and bats, disturbing large lands and offshore areas in wildlife's habitats, destroying natural landscapes.
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
I'd like to hear Willie apologize for the comments about robots in the other thread. He ran away after I proved my assertion about the intense radiation at Fukushima.

And nuclear power is NOT environmentally clean or safe. Go help them with the disasters at Fukushima. We are not safe from those molten blobs of intense radioactivity, and it will persist for over 200,000 years.

Who is going to "clean it up"? And when they can, where do they put it? They will only contaminate some other place.
Edenlegaia
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2015
And nuclear power is NOT environmentally clean or safe. Go help them with the disasters at Fukushima. We are not safe from those molten blobs of intense radioactivity, and it will persist for over 200,000 years.

Who is going to "clean it up"? And when they can, where do they put it? They will only contaminate some other place.


It will? We may have harmed a whole planet meant to keep a stable situation for many millenias. If we can do that, why can't we use the wastes and make sure the radioactivity will NOT persist over 200.000 years? After all, what is not discovered yet may be discovered later. No reason to go full systematic anti-nuclear power. It just needs changes, not complete annihilation.
gkam
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2015
"why can't we use the wastes and make sure the radioactivity will NOT persist over 200.000 years?"
---------------------------------------

That is the wrong question. The correct one is "Why do we continue to make this stuff we cannot even store,using technology we cannot safely control?"

Or, "What kind of people would heap this nasty stuff on our successors, when it will last essentially forever in Human terms?" We cannot even hold it yet, but we want to leave even more for the kids and grandkids to deal with?

What kind of people are these selfish folk?
WillieWard
5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2015
..intense radiation..
gskam hypocritically forgets that renewables use rare-earth metals that contain traces of radioactive uranium and thorium.
http://institutef...inerals/
..environmentally clean or safe..
Statistics confirm: nuclear is safer and ecologically friendly; renewables require much more acres and kill more than nuclear per gigawatt produced.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2015
"use rare-earth metals that contain traces of radioactive uranium and thorium."
---------------------------------

Yes, "trace amounts" bound up in the matrix. What do nuke plants give us? Hundreds of tons of intensely-radioactive materials. Show me how you are going to even store it for 240,000 years, Willie. It is toxic and radioactive and exothermic. Do you understand what that means?
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2015
After all, what is not discovered yet may be discovered later. No reason to go full systematic anti-nuclear power. It just needs changes, not complete annihilation.
Bill Gates is right, taxpayer's money would be better spent on research.
"..so it's far from sure that the colossal subsidies pumped into today's useless renewables will get diverted into R&D which could produce something worthwhile."
http://www.thereg...into_rd/
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2015
..understand what that means..
It means that wind and solar is being installed in everywhere, including wildlife's habitats, and will disperse radiation, cumulative through the years, to everywhere potentially causing lung cancer in everyone for infinite generations, while nuclear-power waste is safely stored in geological disposals.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2015
Debating Willie is like debating with a billboard.
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2015
If Greenpeace really cared about the environment and ecology, it would support:
- change all electricity production to nuclear;
- change all autos to natural gas;
- prioritize funding for alternative energy research (thorium, fusion, etc).
But Greenpeace looks like more cared about to support 'green money'.
Eikka
5 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2015
"The Beznau nuclear plant would not resist a powerful earthquake,"


A reasonable concern. The expected frequency of magnitude 6 earthquakes in Swizerland is once every 50-100 years, and the last one occured in 1946.

However, Greenpeace has no credibility in these matters. They are known to fabricate evidence and simply spread propaganda.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2015
Debating Willie is like debating with a billboard.


It's continuously hilarious that you don't understand he is making a parody of you.

His irrational and ridiculous concerns about "bird killing deathblades" mirror exactly your sentiment and semantics about nuclear waste and the dangers of radiation. He's not even particularily subtle about it.

This is why the basic test of intelligence in other animals is to show them a mirror. The un-intelligent animal will attack its own reflection the more the reflection fights back.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2015
However, opposition to Nuclear Power has been proven to be an anti-environmental position.

Given the nuclear waste problem - how can you argue this? Global warming isn't the only kind of environmental concern humanity faces.

The depicted action by Greenpeace is a bit useless, though. Switzerland is looking into going nuclear-free, anyhow, and the last reactor is scheduled to go offline in 2034.
Eikka
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
Debating Willie is like debating with a billboard.


Debating you is like debating a 70+ year old man with elective Alzheimer's disease.

"Why do we continue to make this stuff we cannot even store,using technology we cannot safely control?"


http://phys.org/n...sts.html

Eikka
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
Given the nuclear waste problem - how can you argue this?


Easily. The nuclear waste problem is actually, genuinely, far smaller than the environmental problem of all the fossil fuel pollution even if we did absolutely nothing to it.

It would be a problem - sure - but not the same "kill everyone" kind of problem that the hysterics make it out to be.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
Eikka is the one getting hysterical. Look at the line of fevered posts.

I think the prices of PV and wind got to him, especially when he read of Hinckley and Vogtle.

Those prices are going to be three or more TIMES the cost of alternative power! And they want them to last for 40-60 years??? We have to carry those burdens for half a century, because of corporate hubris?

Nobody can afford nukes.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
Not a good day for nukes:
http://www.power-...ite.html

The Hinckley plant, the design which was going to save nuke power, has been stopped. It has troubles with the metallurgy in the reactor vessel end caps, but this is for another reason.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
http://www.fierce...internal

Nuclear leak: UCS releases private DOE report
August 21, 2015 | By Barbara Vergetis Lundin
A new study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contends that it would be cheaper and far less risky to dispose of 34 metric tons of U.S. surplus plutonium at a federal nuclear waste repository in New Mexico than convert it into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel for commercial nuclear power plants at the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility in South Carolina.

The report was produced by a team of experts from U.S. nuclear laboratories, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the commercial nuclear power industry. The team's analysis is consistent with the conclusion of a January 2015 UCS report, which recommended that the DOE shut down the MOX facility -- whose estimated life-cycle cost has gone from $1.6 billion to more than $30 billion.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
Not a good day for nukes
Nuclear faces political barriers, dishonest fear-mongers/pathological liars, fraudulent green lobbyists and sensationalist mass media, while wind and solar that is provoking more fatalities and environmental impacts than nuclear per gigawatt produced, aside intermittences compensated by fossil fuels, is still heavily rewarded with governmental subsidies.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
I want Willie to tell us how much the Japanese people will have to pay to clean up the disasters made by a private corporation. TEPCO is now partially owned by the government, and the people are fools for letting the government do that to them.

The People have to pay for the crimes of the corporations, yet TEPCO made a big profit last year!! This is what nuclear power does to democracies!
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
Easily. The nuclear waste problem is actually, genuinely, far smaller than the environmental problem of all the fossil fuel pollution even if we did absolutely nothing to it.

It's a more local problem, unless something goes boom. In that case the problem - as has been seen in the past - gets to be global pretty quickly. But whille the nuclear waste problem is more localized it is also far, far, FAR longer lived. So long that not even you could argue "we can contain that forever" with a straight face.

In any case it's a false dichotomy - since we have ample alternatives that have neither the problems of fossil fuels nor the problems of nuclear (fission...fusion would be another matter). Going without the one does not mean we need the other.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2015
But whille the nuclear waste problem is more localized it is also far, far, FAR longer lived. So long that not even you could argue "we can contain that forever" with a straight face.


But we don't need to. The "forever containment" is just another one of the impossible demands that we don't actually have to meet because nuclear waste decays. Nuclear waste is not "forever" - that just a myth that keeps getting repeated ad nauseaum.

gets to be global pretty quickly.


That's still practically a fart in the wind, and the major pollutants have half-lives in decades.

In any case it's a false dichotomy - since we have ample alternatives


None of which have proven to work very well, and have instead opened a pandora's box of resource management and deployment issues, not to mention the social issues of the massive re-distribution of wealth from the many to the few in the form of subsidies.
Eikka
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2015
Hinckley and Vogtle.

Those prices are going to be three or more TIMES the cost of alternative power!


Source?

Last time we looked into this matter with Vogtle, it turned out that it wasn't particularily expensive, and you were just lying your ass off, so this time you should actually show that you're not pushing baloney again with Hinkley.

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
Well, I'll have to post some rebuttal:
http://atlantapro...er-says/

https://www.ameri...r-power/

I'll have to find the thirteen cent numbers for you. It recently went from eleven to thirteen cents/kWh, because of the financing costs.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
Nuclear power is ecologically worth the price, as it does not kill millions birds and bats and does not disturb large wildlife's habitats as wind/solar with impunity does, as well it is a reliable compact powerful baseload.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
"Nuclear power is ecologically worth the price,"
------------------------------------

Okay, YOU buy it, while I get mine from alternative sources.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
I get mine from alternative sources.
Have you already installed a solar panel on your rooftop or a windmill in your backyard? So tell us the true costs, including battery storage, inverters, maintenance, depreciation, time wasted, etc.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
Not yet, Willie. I just got my first bid.

Got your coal plant going, pumping heavy metals, respirable particulates, radionuclides, and acids over your neighborhood?

How 'bout one of them-there new small nukes? Got a place for the waste? Got your Police State to guard it?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
Willie, how much will it cost to have active guards around all the nuclear graveyards for over 200,000 years, because in the 20th Century some short-sighted folk wanted to make money?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
Forty-six years???

I guess it takes that long to get their money back. But if it were the Vogtle plants, the ones whose power will cost more than three times that of PV or wind, would the customers have to PAY for those turkeys for almost fifty years??

The last analysis added two cents/kWh to the eleven cents/kWh the plants were already assumed to cost to produce, not sell, power. Thirteen cents/kWh assumes everything will stop being screwed up, and the plants will produce perfectly for decades. Then, we will magically invent a way to store its waste. For 200,000 years.

Meanwhile, wind is less than 2 1/2 cents, and PV about 3 cents/kWh.

Whose power are you going to buy?
denglish
5 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2015
What kind of people are these selfish folk?

This is the same person that says the US sold nuclear secrets to North Korea and Pakistan.

Also, a warning: this person also links people to bi-curious websites.

I now see Greenpeace simply as a collection of seriously misguided activists who have set out to prove that a good cause can be turned into extremely harmful action in practice.

Pretty much. Its a shame that the raving-mad liberals have infiltrated them.

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
denglish, your assertions were not just wrong and malevolent, but were sternly corrected by others. We went through the actions of AQ Khan and told you of the Krytrons from Texas, and how Reagan/Bush could have stopped it, but you continue to post the same nonsense. It betrays your character, denglish.

This thread regards nukes. Want one? First Energy has many turkeys, and the other recently-shut plants can be bought cheaply.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
I'll have to find the thirteen cent numbers for you. It recently went from eleven to thirteen cents/kWh, because of the financing costs
Have we heard this before from this psychopath?

Won't happen because it's a lie. Something george pulled out of his ass because he thinks he has the right to do so.

Because he's a psychopath.
denglish
5 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2015
Meanwhile, wind is less than 2 1/2 cents, and PV about 3 cents/kWh.

This is total BS. In the thread where we investigated subsidy support, we learned that currently, wind is the worst investment in the power game.
denglish
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2015
It betrays your character, denglish.

Lets get into character. How about your false claims of education and military service?

How about your hatred of everything American.

And most worrisome, your habit of sending people to bi-curious websites. I'm not saying what you do there is wrong, but its not my thing. Because you don't know my age and seem to be rather careless, I am concerned that you may be exposing children to it.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
Oh, my, .. denglish has lost it all, . .the debate over nukes, the technical arguments, and his own character.

Your silly red herring attempt will not distract us from the evils of nuclear technologies and the irrational, emotional reactions of their apologists.
denglish
3 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2015
Interesting response. How long have you been exposing children to those sites?
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
"Nuclear power is ecologically worth the price,"
"environmental opinion is beginning to acknowledge that nuclear power may not be so bad after all."
"At the rate that today's windmills are killing migratory birds, there probably wouldn't be any falcons, hawks, eagles, cranes and condors left in the country."
"wind and solar is that these sources require much more transformation of the landscape"
"Liberals--Finally--Begin to Like Nuclear!"
http://www.realcl...681.html
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
Willie seems to assume our decisions regarding nuclear power are from political prejudice, as is his. No, Willie, I already told you, before working for Pacific Gas & Electric I helped test parts of the GE BWR SRV systems.

I believed them to be unsafe, and Fukushima has vindicated that opinion.
denglish
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2015
already told you, before working for Pacific Gas & Electric I helped test parts of the GE BWR SRV systems.

I believed them to be unsafe, and Fukushima has vindicated that opinion.

Uh oh, Boy George is firin' up the lie machine.
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2015
Fukushima has vindicated that opinion.
"Fukushima still scares the heck out of people - even though no one has died from radiation, and even though infants living next door will likely not realize a 1% increase in cancer incidents over their lifetime."

"Fukushima alarmism is a bigger risk than radiation"
"The nuclear incident was never more than a sideshow to the natural disaster of the tsunami."
http://www.theeng....article
WillieWard
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2015
I believed them to be unsafe
Your beliefs Mr. Alzheimer
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
"Uh oh, Boy George is firin' up the lie machine."
---------------------------------------

Look it up yourself: We did it at Scientific Service, Redwood City, CA,with NUTECH of San Jose for the NRC. Keywords are BWR, Suppression Pool, SRV, quenchers, X-quenchers, ramsheads, barrel, hydraulic shock.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2015
Your silly red herring attempt will not distract us from the evils of nuclear technologies
You lie about your education and experience. You make up ridiculous facts such as 'Pu is raining down on idaho' based on these false claims.

Therefore reminding the people here that you are a lying psychopath, and that they cannot trust a single thing you say, is certainly not a red herring.

For instance you say;
That is the wrong question. The correct one is "Why do we continue to make this stuff we cannot even store,using technology we cannot safely control?"

-making unwarranted statements about storage and control as if they were facts.

But knowing you are a pathological liar, we are obliged to disregard any proclamations you choose to make.

Even if they were true we know that you have no way of knowing this and no business claiming that you do.
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2015
"you are a lying psychopath, and that they cannot trust a single thing you say"
------------------------------------

You are the one with the adolescent fixation. You want me to suffer for the fact you did not really have much of a life.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.