Swiss suspend plans for new nuclear plants

BERN, Switzerland (AP) — Switzerland abruptly suspended plans to build and replace nuclear plants Monday as two hydrogen explosions at a tsunami-stricken Japanese facility spread jitters about atomic energy safety in Europe.

Energy Minister Doris Leuthard said the suspension would affect all “blanket authorization for nuclear replacement until safety standards have been carefully reviewed and if necessary adapted.” Swiss regulatory authorities had given their stamp of approval to three sites for new nuclear power stations after the plans were submitted in 2008.

“Safety and well-being of the population have the highest priority,” said Leuthard, who instructed the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate to analyze the exact cause of the accidents in Japan and draw up new or tougher safety standards “particularly in terms of seismic safety and cooling.”

Leuthard said no new plants can be permitted until those experts report back. Their conclusions would apply not only to planned sites, but also existing plants. Switzerland now has four nuclear power plants that produce about 40 percent of the country’s energy needs. It also has nuclear research reactors.

Alarmed by the crisis in Japan, the European Union called for a meeting on Tuesday of nuclear safety authorities and operators to assess Europe’s preparedness in case of an emergency.

Austria’s Environment Minister Nikolaus Berlakovich called for an EU-wide stress test to check whether nuclear power stations are “earthquake-proof,” much like European banks have been tested for their ability to cope with financial shocks.

“With the banks it has shown its value,” Berlakovich said. “Now, people are expecting personal security and that is why there has to be a stress test for nuclear power plants.”

In Germany, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called for a new risk analysis on his country’s nuclear power plants, particularly regarding their cooling systems. A previous government decided a decade ago to shut all 17 German nuclear plants by 2021 but Chancellor Angela Merkel’s administration last year moved to extend their lives by an average 12 years.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said his government won’t revise its ambitious program of building new nuclear reactors but will “draw conclusions from what’s going on in Japan,” according to Russian news agencies.

Nuclear power currently accounts for 16 percent of Russia’s electricity generation, and the Kremlin has set a target to raise its share to one-quarter by 2030. Russia would have to build a total of 40 new reactors to fulfill the goal.

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk also said the country would stick to its plans to build two nuclear power plants and have the first one running by 2022.

Tusk told reporters in Gdansk on Sunday that Poland is not a country of seismic activity and that “there are technical and construction methods that will allow us to safely build nuclear power plants in Poland.”

As of January, there were 195 nuclear power plants operating in Europe and 19 under construction — 11 in Russia, two each in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Ukraine, and one each in Finland and France, according to the Brussels-based European Nuclear Society.

German popular opinion continues to favor non-nuclear sources of energy. But elsewhere in Europe, people have become increasingly open to using nuclear power as memories fade of the accident 25 years ago at the Soviet-built reactor in Chernobyl, Ukraine. Eastern Europe sees it as a way of gaining a measure of independence from Russia’s burgeoning gas and oil empire.

The Swiss already had launched a safety test at the Muhleberg nuclear plant in the canton (state) Bern and said they were now consulting with EU officials and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

Swiss voters in 1990 approved a 10-year moratorium on building new nuclear power plants. But in 2003, three years after the ban had lapsed, voters rejected a proposal for a new moratorium.

Since then the plans for new nuclear power stations at three sites were approved by the government. Another referendum on nuclear power is expected within the next few years.

———

Angela Charlton in Paris, Raf Casert in Brussels and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

Comments

rodinman 2 years, 2 months ago

Any comments from Ameren of Mr Kehoe?

0

whocares 2 years, 2 months ago

Knee jerk reaction. I guess they shouldn't build any towns near water either.

0

malmo 2 years, 2 months ago

Can't build in tornado prone areas anymore either........

0

JCsleeper 2 years, 2 months ago

Bet a tsunami will hit Callaway County any day now.

0

rmsberengaria 2 years, 2 months ago

Let's see we can't drill our own oil, now no more clean nuclear plants, no coal it's just too dirty no matter how clean we make it, Natural gas oh no it's to harmful to the environment to extract. Well it seems to me the environmentalist/big government is winning.

0

JMO 2 years, 2 months ago

Solar and wind energy really is a good thing! I don't pretend to know how much that would cost to get off the ground, but in theory, it's a good idea and no one ever died because a solar panel cracked or a wind turbine broke. Again, I don't know if it'll ever be economically feasible, but I wish more people put thought into it.

0

rmsberengaria 2 years, 2 months ago

Well, let us see we could use wood again but, again that won't work the Tree huggers have seen to it we can't use our National forests and harvest the dead trees and clean up the ground load. Thank you green people and big government, natural fires will take care of that and it's not PC to blame the green movement or government for that since, BIG Business was not involved and that is the whipping boy of all things Capitalist.

0

asb 2 years, 2 months ago

At one cord per acre of dead wood from a temperate climate forest, and three to four cords per 2,000 square foot of building . . . do the math. Not to mention that "cleaning" all dead wood from a forest eventually destroys it . . . miss information is pretty but not very useful.

0

rmsberengaria 2 years, 2 months ago

I thought I found a solution to our energy needs, Whale oil for our decorative lamps we can use those again. I then realized we can't do that either Green Peace won't allow harvesting of Whales and our government has laws against that use of whales. I guess we will just have to depend on subsidized over priced wind, solar but then that will never supply more than 10% of our energy needs. Hmmmm.....well folks we still have hydro, but then again environmentalist don't want that either, it kills the Salmon spawning and the snail darter. What to do.............

0

JCLifer 2 years, 2 months ago

Offer free lyposuction to help all the obese people get thinner. Use the fat collected in the lyposuctions to power the electrical generators. Win-Win

0

onlineidentity 2 years, 2 months ago

I think that whats happening in Japan is pretty good proof that nuclear plants are pretty safe. The worst thing that could possibly happen did and the fail safes Scramed the reactor.

0

online_editor 2 years, 2 months ago

Sorry about that. It's necessary to block spammers. On the other hand, the admonishment is not necessary but we can't seem to convince the web host to reword it to a less contentious and more explanatory phrase. As a workaround, leave out h t t p and w w w. Most web addresses work fine without them.

0

onlineidentity 2 years, 2 months ago

some friends in Japan posted this.h--p //smc-japan.sakura.ne.jp/?p=830

0

asb 2 years, 2 months ago

Wind energy alone could provide 100% of our energy but will take decades to develp. Solar is already contributing and will grow, but will take time. There is no source of energy more subsidezed than carbon. From tax breaks for exploration to the highway and rail distribution system. Carbon Dioxide in the air is as great a long term hazard as nuke waste. We need ALL none destructive energy sources, and they ALL need tight development, use and long term care control. Who would do that? The churches? duh! The industries themselves? more duh! Volunteer retires? nope! Government agencies? Underfunded, non-supported politically, and usually dominated by the regulated industries. Still, proper design, operation and closure regulations ARE the best approach to minimize the risks of the energy we need to keep growing, no matter how much we reduce, reuse, or recycle.

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting