Is the decision for a schedule an advantage?

Nuclear power participation - who is liable?

In some cantons it has already been discussed to what extent the cantonal electricity suppliers should or can part with their nuclear power plant holdings. Nuclear power is not only in question from an ecological and safety point of view - it is also a significant economic risk.

Because the decommissioning and disposal fund is not sufficiently financed, Axpo should now contribute CHF 91 million instead of CHF 53 million annually to the costs at the end of the nuclear power lifecycle. Axpo has appealed against the increased payment - it has already posted a loss of CHF 911 million for 2015. Axpo is owned by the cantons of Eastern Switzerland, and St.Gallisch-Appenzell en Kraftwerke SAK owns 12.5% ​​of the shares. A public company is fighting against the assumption of costs, which is demanded in the public interest? Because we tend to have overcapacity instead of an electricity shortage, the electricity prices are so low that neither the costs for hydropower nor for nuclear or solar power can be covered. In this situation it would be advisable not to put the ailing Beznau 1 nuclear power plant back into operation and to set a schedule for the other nuclear power plants - nuclear power is superfluous in summer in particular.

Nuclear optimists calculate the nuclear power costs around 4.6 Rp / kWh as follows *:

a) Capital costs: 0.6 Rp / kWh

b) Fuel costs 0.4 Rp / kWh

c) Further operating costs 2.1 Rp / kWh

d) Nuclear disposal, decommissioning, post-operation 1.5 Rp / kWh - which is unfortunately hardly enough.

Based on experience from Germany, the dismantling of a nuclear power plant costs around 1.5 billion CHF - a good 6 billion CHF must be budgeted for all Swiss nuclear power plants. After 46 years of operation, almost CHF 2 billion has so far accumulated in the decommissioning fund (see http: //www.bfe.admin. Ch / Entsorgungsfonds /) - against this background it is understandable that significantly more is in the Fund must be paid. It is probably correct that the kWh surcharge is lower, the more years of operation the old power plants are expected to have. On the other hand: A nuclear accident in densely populated Switzerland can cost well over CHF 200 billion. After the Fukushima accident, resettled people received compensation of around CHF 100,000 - not much, especially for homeowners. Around 500,000 people live in the 30 km radius around a Swiss nuclear power plant - a modest relocation allowance alone would add up to CHF 50 billion - and nothing has been cleared up yet - the Aarau-Zurich or Bern-Biel-Friborg area would be for years " shut down ". The private liability of the nuclear power plant operators covers CHF 1.05 billion *. And Axpo's "full asset liability" will also be a small consolation at CHF 19 billion. Statisticians might calculate that Switzerland will be affected by a worst-case scenario once in 1,200 years - as a result, CHF 160 million would have to be set aside every year just in case. Apart from moral concerns, I also think it makes more sense from a purely economic point of view to levy a surcharge of 2-5 Rp / kWh on non-renewable electricity in order to ensure that nuclear power costs are covered.

The SAK owner strategy ie must address this issue - a "review" has been going on since 2011. The final bill comes one way or the other - but from my point of view it should be paid by the nuclear power consumer, and not the St. Gallen taxpayer, who already receives a nuclear-free power mix. Under what conditions can the Axpo stake be sold? Should everyone in St. Gallen receive an Axpo share and be able to decide for themselves whether they want to keep it or prefer to invest in local renewable energy? Is it advisable to split Axpo into a hydropower company and an expiring nuclear power company? If you elect me to the Cantonal Council, I will answer these questions. SAK and the government councilor Benedikt Würth were behind the decision to spend 500 million on retrofitting Beznau; does the nuclear power plant have to continue running despite the safety risk in order to put the wrong decision into perspective? St.Gallen needs responsible politicians who understand energy and long-term economic activity!

* "Nuclear Energy Switzerland" by Bruno Pellaud (Nuclear Forum)