Yes to clean power.
Yes to nuclear.
Yes to nuclear power in Switzerland
People who say yes
“The Swiss electricity mix has been 95% low-carbon for decades, thanks to the hydro-and-nuclear pairing. We cannot lose this Swiss magic formula. We should promote long-term operation of the existing plants and keep all options open to expand nuclear output in the coming years. Electrification demands far more low-carbon electricity that is available regardless of the weather. Our energy independence and industrial competitiveness depend on it.”
“I want us to build more nuclear power because it's the best investment into a better future for my children and grandchildren.”
“As a trained ecologist, volunteer conservationist and chair of WePlanet DACH, I stand for a full toolbox to tackle the great challenges of species extinction and climate change. For me, nuclear energy is naturally part of that toolbox.”
Four good reasons to vote yes
Climate action with common sense
Security of supply
Affordable energy
Independent from abroad
1/3
12 g
4
24/7
News from the campaign
The objections fact-checked
“The parliamentary decision goes against the will of the people.”
Only the 2017 vote concerned nuclear power directly – the climate and electricity acts do not even mention it. Since then, opinion has shifted: 56 percent support lifting the ban on new plants, 79 percent the continued operation of safe reactors. And the question goes back to the people in early 2027 – that is the essence of democracy, not a way around it.
“Nuclear power makes Switzerland dependent on foreign countries.”
Not for the raw material: the largest uranium producers are Kazakhstan, Canada, Namibia and Australia; Russia ranks sixth. The bottleneck was enrichment – there, Urenco and Orano have long been expanding their capacity, and Axpo has not sourced any fuel from Russia since 2022. New plants from the 2040s onwards can rely on Western supply chains from the start.
“The Swiss way with solar, wind and hydro is already a success.”
Even today, Switzerland covers its winter demand only with imports. Even in the electricity industry's most favourable scenario for 2050, 7 TWh of winter imports and around 9 TWh from gas-fired plants remain necessary. Wind expansion is stuck at 50 turbines, and alpine solar projects are being rejected or withdrawn one after another.
“Nuclear waste is an unsolved problem.”
The siting question is solved: in 2024 Nagra submitted the application for the deep geological repository at Nördlich Lägern, and geologically there is room there for waste from new plants too. The toxicity of the waste decreases over time and after around 50,000 years equals that of aspirin – chemical toxins in underground disposal sites, by contrast, stay toxic forever.
“Nuclear energy is too expensive.”
BAK Economics puts a new plant at around CHF 17.25 billion, not 25. Yes, it needs support – but less per megawatt-hour than alpine solar plants, and every franc of support yields CHF 2.50 in value added. According to Axpo, the cheapest overall supply comes from the interplay of renewables, nuclear and gas.
“Nuclear energy is too dangerous.”
Chernobyl and Fukushima were down to reactor types and site risks that do not exist in Switzerland. Generation 3+ reactors have an accident probability around 100 times lower than the existing fleet. Across all energy sources, nuclear causes 0.03 deaths per terawatt-hour – coal 24.6.
“Switzerland can reach net zero by 2050 without nuclear energy.”
Technically possible in models – but only with up to 12.4 TWh of winter imports whose availability and cleanliness Switzerland cannot control. Hydropower as the alternative is itself coming under pressure from climate change, as the drought summer of 2026 showed. Robust decisions keep all options open – including nuclear.
All the facts in one report
Yes to new nuclear power plants: seven claims by the opponents, fact-checked
Get involved.
