Hydropower has traditionally been the cornerstone of Swiss electricity. Logically, it should be underpinning the country’s switch from nuclear and fossil fuels. However, it first needs to deal with the damage to its reputation in recent decades.
Are the planks under foot shaking in the stiff breeze, or is it mountains that are moving? You are never quite sure which of the two it is on the Triftbrücke – the windy suspension bridge in the Bernese Oberland that spans the mouth of the green Triftsee glacial lake at a dizzying height of 100 metres.
The Triftbrücke is situated in a side valley above Innertkirchen (canton of Berne), 1,700 metres above sea level in one of Switzerland’s most tranquil Alpine areas. Anyone with the nerve to stand halfway along the 170-metre-long pedestrian bridge will see a rugged water-soaked mountain basin, at one end of which hangs the remainder of a once-mighty glacier high above. It is a thought-provoking place, because this natural amphitheatre epitomises the controversy surrounding hydropower.
The Trift Glacier, which used to fill the entire basin, receded all of a sudden due to climate change, leading to the formation of the Triftsee lake. Because hikers were no longer able to use the glacier to access the Trifthütte (a mountain hut belonging to the Swiss Alpine Club), the aforementioned suspension bridge was built in 2005. However, the retreating glacier also left behind a unique, pristine mountain landscape.
The Triftsee is attracting considerable interest. Local hydropower company Kraftwerke Oberhasli (KWO) would like to use the young body of water to create a reservoir with a 177-metre-high dam that would supply electricity to around 30,000 households.
This has opened up a can of worms. KWO plans to produce zero-carbon energy – the type of power needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But it would have to desecrate virgin mountain terrain in the process. A small, dogged group of conservationists has raised objections to impede the project, albeit in the knowledge that Switzerland has high-emission gas-fired power plants on stand-by to cover any gaps in power supply – which, in turn, is counter-intuitive to the aim of combating climate change.
There appears to be no way out of this conundrum. Hydropower, once the clean-energy mainstay of Switzerland’s self-styled “reservoir of Europe”, is having to fight for its green credentials. How has it come to this?
Switzerland lacks its own natural coal, so hydropower has always been the major energy staple. Yet hydroelectricity only really came into its own in Switzerland during the economic boom of the post-war years. Enormous dams sprang up in the Alps, providing a stable electricity supply that underpinned economic growth.
Thanks to audacious feats of civil engineering in remote corners of the Alps, Switzerland achieved a certain degree of energy independence. Indeed, hydropower accounted for around 90 per cent of Swiss energy in 1970, before the first nuclear power plants had begun producing electricity.
Amid the hydro zeitgeist of the 1970s, families would drive down to Valais, maybe stop in Sion, then head up to the Hérémence Valley to gawp at the enormous Grande Dixence Dam. The dam’s imposing 285-metre-high wall remains the highest building structure in Switzerland. It weighs an incredible 15 million tonnes – more than the Great Pyramid of Giza – and is enough to withhold the several-kilometre stretch of water in the adjacent lake. Imagine if it burst.
Hydropower gained its appeal thanks to a number of illustrious civil engineers who turned dam construction into a high-performance discipline. For example, the Ticinese Giovanni Lombardi – father of politician Filippo Lombardi (The Centre), who also happens to be the president of the Organisation of the Swiss Abroad – made a name for himself in 1965 with the elegantly curved Verzasca Dam, which was pioneering on account of its slimline design. The dam became iconic after James Bond bungee jumped off it in the opening scene of the 1995 film “Goldeneye”. Lombardi, who later built the Gotthard Road Tunnel, provided the benchmark for other spectacular civil engineering feats until his death in 2017.
Besides cementing national pride, hydropower was also the inconspicuous glue that bound Switzerland together. This is because dams generate significant revenue for the Alpine regions, with the municipalities in which they are situated receiving remuneration for use of their water resources – a total of around half a billion Swiss francs a year.
These water levies help to transfer wealth from the economically strong Central Plateau region into the mountains, enabling the Alpine cantons to invest in infrastructure and counteract depopulation. To see how effectively hydropower is able to transcend the urban-rural divide, one only needs to travel to the Bregaglia Valley, where the Zurich-based utility company EWZ, which built the Albigna Dam in the 1950s, remains one of the biggest employers.
However, it is sometimes easy to forget amid the fanfare that hydropower projects were subject to fierce local opposition in the early days. The story of Marmorera is legendary. It was only after several expropriation proceedings that this Grisons village situated on the Julier Pass was destroyed and flooded to make way for a dam of the same name.
From as early as 1920, there were plans to flood the entire Urseren Valley in the canton of Uri and turn it into a dam. Prompted by power supply shortages, the project got up and running after the Second World War. But the valley community violently resisted, hastening the project’s eventual demise.
But it is 1986 that is the key year in understanding why hydropower lost its aura. Back then, utility company Kraftwerke Nordwestschweiz scrapped its plan to turn the Greina plateau between Grisons and Ticino into a reservoir – after years of strong resistance from a coalition of conservationists and countryside campaigners on the one hand and local opposition on the other managed to bring this remote Alpine highland to the attention of national policymakers.
Greina became a symbol of environmentalist objections to the hydropower industry’s practice of prioritising profits, which had led to a dalliance with the contentious nuclear industry. The drill is as follows. Inexpensive, surplus nuclear energy during off-peak hours is used to pump water up into Switzerland’s reservoirs. Hydroelectric plant operators can then produce expensive electricity during peak hours and maximise their profits. Do profit-oriented “nuclear subsidiaries in the Alps”, as critics dub the hydropower plants, justify selling off the country’s last natural mountain and river landscapes?
Proponents and opponents of hydropower development have disagreed on this fundamental question for over 30 years. The Federal Supreme Court sometimes has to intervene, as in the case of the Grimsel Pass Dam, where attempts to raise the dam wall have been blocked until now.
According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), 95 per cent of Switzerland’s technically feasible hydropower potential is already being exploited. Although the federal government has imposed stricter environmental controls on residual water flows, Switzerland has “long passed” the critical point. The WWF adds that 60 per cent of the country’s native fish and crab species have died out or are close to extinction. And yet hundreds of hydropower upgrades and new builds are still being planned, much of these small-scale. The biggest and therefore most hotly debated of these has been earmarked for the site of the recently shrunk Trift Glacier.
Since Greina, the picture has become even more complicated. There are two new challenges. Firstly, climate change and glacial melt now mean that water run-off mainly occurs more in the spring than in the summer. Secondly, Swiss policymakers ratcheted up the pressure on hydropower by deciding in the aftermath of the Fukushima reactor disaster to phase out nuclear power and replace it with renewable energy – as part of their commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
Is it at all possible to gain even more from hydropower, which currently accounts for just under 60 per cent of Swiss electricity production, without crossing the environmental red line? “Essentially, yes,” says Rolf Weingartner, professor emeritus of hydrology at the University of Berne. Weingartner has broken down the problem into its constituent parts and put them back together again in order to lend objectivity to an emotive subject.
“We must replace natural Alpine water sources with artificial ones.”
Professor emeritus of hydrology at the University of Berne
Given that hydropower is virtually CO2-neutral, it continues to play an indispensable role in preventing power shortages, particularly in winter when solar power plants are less productive. Global warming is also making us re-evaluate the importance of reservoirs, he explains, because the contribution of meltwater to run-off, mainly in the summer months, will decrease as glaciers recede. Summer water shortages will be the consequence.
In future, overall water run-off will remain more or less at current annual levels. But the seasonal distribution of run-off is becoming less favourable, because both glacier melt and snowmelt are diminishing. “This means we must replace natural Alpine water sources with artificial ones,” says Weingartner. In other words, existing hydropower reservoirs can also help to deliver a sustainable approach to water management in the climate change era by providing a source of water in the hot, dry summer months for things like farm irrigation.
Meanwhile, large-scale photovoltaic plants are now being installed on the walls of dams. The solar panels at Muttsee in the canton of Glarus, for example, will produce electricity all year round because they are at high altitude above the low clouds. Consequently, hydropower has more than one role to play. “Hydropower should not only serve the purpose of generating energy but also help to provide a sustainable answer to water supply issues. This includes the environmentally responsible use of residual water,” says Weingartner, adding that the practice of pitting environmental and economic interests against each other every time there is a new dam project in the pipeline is unhelpful.
Weingartner therefore favours a new, holistic approach, not least because glacial melt due to climate change will result in over 1,000 new Alpine lakes that could potentially be used as resources. “We should take it upon ourselves to identify priority areas,” he says. The federal government should divide the Swiss Alps into different zones according to priority: energy production, environmental protection, tourism, or agriculture. This would ensure a physical separation of interests and quell controversies.
Weingartner knows that his hydro peacekeeping vision could be difficult to sustain amid the rough and tumble of Swiss realpolitik. Initially, at least. But as long as its energy consumption continues to rise, Switzerland will have to change tack sooner or later.
Will Switzerland have sufficient and uninterrupted power supplies in future? This question is on many people’s lips. Continued growth in electricity demand seems inevitable, with energy group Axpo predicting a 30 per cent rise by 2050.
Conceivably, the switch from nuclear and fossil fuels could drive this growth. Using heat pumps instead of oil-fired boilers to heat buildings, or driving electric instead of petrol cars – this means lower CO2 emissions but greater electricity consumption. It is hard to gauge the extent to which efficiency gains and behavioural changes can curb demand.
According to a new study by the Federal Office of Energy, Switzerland could experience brief winter power outages from 2025 onwards due to electricity demand outstripping supply. The Federal Council has exacerbated the situation with its decision to abandon talks with the EU on a framework agreement. Consequently, the EU refuses to conclude the electricity agreement that it has already negotiated with Switzerland. As it currently stands, Switzerland will find it harder to obtain emergency supplies from the European grid as a result.
Comments
Comments :
Merci pour l’article très intéressant sur nos vieux monuments hydrauliques. Que, perso, j’aime beaucoup. Ils ne retiennent que de l’eau, une ressource gratuite et naturelle. Sans infrason! Pour mémoire, pour ceux, qui veulent les remplacer par les éoliennes, que chaque éolienne a besoin de 1’000 tonnes de béton pour fixer au sol ses 150 mètres de hauteur. Donc le petit Spitallamm de 114 m de haut équivaut à 84 éoliennes. Tandis que notre Grande Dixance plutôt 15’000 éoliennes. Les éoliennes, des fois, n’ont pas bonne presse parmi le grand public font trop de bruit, tuent les oiseaux, gâchent le paysage. Tandis que nos monuments vivent et travaillent cachés. Sauf si on fait le trajet pour les visiter et admirer leur genie.
Merci pour votre excellent journal.
Vielen Dank für diesen - für mich in dreierlei Hinsicht - sehr interessanten Artikel (bin Eidgenosse mit beruflichem Bezug zum Thema und wohne in Paraguay, wo Elektrizität ausschliesslich aus Wasserkraft gewonnen wird). Wasserkraft wird auch in Zukunft eine wichtige Rolle in der nachhaltigen Energiegewinnung spielen, allerdings wird ihr Anteil am Gesamtmix sinken. Anders die Photovoltaik. Gebäude- und energietechnisch sinnvoll sind insbesondere In-Dach-Photovoltaikanlagen; sie kombinieren Solaranlage und Dacheindeckung und es müssen keine weiteren Flächen verbaut werden. Gebäudeinhaber sollten sofern Selbstnutzung nicht gewünscht ist ihre Dachfläche gegen eine Art “Solarzins” in Anlehnung an den Wasserzins Dritten zur Verfügung stellen dürfen, was im Gesetz vorzusehen wäre.
Wir werden jedoch u.a. auf Grund des ungelösten Problems um die sichere Endlagerung hochradioaktiven Abfälle nicht auf Kernkraft vierter Generation verzichten können. Die hochradioaktiven Abfälle würden dann nochmals als “Treibstoff” benutzt und transmutiert werden, wodurch Abfallmenge, Strahlungsintensität und -dauer massgeblich und lagerfreundlich reduziert werden könnten.
Leider wird das Thema hin zu 100% erneuerbaren Energien derzeit weder politisch noch gesellschaftlich breit diskutiert. Strom ist meist nur dann ein Thema, wenn er ausfällt.
Excelente articulo, el calentamiento global es muy grave así que debemos estar permanentemente hablando de estos temas.
Vor allem sollte man darueber reden was man nicht tut, namentlich das Naheliegende, das technisch einfache - wobei wir wieder beim WASSER angelangt sind; genauer gesagt beim Wasserstoff Verbrennungsmotor, der erwiesener massen besonders fuer Grossanlagen geeignet ist wie z.B. eben fuer Grosstransformatoren mit festem Standort. Aber auch fuer Grosslastwagen, Lokomotiven, Schiffe und dergleichen. Technisch einfach, passend zu jedem heutigen Standart Verbrennungsmotor als dem Benzin gleichwertiger Brennstoff. Der Haken dabei? Das dazu benoetigte Leitungswasser ist einfach zu billig um die Welt weit aufgeblasene Energiewirtschaft mit ihren weit verknuepften Industrie und Boersenanteile noch rentabel zu erhalten, also sucht man krampfhaft nach teuren, preisgebundenen Alternativenergien.
climate change isn't just causing a change in which season the "run-off" happens.
and that glaciers are melting into lakes.
whether or not the supply of water is natural or artificial doesn't matter, insofar that the amounts are substantially less...
this not only affects the views; the species that are already endangered and others that would become so (like us for lack of water to drink and for agriculture to feed us); but the very futile wish of producing electricity in this manner!!!
ty for seeing that it's true. But I am disturbed these points needed to be made, as they went well beyond what's in the article...
Einst produzierte der "Millionenbach" Energie für eine ganze Industriegegend, bevor er in den Greifensee mündete.
Der sauberste Kraftspender als Naturfeind. Eine wirklich ironisch Situation. Ja, sogar doppelt ironisch wenn man bedenkt, dass die chemische Zusammensetzung des Wassers, über seine äussere Form strömender Kraft hinaus, uns ein dem Benzin ebenbürtiger, sauberer Brennstoff anbietet.
Le même problème de destruction des paysages naturels se pose avec le plan du conseil fédéral de sacrifier les crêtes du Jura à l'énergie éolienne.
Je suis président d'une association franco-suisse luttant contre les éoliennes du Bel Coster à 50 m de la frontière française.
Sehr gut, Herr Steiner und Herr Weingartner. Diese Überfälligen Querverbauungen sollten fast so groß sein, wie das einstige Gletschervolumen. Ein geregelter Abfluss würde auch dem Hochwasserschutz dienen. Die Schweiz hat es in der Hand, Deutschland und anderen Ländern den Wasserhahn zuzudrehen. Nur Warten, bis die Gletscher ganz abgeschmolzen sind, und der Rhein Trockenfällt.
Hier ist es ähnlich, nur keine Staumauer als Hochwasserschutz aus ökologischen Gründen, lieber Längsverbauungen nach Starkregen, schlecht für die Unterlieger. In Trockenzeiten ist dann das Wasser weg.
Das Rahmenabkommen mit der EU sollte auch unter diesen Gesichtspunkten wieder aufgenommen werden
Danke, Hans Schütz, Für "Die logische Antwort"!
Nous voilà au pied du mur (non pas du barrage mais du changement climatique!). Où l'on s'aperçoit que chaque solution a sa zone d'ombre et d'inconvénients. Seul (?) le dialogue pourra nous amener à des solutions consenties en connaissance de cause.
Es scheint, dass der Verbrauch viel zu wenig in Betracht gezogen wird. Strom Verschwendung sollte seinen Preis haben. Ineffiziente Maschinen resp. Apparaturen und Beleuchtungskoerper etc. sollten eine "Straf"Steuer erhalten. Der Strompreis sollte gestaffelt je nach Volumenverbrauch teurer werden. Heute verschwenden wir viel Energie weil es einfach da ist und guenstig ist. Wieviele elek. Apparate haben Sie in ihrem Haushalt?
Die einzige Lösung ist ein Gegenteil, also eine drastische Einschränkung des Stromverbrauchs, da die aktuellen Preissteigerungen in anderen Ländern den Einsatz moderner industrieller Prozesse mit hohem Energieverbrauch bewirken. Es gibt keinen anderen Weg, um das Problem zu umgehen, als erneut in die Kernenergie zu investieren, wobei der Schwerpunkt eindeutig auf der erneuten Erforschung und Wiederverwendung des hochaktiven Abfalls liegt.
Mit den derzeit erhöhten Schutzstandards ist Kernenergie im Vergleich zur produzierten Megawatt-Menge sicherer.
Niemand möchte, dass Windenergie in großem Umfang gebaut wird, da sie als Immobilienentwertung sowie als Vogel- und Landschaftszerstörer angesehen wird. Auch glaubt niemand dem Gerücht dass diejenigen die es akzeptieren billigen Strom bekommen. Mythos. Aktuelle Windkraftfahrzeuge haben sich amortisiert und sind angesichts der Vorschriften denen sie ausgesetzt sind, weitaus teurer geworden. Jeder muss einfach materialisieren.
Rich Walters’ Kommentar deuted auf die einzige langfristige Loesung.
radioacivity from obtaining, processing, using, and disposing of waste is far, far more dangerous than the effets of co2 on the climate.
never mind of the high risk of accidents in such a high-tech process as nuclear energy production
Leser Walters plädiert für Atomkraft als Lösung des Energieproblems. Gegen die herkömmliche Atomkraft sprechen die Unfallgefahr, die Zerstörung der Umwelt indigener Völker durch den Uranabbau und der Riesenberg an Strahlenmüll, dessen Verbleib ungeklärt ist. Eine "neue" Atomkraft unter "Wieder"verwendung des hochaktiven Mülls, die Walters vorschwebt, liegt in weiter Ferne und ist alles andere als sicher. Von Wiederverwendung kann sowieso keine Rede sein, da im Reaktor ganz neue Spaltprodukte sowie das hochgiftige Plutonium entstehen. Für einen wirksamen Beitrag zum Klimaschutz käme all das ohnehin zu spät.
Niemand möchte Windkraft, behauptet er. Doch, ich möchte Windkraft und zwar auch in meiner Nähe, so wie viele andere Menschen, die sie z.T. selbst organisieren. Der äußerste Süden Deutschlands ist ja noch fast windkraftfreie Zone, besonders in Bayern mit seiner einzigartigen und absurden Abstandsregel. Die Anlagen würden "als Immobilienentwertung sowie Vogel- und Landschaftszertörer angesehen". Ja, von manchen wird sie so angesehen, aber in den meisten Fällen zu Unrecht. Nur bei einer sehr starken Massierung der Anlagen werden das Landschaftsbild wirklich beeinträchtigt und das Wohnen und damit die Immobilien unattraktiv. Es handelt auch nicht um eine nachhaltige "Zerstörung", da das reversibel ist, falls man mal auf eine wirklich bessere Idee käme. Umfangreiche Untersuchungen als Genehmigungsvoraussetzung verhindern, dass Vogelarten durch Windkraft in ihrem Bestand gefährdet werden.
Ja, gerade im Süden Deutschlands mit den Schwerpunkten des Stromverbrauchs brauchen wir deutlich mehr Windkraft - neben anderen erneuerbaren Energien, Lastmanagement und Speichern. Ein Ausbau der Wasserkraft, der die letzten Auenreste zerstören würde, ist dafür unnötig.