ETH Zurich should be a little more careful and not allow itself to fall in the same trap as many others do: mixing primary and electric energy considerations.

I am quoting from the article: “However, with nuclear energy currently accounting for a substantial 38 percent of Switzerland’s power consumption, there is still a long way to go before this goal can be achieved.” Cannot but agree.

The next paragraph says: “At the same time, it[ETH] has also further developed and enhanced its own energy supply system. One notable result of this is the innovative underground storage system on the Hönggerberg campus, … heating and cooling with practically no CO2 emissions.” I certainly applaud the Hönggerberg development, but it is not an “[electric or other] energy supply system”. It is a good way of minimizing heating/cooling needs but will not supply new energy and certainly not electric energy (that I thought we were talking about). The reader may get the impression that this will reduce dependence on the 38% nuclear part, while, correctly, Dominik Brem (23.09.11) states “«In absolute terms, electricity requirements are increasing,…», therefore increasing the electric power needs and potentially the reliance on nuclear power…

Maybe these are subtle differences for the man in the street, but discussions at ETH can be subtle and they should not be confusing.

Ggeorge Yadigaroglu, ETH Zurich - 07.12.12

Artikel lesen