Switzerland is quietly making a decision that will define its economy for the next two decades — and most of the debate is still being fought with the assumptions of 2011, not the realities of 2026. In his guest commentary for Finanz und Wirtschaft, our managing partner Dr. Alexander Schiemenz argues that the nuclear construction ban has become, in effect, a silent relocation law: a measure that does not just shape energy policy, but risks pushing Switzerland’s industrial and digital future offshore.

His central point is that this is no longer a debate about reactors. It is a debate about sovereignty, infrastructure, and what kind of economy Switzerland wants to be able to power in 2045. Below, we summarise the five questions he puts to Swiss policymakers and the five things he argues must happen now.

1. Is the supply gap real?
   Switzerland consumes 57 TWh today. By 2050, demand rises to 75–90 TWh. Beznau, Gösgen and Leibstadt go offline. That is a structural gap of 20–35 TWh. No scenario closes it without either new baseload or permanent import dependency.
2. Was the construction ban ever a direct democratic mandate?
   The 2017 referendum approved the Energy Strategy 2050 as a package — not a standalone technology ban. In 2003, two thirds of Swiss voters rejected both “Power without Nuclear” and the MoratoriumPlus. In 2016, a majority rejected capping plant lifetimes. 59% of Swiss people today consider new-generation nuclear sensible.
3. Is this energy policy — or infrastructure policy?
   Three million EVs, AI data centres, heat-pump districts. Electricity is the foundation of Switzerland’s next economy, not one variable among many. The decision being made now determines what infrastructure exists in 2045. That is not an energy question. It is a sovereign infrastructure decision.
4. What does import dependency actually mean?
   Every TWh Switzerland imports is a TWh produced elsewhere — in French nuclear plants, in German gas turbines, in coal-backed European grid capacity. Energy sovereignty is not an abstraction. It is a geopolitical and economic asset that Switzerland has historically protected and is now at risk of quietly surrendering.
5. Are new reactors compatible with modern urban planning?
   Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have a footprint of half a football field. They can supply both electricity and heat for an entire urban district simultaneously. The question is no longer whether nuclear fits a sustainable city. It is whether Switzerland can afford not to evaluate the option.

Five things that need to happen now

1. Lift the construction ban — and open the technology assessment. Not a decision to build, but a decision to evaluate.
2. Commission an independent feasibility study on SMR deployment in Switzerland, separate from lobby positions on both sides.
3. Define the grid investment required to close the supply gap regardless of the nuclear outcome — the gap is real irrespective of what fills it.
4. Set a clear timeline: if a referendum is triggered, it must be conducted on the facts of 2026, not the fears of 2011.
5. Separate the sovereignty question from the environmental debate. Both deserve honest answers. Conflating them serves neither.

Energy, infrastructure and sovereignty questions of this scale carry real legal, regulatory and investment implications for companies, investors and asset owners with exposure to Switzerland’s energy future. At Lindemann Law we advise on exactly these intersections of regulation, investment and long-term strategy. If you would like to discuss what these developments mean for your organisation, contact our team, we would be glad to help.

Read the full guest commentary in Finanz und Wirtschaft.