Christian Bauer, Ecosystems Scientist, Switzerland

“Hydropower is the most ecological form of energy”

Christian Bauer deals with life cycle assessments and the sustainability of the energy supply and mobility. Since completing his studies in ecosystem sciences in Graz, Austria, he has worked in the Laboratory for Energy Systems Analysis at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Aargau and is today responsible for their life cycle assessment activities. He played a central role from the outset in what has since become today's leading life cycle assessment database (

“The subject of life cycle assessments of energy sources will continue to grow in importance. Increasingly more people are asking themselves: Is solar energy as environmentally friendly as it’s reported to be? Is nuclear energy as bad as people say? What about hydropower? Or are there totally different solutions for the future of energy? There are a lot of half-truths being spread in heated discussions.
Of course, accepting different energy sources is an important factor when it comes to spreading them. But it's safe to assume that this will change when a certain energy source would suddenly have to cover mass consumption. How would the population react, for example, if convoys of trucks drove into forests to get wood to produce energy? All energy sources have the potential to pose an ethical-moral conflict, and when they have to deliver large amounts of energy, political arguments also play a role.  But these are not the basis of our scientific research at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI).
Every form of energy has its strengths and weaknesses in a life cycle assessment. Sustainability plays a central role in our analysis. We have to keep in mind that there is an economically, ecological and societal sustainability. I’m interested in ecological sustainability. The best form of energy meets all three sustainability criteria. When it comes to the environmental field, which we analyse at the institute, we focus on air pollution, heavy metals, water pollution, over-fertilisation and land use.
In Switzerland, hydropower is the ideal energy source in the long term, but it can also weaken local biodiversity through land loss when a reservoir is constructed or through hydropeaking when draining water. Only 10 grams of carbon dioxide are consumed for every one kilowatt hour of energy produced by hydropower in Austria or Switzerland. Putting aside the risk of accidents and the problem of disposal, nuclear power would be as environmentally friendly because it only consumes 20 grams of carbon dioxide for one kilowatt hour of energy. This comes mostly from uranium mining and uranium enrichment. The carbon dioxide numbers for hydropower power and nuclear power also include constructing the power plants, but the infrastructure is almost negligible given the massive amounts of energy produced. This is more important in photovoltaics where manufacturing plays a larger role in comparison to the amounts of energy produced. This converts to around 60 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. A key element with photovoltaics is also where and under what conditions the solar cells were manufactured. If the energy used comes from hydropower, the calculations are very different than if coal power was used. Many photovoltaic systems are imported from China, where coal is the predominant source of electricity. Chinese manufacturers are not, however, particularly transparent when it comes to declaring the energy source, and so for our calculations we use the local average electricity mix as the basis. Despite the above-mentioned performance indicators, solar energy is far more ecological than any form of fossil energy. Wind power and geothermal energy produce around 20 to 30 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour. Geothermal energy is an environmentally friendly form of energy, but drilling has caused earthquakes, leading to an acceptance problem. With wind energy, a large part of the constructed materials can be recycled at the end of their lifetime. It's not particularly complex, making it economically appealing. But when wind farms are built on land, they require a relatively large area that could otherwise be used for agriculture, for instance. As a result, only sparsely populated areas can be used for large wind farms. This would also apply to photovoltaic facilities if we don’t restrict them to rooftops.
A gas power plant produces 400 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour, but it’s still far more ‘ecological’ than a coal-fired power plant because the latter also gives rise to even larger amounts of fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and other pollutants. The commercial viability of biomass is difficult to achieve because it requires pollutant filters, which are relatively expensive for smaller facilities. Generating electricity from wood is currently unprofitable. Biomass is only profitable if the waste or residual material from agriculture is used. For example, manure or food waste produce methane when fermented. This doesn’t solve larger energy problems, but it does at least make a small contribution to the energy mix.
Even when the sun and wind produce more electricity than they do today, photovoltaic facilities and wind farms produce electricity irregularly. As there is no functioning energy supply without storage, we are also looking into storage batteries and networks at the Institute. Smart grids, i.e. intelligent electricity networks that adapt production to consumption in real-time, can also help better integrate renewable electricity. Lithium-ion batteries and other types are worth considering as storage, but also pumped storage power plants. Then there is power-to-gas technology, in which electricity is generated out of hydrogen and methane, as well as compressed air storage. These technologies are already suitable today for mass production, but they are not yet commercially viable. I don't dare predict whether this will be the case in five or ten years time.”
ittlerweile mehr als zehn Jahren mit Ökobilanzen und der Nachhaltigkeit der Energieversorgung und der Mobilität. Seit seinem Studium der Ökosystem-Wissenschaften in Graz (Österreich) ist er im Labor für Energiesystem-Analysen am Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI) im Aargau tätig und heute verantwortlich für die dortigen Aktivitäten in Sachen Ökobilanzen. Von Anfang an trug er dabei in zentraler Rolle zur heute weltweit führenden Ökobilanz-Datenbank »ecoinvent« bei.   


View on the reservoir "Lago di Cavagnöö" (in the background) in Southern Switzerland. (Image: Raimundo Sierra, GNU Free Documentation License)


Read more:

Deeper into the red


Who we are

Founded in 2012, the Association for Sustainable Journalism on the Internet is committed to high-quality, independent on-line journalism that stands the test of time. The association promotes and runs journalistic websites dedicated to topics that are hardly covered any more in conventional media. Its members include journalists, photographers, designers and web designers.

Pressbüro Seegrund, which was founded in 1989, is firmly established in the media landscape. Its focus is on feature reports, reportage and non-fiction books. It has launched a number of online magazines in recent years including,, and the latest creation:


Association for Sustainable Journalism in Internet,
Neugasse 30,
CH-9000 St. Gallen


Pressebüro Seegrund,
Neugasse 30, PO Box 445,
CH-9004 St. Gallen,
Tel. +41(0)71 671 10 73,,


Website design and programming:
Eveline Arnold Ukaegbu, Proclamation,
Zypressenstrasse 138,
CH-8004 Zürich,


English translation:
Elana Summers


Russian translation:
Alexej Scherbakov


Local interpretors: Galina Kovalch (Belarus),
Irina Gasanova (Ukraine), Chikako Yamamoto (Japan)


Martin Arnold, freelance journalist, author and media entrepreneur for the past 30 years
Urs Fitze, freelance journalist, reportage on politics, the economy, science, travel and the environment" target="_blank">,



Our Aim

Without provoking or causing a scandal, wants to shake things up a bit by encouraging society to reflect on a subject that affects all of us: nuclear power. It is a subject that polarises, turning opponents and supporters into ideologues. And it is a subject that divides the informed and the uninformed in a way that creates intentional and unintentional dependencies. Against the background of the current debates on the 'energy transition', we want to contribute a critical discussion for all those who want to more know about nuclear power. And we want to do our bit to overcome the deep ideological divide that separates supporters and opponents. When it comes to this subject, the truth very quickly becomes relative – or is made relative. You move around in an area where experts, opinion makers, ideologues, affected persons, victims, lobbyists, politicians and world saviours jostle against each other. Everyone should be able to have their say, to tell their truth. The truth of the radiation victims as well as that of the power plant operators, the supporters and the opponents. The second objective of the book is to explore the many facets of truth – and remain receptive to all those who want to make it comfortable for us.

Newsletter Signup

Stay informed on our latest news, Updates and new template.