Japan Aims To Abandon Nuclear Power By 2030s 214
mdsolar writes "Reuters reports that the Japanese government said it 'intends to stop using nuclear power by the 2030s, marking a major shift from policy goals set before last year's Fukushima disaster that sought to increase the share of atomic energy to more than half of electricity supply. Japan joins countries such as Germany and Switzerland in turning away from nuclear power ... Japan was the third-biggest user of atomic energy before the disaster. In abandoning atomic power, Japan aims to triple the share of renewable power to 30 percent of its energy mix, but will remain a top importer of oil, coal and gas for the foreseeable future. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's unpopular government, which could face an election this year, had faced intense lobbying from industries to maintain atomic energy and also concerns from its major ally, the United States, which supplied it with nuclear technology in the 1950s.' Meanwhile, the U.S. nuclear renaissance appears to be unraveling."
$5 says this story is more inaccurate than usual (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh man, a mdsolar story. I was beginning to miss his astroturf shenanigans.
Re:They shouldn't abandon it (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear is cleaner and more efficient than just about every everything.
Global Warming (Score:2, Insightful)
The way I have seen the debate presented:
1. The world runs on fossil fuels primarily
2. Fossil fuels contribute to global warming
3. The world needs energy sources that don't contribute to global warming
4. Atomic energy does not produce CO2, but questions about its safety (Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 mile) or public worries about its safety persist
5. Renewable energy sources, in there current state, can't satisfy current or projected demand for energy
6. Oh no.
Re:They shouldn't abandon it (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because the designs that everybody associates to a nuclear reactor requires constant monitoring (control rods) and power dependent back-up systems and a massive building.
LFTR has none these design issues.
Re:They shouldn't abandon it (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but if 30-40% of your electrical supply is based on the sun shining a tropical storm can kill people dependent on electricity.
There are some people that believe so completely that nuclear power is unsafe that we are going to move from electricity being an always-there reliable energy source to something that is there sometimes and other times not. The biggest thing that comes to mind are home patients that are reliant on some assist device for breathing. Today, such devices plug in the wall because it is assumed that the wall supply is 99.999% reliable. We are going to change that.
In the US the biggest problem with reliability will shortly become simply that we are out of capacity. We haven't built a new major power plant in a long, long time and we aren't likely to do so anytime soon either. We have crippled the electric generation industry with public comment and environmental impact statements to the extent that a small group that is barely organized can block a new generating plant until the plant's sponsor gives up. That is what keeps happening - a plant is proposed, plans are drawn up and goverment approvals and even financing guarantees obtained. Then it is opened to the public and a few people that are fearful of electric power lines can block it. Or it is people that intensely want the US to return to prairie and forest rather than cities and suburbs block it.
In the meantime, growth continues and the margin of overcapacity grows thinner and thinner. We massively overbuilt in the 1950s and 1960s to the extent that we have been able to live off this and a bunch of relatively small "peaker" plants that were designed to run for a few hours a day - they are now running 24x7.
We had an opportunity for the federal goverment to change the rules and make it possible to build a new generating plant in the US. This didn't happen and almost certainly we are going to run out of capacity within the next few years - a time period shorter than it would take to build a new plant and get it online if we started right now. And that would have to be a coal plant - it takes about twice as long to get a nuclear plant built and there is no time for that now.
Either Japan or Germany is likely to be one of the first places to experience a change when electricity is no longer an assured resource for the average homeowner. Germany has the buffer of being able to draw on France and their nuclear power generation but Japan really doesn't. A couple of storms with high winds and clouds would wipe out any solar collection and/or wind generation and leave them in the dark - but it isn't being in the dark that is the problem. It is the people that are at home that are reliant in one way or another on electric power to continue living.
We aren't talking about air conditioning - people in Japan lived for thousands of years without air conditioning and central heating. Germany as well and most parts of the US are fine without air conditioning. What will lead to deaths are the people with the home oxygen concentrators, home ventilators and things like that. For the most part if the power is on for even a few hours a day and at night people's refrigerators will be OK and things like insulin will be fine.
And I would assume most businesses will simply have to have their own generating capacity in one form or another.
Nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Stuff like this really makes me sad. It's made me sad ever since I learned about nuclear power and found out it was never widely used... It made me ask why. And so far, after all these years, the only reason I can come up with is fear.
Re:Political Posturing (Score:2, Insightful)
TFS and TFA both state clearly that the intention is to boost renewable energy to 30% of the mix or more. Before 11/3 Nuclear accounted for about 23% of Japan's electricity, so the plan is quite clear.
Let me know when you find a renewable energy source that provides constant power 24/7/365.
Re:They shouldn't abandon it (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing comes without risk. Dependance on imported fuel seems much more risky for Japan than modern LFTR reactors, but if they want to deal with the financial risks of having to buy fuel from imported sources, I pity them.
LFTR reactors are stable when unattended, even right after full power operation. This means that one could build the containment structure in such a way that even with the strongest shaking/bouncing the internal structure would be there and the thing would be safe, even without somebody there to take care of it. The risk of containment breach is greatly reduced because there is no pressure vessel required when the reactor is on its own.
Re:They shouldn't abandon it (Score:4, Insightful)
We massively overbuilt in the 1950s and 1960s to the extent that we have been able to live off this and a bunch of relatively small "peaker" plants that were designed to run for a few hours a day - they are now running 24x7.
Methinks you are being somewhat alarmist. Yes, there are a lot regulatory hoops to jump thru, but I don't see peaking units being run 24x7. And modern American business practices is to squeeze the margins on an over-engineered resource instead of preserving the buffer... we've seen this with other things too (for instance, nuke plants getting up-rated based on closer analysis of their potential operating limits). Lastly, don't forget that we have wholesale market that didn't really exist before the mid-90's: each part of the country doesn't have to be nearly as self-reliant as it once did because there's a huge grid to draw on.
I blame the media. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How can it go "really wrong"? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have absolutely no clue, thats the point.
The whole area is evacuated, why?
Because it is super safe to live there. Obviously.
Three reactor cores melted down and you think nothing will happen from that? How desasterous is the education system in your country that you can no think?
Even the guys who bravely went in to the reactor got radiation doses that are quite manageable, about the equivalent of what a flight attendant working the London-New York route gets in her career. Oh my got how retarded.
It is a difference wether you get some radiation from the outside or if you inhale/eat radioactive isotopes.
What the fuck has high altitude flight radiation to do with a nuclear desaster? Nothing you idiot!