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."
They shouldn't abandon it (Score:2)
Just put it off for a while. It can be done safely. The path is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Their replacement energy sources doesn't seem like a good alternative.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear is cleaner and more efficient than just about every everything.
Re:They shouldn't abandon it (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe... but it's like air travel. It might be statistically safer, but when it goes wrong it can really go wrong. It's hard to overcome that psychologically, even if it isn't rational.
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: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it doesn't solve all the other problems Japan had in the wake of the earthquake. For example the cooling system itself appears to have been damaged by lateral forces, meaning even if it was passive it probably wouldn't have worked. Also the spent fuel pool likely boiled off all its coolant and exposed the waste (there is non-fuel waste on-site too) to the air.
Anyway, by the time someone has got enough investment together and actually designed and built a commercial scale thorium reactor, compl
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Maybe... but it's like air travel. It might be statistically safer, but when it goes wrong it can really go wrong. It's hard to overcome that psychologically, even if it isn't rational.
Yeah but the Japanese are supposed to be rational, intelligent people. I thought they were more intelligent than to abandon Nuclear which is the only real replacement for when the oil becomes scarce. Oh well. Maybe by 2030 when oil skyrockets to $1000 a barrel they will realize they have no choice.
And by the wa
Re: (Score:2)
the Japanese are supposed to be rational, intelligent people
indeed. [somethingt...iginal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the Japanese are supposed to be rational, intelligent people. I thought they were more intelligent than to abandon Nuclear
I don't know whether the people of Japan are noticeably more rational than other peoples. However, considering they are the only nation to have nuclear weapons used against them, I am reluctant to judge them too harshly for being overly nervous when it comes to nuclear technology.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is Japan, which is guaranteed to have numerous quakes and tsunamis.
Can we build buildings that are guaranteed to withstand these?
How can it go "really wrong"? (Score:4, Interesting)
If anything, Fukushima has re-assured me. It kind of seems like it went "really wrong" - but nobody died, and according to the scientific evidence, no one *will* die from Fukushima radiation. What am I missing - how can it go "really wrong"?
It appears to me that the biggest threat to public health if something goes wrong at a nuclear plant, is people panicking and causing harm to themselves or others - self medicating on Potassium Iodide and overdosing themsevles or their children; getting into traffic accidents while trying to evacuate, etc.
Those are potentially real harms, but can be minimized by honest reporting by the media and sustained public education. Instead, the public is convinced that any release of radioactive isotopes from a nuclear plants is an end-of-the-world scenario, which it clearly is not.
Re: (Score:3)
There is mo scientific evidence that no one will die from Fukushima, how retarded are you?
The only thing for sure is: when in 15 years the first people are dying from cancer caused by Fukushima: no one will be able to prove that!
Re: (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
Re:They shouldn't abandon it (Score:4, Interesting)
Good question. Now let's see the reality: Government and corporations are handling virtually everything? And why is the nuclear power plant is more dangerous in the hand of a government than let's say, a hydrogen-bomb? And if the governments and the corporations are the problem, and not the energy source, than people should abolish governments and corporations instead of feeding the politicians with trendy topics, such as this.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the options, government or corporations. So.. we should have individuals running nuclear power?
Oh maybe its the "existing" clause.. because any new government or corporation would be different for some unknown reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically safer, only if you don't include long-term damage and cancers that are difficult to attribute, along with long-term economic costs, long-term disposal problems, and so on.
Even if you include these issues, nuclear power plants still kill more than an order of magnitude fewer people than, say, coal-fired power plants.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Anyone who depends on a CPAP (for example) for survival already needs a battery backup, because if the machine goes down for too long they could die already. If they are wise they will also have a plan for when that runs out. I don't know what that plan should be for some poor bastard who lives in a context where a generator (even a relatively safe one that operates on propane) is illegal to operate, and/or its fuel illegal to store. Downtown in Santa Cruz for example, the only kind of generator you can rea
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan's already experienced what it'd be like - rolling blackouts and other such problems.
Then the solution will be found: build more coal/oil powerplants. How brilliant!
Geothermal (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but if 30-40% of your electrical supply is based on the sun shining a tropical storm can kill people dependent on electricity.
Japan should go with Geothermal. There is plenty of hot rock very close to the surface south east of Tokyo. There are also good GT sites close to Nagoya and Osaka. There is enough to meet all of their electricity needs for centuries.
One drawback for GT is minor earthquakes, but Japan has so many of those already, that a few more shouldn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Look at figure 95 on this page.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/sector_electric_power_all.cfm#powergen [eia.gov]
In the accompanying text, the DOE estimates the total new capacity additions to our electric system between 2011 and 2015 will be between 166 and 355 gigawatts.
Re: (Score:3)
Electricity demand is actually falling in Japan. A major part of their plan is to become more efficient and to make better use of off-peak electricity so that demand is spread out. In the wake of Fukushima everyone here got on board saving energy and it has proven popular with both consumers and businesses. Companies are always looking for a reason to sell you the latest version of X and energy efficiency is now a big marketing point.
I absolutely guarantee you that electricity won't become a non-constant re
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear waste is pretty much a non-issue (except politically) as is and in the next 100,000 years would certainly have become a non-issue due to improved disposal methods or techniques to extract even more energy from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Move to technologies that don't run the risks of poisoning huge swaths of their nation's limited land.
Like windmill farms, giant dams, and solar panel fields.
Re: (Score:3)
Like windmill farms, giant dams, and solar panel fields.
Windmill farms take up very little space, because the land can still be used for other purposes, such as grazing, or growing rice.
Windmills can also be placed in the ocean, where winds are stronger and steadier.
Re: (Score:2)
windmills
Plus windmills drive the molemen away [northerntool.com].
So anyone that's anti-windmill is obviously in thrall to the molemen [softcom.net].
Re: (Score:2)
Just put it off for a while. It can be done safely. The path is obvious.
Uhm...., yeah. Until "the 2030's" would qualify as " a while". Jeez, if you can't read TFA, at least read TFS. But you're right, the path is obvious. Move to technologies that don't run the risks of poisoning huge swaths of their nation's limited land.
You're twisting the meaning of fustakrakich's comment; he said "[t]hey shouldn't abandon it," which I agree with. Japan's plan to maintain/increase consumption of fossil fuel imports isn't sustainable. Even though TEPCO negligently ignored warnings about inadequate environmental safeguards in place at FNPP based on historical records, the Fukushima Daiichi incident resulted in 39 injuries and zero deaths; (two on-site deaths were caused by the tsunami). I think that's not to bad for ~60 years of Japanese nu
Why does slashdot accept energy submissions... (Score:5, Interesting)
...from a dude that owns a solar-power company? The story is slashdot-worthy, but the tone is partisan fluff. Is he really the only guy submitting this story?
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair TFA does actually say they are planning to drop nuclear by the 2030s, and other sources [nhk.or.jp] agree. The guy is a wanker but unfortunately he was the first one to get this story voted onto the front page, so let's get on with the debate.
Re: (Score:3)
from a dude that owns a solar-power company
This isn't wikipedia, you can submit a story about yourself if you want, and if it is deemed interesting it will go to the front page.
Is he really the only guy submitting this story?
Which parts of his submission do you take exception to, whoever you are besides a coward?
Re: (Score:2)
The summary appears to be accurate and the article is real enough.
As for as partisan fluff, could you please tell me what you are talking about? I don't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the story is good, who cares who submitted it? I don't perceive much partisan fluff in the summary.
$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.
Someone better tell TEPCO (Score:3, Interesting)
They have even been repairing units 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiachii to go back on line within the next few years. All other nuclear plants are being repaired and re-fitted. It looks like a long way from a plan to phase out nuclear power any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan Aims To Abandon Nuclear Power (Score:2)
Again! [wikipedia.org]
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:Global Warming (Score:5, Informative)
The real solution are LFTR reactors.
No more enrichment, ever.
Cheap fuel (currently is a waste product of mining)
No more 100+ Atmosphere pressure vessels to burst
No more backup generators needed
Accidental meltdowns are impossible
Turn reactor on/off in hours/minutes not months
Unable to weaponize any part of fuel or waste.
Needs Uranium only to start the reactor
Creates leukemia fighting medical isotopes from waste
Creates isotopes for space-grade batteries for NASA from waste
Very little waste is left-over and it's radioactive for about 300 years.
Prototype was run for 5 years+ in the 70s.
Both China and India are working on it (and THEY will get the patents)
Issues:
-Regulations set by existing Nuke industry.
-"Nuclear is bad" mentality of public and politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
The real solution are LFTR reactors.
Unless, of course, they get scooped by LENR reactors [wired.co.uk].
(Hey, a guy can dream)
Re: (Score:2)
Prototype was run for 5 years+ in the 70s. ...
Enough said?
So it ran 1975? That is roughly 40 years ago, in case you are bad at math
If 'someone' would decide to build one now, it would be 15 years development time and on top of that another ten years to find a site where you can build it and get a permit to do so.
You know, in our days people fight against 5 wind mills build 10 miles away from their home.
Frankly, the only countries where you can build a nuclear plant, regardless of thechnology, are 3rd world
Re: (Score:3)
Except this one has been proven to work.
It didn't provide jobs in the right place of the US so it was canned.
Re: (Score:2)
Except "proven to work" in this case means that some people showed that the theory is sound, and it is possible to generate electricity that way. The engineering problems behind scaling this reactor up to commercial levels have NOT been overcome.
Re: (Score:2)
No because nobody but the government is willing to that the risks.
Most of the risks were already taken years ago.
So, like the banks, you'll have to wait until the Chinese do it for us.
Re:Global Warming (Score:5, Informative)
Your idea of problems with nuclear power are interesting.
Three Mile Island really affected nobody - not even plant workers. It is somewhat of a blot on the history of nuclear power, but there are plenty of those anyway.
Chernobyl was caused by a stupid test that was mismanaged - sort of a stupid on top of a stupid. There has certainly been some health considerations for a few thousand people and it is likely the most widespread effect of nuclear power, ever. And it would be nice if it stayed that way. But, there is no accounting for stupid.
Fukushima could have been forseen, but the environmental conditions were a bit extreme. Part of the problem is and continues to be spent fuel storage. We should be reprocessing this but because the fuel rods contain plutonium this is viewed as a way to make bombs and strictly forbidden right now. So we are all waiting around for either a reprocessing plant or two to be built - since the 1950s - or for there to be constructed a disposal site - since the 1960s at least.
Probably 90% of the problems with nuclear power could be solved by having a small number of reprocessing plants for spent fuel rods built. Understand that the fuel rods have been only around 5% "spent" and could be reprocessed into new fuel rods with the 95% of the active materials still present in them. The "no reprocessing" philosophy is like having a car that spews 95% of the gasoline out the tailpipe unburned and leaving this situation for 50 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Which would also make nuclear fuel highly sustainable and arguably more "renewable" than so called "renewables".
Godzilla (Score:2)
Silly Japan, how are you going to fend off all of those space aliens without giant nuclear powered mecha?
Lets wait what the next 20 Japanese PMs say ... (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, it could be more than 20 prime ministers until that time.
The big question is, whether Japan is even capable of doing anything like this at all. They have been unable to implement internationally widespread safety measures that the contructors of the very reactors recommended, that have been destroyed in the accident. And that would have been cheap, less than $10bn for all 50 reactors, yet the Japanese didn't. And this isn't a singular experience.
Japan has stagnated economically for the last 25 years. Last year, the global shortage of harddisks wasn't down to the tsunami in Japan, but a flood in Thailand of all places. (Which intends to build at least 5 nuclear reactors, btw.) Currently, Japan is paying on the order of $30bn on imports per year to very imperfectly compensate for the lack of nuclear power - "volontary" blackouts and shutdown are continuing as power saving measures during the summer. And unlike other expenditures, Japan can't pay for this with domestic debt, because they actually have to pay a foreign country in foreign currency - which is unsustainable in the long run without a source of income, which hasn't been forthcoming in Japan for the last quarter of a century. And as Steins Law says, this will stop.
Renewable energy is expensive and no country has as yet installed anything in the way of the infrastructure require to use them on more than a small scale. So far, only the low-hanging fruits have been picked that stress the existing infrastructure to its limit. And Japan, being an island with two separate power systems, is in an even worse position than just about any other country imaginable.
The question for anyone outside Japan isn't just whether Japan will be capable of pulling it off. The question isn't just if one of the regularly resigning Prime Ministers of Japan turns his or her back to this policy and makes it null and void. The actual question is whether, by 2040, Japan is still going to matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The big question is, whether Japan is even capable of doing anything like this at all.
There is no question, Japan was forced to do it when almost all reactors were taken offline simultaneously in the wake of the earthquake, and coped quite well.
They have been unable to implement internationally widespread safety measures that the contructors of the very reactors recommended, that have been destroyed in the accident. And that would have been cheap, less than $10bn for all 50 reactors, yet the Japanese didn't. And this isn't a singular experience.
Which highlights just how broken the nuclear energy market is. The main problem is that $10bn is a lot to the nuclear industry, what with their shareholders demanding profits. The risk seemed remote and besides which the government was always going to pick up most of the tab if something did go wrong.
That's the bottom line really, either way it would
Re: (Score:3)
You really like to have reality bend your way, don't you?
Read the repont of the "Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission" and you will find that safety measures not being implemented, was *not* a matter of nuclear energy being nuclear energy, but a matter of nuclear energy being in Japan. The conclusion was, that Fukushima was a disaster "Made in Japan". Google it, read it.
You will also find that the epicenter of the quake was *not* in Fukushima. It was more than 100km away. That makes your cl
Re: (Score:2)
What is your math behind that: If germany wants to get 15% of total electricity from photovoltaics, it needs to install 150% of Germanies midday power cosumption?? ... it is just energy that can not be used right now ... costs
That is complete nonsense.
On perfect days, much of wind and much of solar, germany is producing 60% of its power by wind and solar (around mid day). The long run (over a year) production by wind is already close to 20%.
Wasting solar energy is not the same as wasting burning coal or oil
Re: (Score:2)
As I said elsewhere, I hate the media and this is one more reason.
However, what the english translation does is shifting the blame for the cause of the accident, it doesn't change the cause of the accident. That being lack of adequate safety measures against very well-known failure modes that have been discussed for decades en detail *and* happend just as predicted. Those safety measure have actually been implemented in Sweden (as early as 1980), Germany and France (both 1988) and seen regular upgrades sinc
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but Slartibartfast didn't get his way all over the world.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because, it isn't true. I can tell, because that's where I am and once you look under the hood, most is propaganda and the second highest energy prices in Europe. (The trophy for the highest prices goes to Danemark, which used to poster-child of renewables through using wind energy before everyone started looking at Germany. But the competition is close and Germany might claim first place in the coming years.)
Re: (Score:3)
Has no one else been wondering why Germany is being seen as a utopia with all of the answers, recently?
No. Germany is a prosperous western nation. Germany has its budget deficit [spiegel.de] under control. Germany has its trade balance [tradingeconomics.com] under control. Germany financial laws minimized exposure to toxic debt. As a result, the effects of collapse of the debt bubble in '07-08, the so-called financial crisis, were much more limited in Germany, amounting to a total bailout liability of only about 5.5% of GDP. The costs to other western nations was/is much higher.
Among the many effects of this is that Germany still has the
Political Posturing (Score:4, Interesting)
To get reelected Japanese politicians have to put on an anti-nuclear Kibuki theatre to placate the masses. But the fact is they'll never give up nuclear and "renewable" energy sources won't ever put even a dent in their supersized energy demand.
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus fucking Christ Slashdot, how did this guy get modded up?
What are they going to replace it with? Oil? Natural gas?
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.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Geothermal?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when you find a renewable energy source that provides constant power 24/7/365.
How about this [wikipedia.org], or this [wikipedia.org] or this [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus fucking Christ Slashdot, how did this guy get modded up?
What are they going to replace it with? Oil? Natural gas?
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.
Clearly stated intentions and actual reality are two separate things. You must be very gullible to believe everything the gubmint tells you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No increase then (Score:3)
If they increase their renewables to 30% of their total then that will more than replace current nuclear capacity, so their use of oil and coal for electricity won't go up. Furthermore you would actually expect it to go down as people switch to electric vehicles.
nuclear is safe (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear power has an very low deaths per kWh, even when you include chernobyl, 3mile island and fukushima ( http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html [nextbigfuture.com] ). chernobyl is a terrible design (as the coolant boils, the reaction goes faster. fail), nothing like that could happen in any modern (by which i mean anything made in last few decades).
Switching to any other form of power generation will cost lives.
From a environmental point of view, suppose japan can build enough wind and solar to replace nuclear (big job on the scale of a war effort), if they did that along side nuclear they would be reducing carbon emissions. if you do it instead of nuclear then you are standing still. Now take a look at this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ [noaa.gov] and have a read of IPCC, and explain how we are going to not hit 400 ppm.
And China is using nuclear (Score:2)
These nuclear-phobic countries will be out-competed by China.
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: (Score:2)
There are only a few options, so far (Score:2)
to shut nuclear plants down at a "country" level.
Either you reduce (axe) your power hunger, or you buy electricity from another country.
Replacing that by natural resources (non renewable) would be overkilling for the health.
There's also the theoretical renewable energy solution. But the time and the investments needed would scare all politicians.
A solution at planetary level it's a different thing. Probably photo-voltaic plants in a few main deserts plus a planetary power grid could be enough.
But also this
Re: (Score:3)
There are some technological magic bu
Re: (Score:2)
A solution at planetary level it's a different thing. Probably photo-voltaic plants in a few main deserts plus a planetary power grid could be enough.
But also this would scare all politicians!
So, forget it.
Actually, it's already underway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
Too be fair... (Score:2)
We provided them with some of our nuclear technology in the 1940s, too.
they can do it right now (Score:2)
All is needed is a development of a new modern business style fashion and outdoor driers which look esthetically acceptable. It seems to be doable and relatively law-cost tasks.
I blame the media. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The nuclide release wasn't neglible, it wasn't acceptable in any way whatsoever and I have yet to see anyone in authority say so. That's nonsense. Period.
It is true, it was much smaller than that of Chernobyl, especially considering that 3 reactors were involved. But it was still so large, that the evacuation of the population was definitely necessary - though on a smaller area and for a shorter time. It also not in all places that were evacuated (especially in the south) and not in the way it was done, es
Re:I blame the media. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't trust the media either - but this is just the wrong part to distrust, because it is true.
It's not true that the areas will be uninhabitable for centuries or millenia or millions of years as some people think. The worst affected areas are expected to fall below 20mSv/year by 2016. That's not exactly a low figure, some people will freak out about it and the Japanese government won't allow people to stay in such areas over night, but it's in line with natural radiation in some places like Denver - without them suffering any health consequencess.
What gets lost with many people is that Cs-137 only contributes to half the radiation of Cs. The other half is Cs-134 which has a half-life of just 2 years, which means that radiation drops quickly in the first years. In Chernobyl, they just reduced the maximum allowed life-time radiation dose from 400mSv initially (a bit less than the average in Cornwall) to 250mSv to 150mSv. Recently, they stopped doing that and plan to simply open up a lot of areas formerly treated as off-limits dead-mans-land.
Re: (Score:3)
So, why - while you think radiation leaks are neglectable - is an area of 70km times 30km evacuated?
Wrong focus (Score:2)
Unless Japan manages to scale back its energy demand, then I find it difficult to believe that there is anything that trumps nuclear in terms of energy production, especially given its geography. For me the focus should be on improving nuclear and making it safer. Heck, I am curious why we haven't managed to develop a good thermocouple instead of using nuclear powered steam engines?
Japan, most seismically active areas (Score:2)
Re:Erection? (Score:5, Informative)
Not need-*only*, but when needed, yes. Like any parliamentary system, election are held if the government suffers a vote of no confidence. There's also a set term, at the end of which elections are held regardless, but they can happen early. in Japan, the term for the lower house is four years, but this wouldn't be the first time in recent history that an early election was called; the 2003 lower house went back to the polls in 2005.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, evely molning.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of countries have variable elections. Via mechanisms that trigger elections or due to elections having a window of time to be held rather than a fixed date.
Australia, for example (since it's the one I've voted in) House of Representative election (which determine who the Government is) must be held within three years of the first sitting, but it can be called early by the Government. It's a silly way of doing things, the current Government already has many advantages in elections also letting them cal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with all of what you have said, but the reality is people oppose regulation then make these same claims. Either nuclear power has to be highly regulated or that is the predictable result.
Re: (Score:2)
This. A nuclear power plant isn't something you want someone cutting corners on. As long as there's a profit motive in nuclear energy production, corners will be cut to lower costs, regulation be damned.
Personally, I'd rather see us continue to be dependent on oil than pursue nuclear power as a solution to all our energy problems. In theory, yes, it's safe and efficient. In practice, people are idiots and if lowering safety standards means you save $500, they're going to do it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, there are people who actually believe that.
Re: (Score:2)
I am all for nuclear power. However, there is one thing I am leery about:
There is zero responsibility that can be assigned the builder of plants if something goes wrong in the US. A contractor could make a reactor head out of pot metal, cut corners many ways, and end up with a non-functioning, dangerous construction. The owners of the contracting business will be able to walk away with the cash from the contract without worry, leaving it up to the US taxpayers to deal with another Superfund site. In fac
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right about the portable reactors being a better idea than the big plants (insofar as any nuclear plant is a good idea). But I'd rather see the money that would be spent tooling up to mass produce reactors spent on research into other forms of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Both can be made from biofuels. If that is worth doing or not is another question.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Biofuel production in Japan? You are kidding, right?
What little of Japan that can be farmed is needed desperately for food and still they import food. They "invented" the idea of Kobe beef because while they have cattle they really don't have room for grazing. Kobe beef is where they pamper the steer in a stall and fatten it up on beer rather than letting it graze. Sort of like veal in the US but veal is done with milk instead of beer. You don't invent stuff like this without a compelling need, and the
Re: (Score:2)
I said could, not should.
Dairy farming drove the invention of veal. What else do you do with all the male calves?
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably not anything like American politics. I don't think there's anything in the world like American politics. Which is not to say that they won't forget their promises.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to correct accidental mismoderation.