Slashdot Mirror


Japan's Nuclear Energy Industry Nears Shutdown

mdsolar sends this quote from an article at the NY Times: "All but two of Japan's 54 commercial reactors have gone offline since the nuclear disaster a year ago, after the earthquake and tsunami, and it is not clear when they can be restarted. With the last operating reactor scheduled to be idled as soon as next month, Japan — once one of the world's leaders in atomic energy — will have at least temporarily shut down an industry that once generated a third of its electricity. With few alternatives, the prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, has called for restarting the plants as soon as possible, saying he supports a gradual phase-out of nuclear power over several decades. Yet, fearing public opposition, he has said he will not restart the reactors without the approval of local community leaders."

14 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Reportage on Fukushima by olau · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Danish television had a reportage on the effect of the Fukushima incident on the people living nearby.

    After seeing the reportage, I can understand why they are shutting down the other reactors for the time being. It's one thing reading that nuclear power plants statistically kills very few compared to other sources of energy, it's another thing when you have to leave your ancestors home for 12 generations, or be stuck with a house that nobody will buy because even if it's outside the immediate danger zone and the authorities say it's safe, noone wants to take the risk.

    Whether fair or not, the incident violated the trust people had in the administrators of the nuclear tech, and it's going to take something to earn that trust back.

    1. Re:Reportage on Fukushima by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't really matter why they're kept out of their homes; the fact that people are too scared to live in or buy homes in an area is still a real estate crisis, and, as we've seen in the U.S., real estate loss can be a quick way to lose everything. Sometimes facts aren't enough to stem fear, at least not right away.

      GP already addressed this point well in his post. It isn't fair to the nuclear power industry as a whole, but Fukushima shook the trust of the populace badly. Their fear is not unreasonable, especially in light of all the mistakes that were later uncovered (and, of course, widespread fear gives rise to "stupid regulations").

      Think of it this way: If you survive the very, very unlikely incident of a plane crash, would it be unreasonable if you started to fear flying, regardless of the overall safety statistics? Sure, you may be one of the many folks that flies again with no problem, but it would also be understandable if you decided to drive everywhere, instead. The psychology behind this type of fear makes clear sense.

  2. Alternatives? by paleo2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And what are Japan, Germany, etc. going to do for energy once they've phased out their big, scary nuclear power plants? Unless they find a way to quickly and effectively implement large-scale solar plants/farms, geothermal, etc. they're going to resort to burning fossil fuel. A big step backwards because, under extreme circumstances, nuclear can be dangerous.

    You know what's even more dangerous than an accident at a nuclear plant? A world-wide war over the planet's dwindling fossil fuel supplies.

    1. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not worried about Germany. Already in 2011 clean energies (wind/solar/biomass/hydro) surpassed nuclear in production 108TWh nuclear vs 117TWh. This out of a grand total of 612TWh. Most of the electricity comes from coal.

      There are large programs under way to expand on that. The biggest challenge are the transmission lines who do not have the capacity to ferry large amounts of electricity from the new production areas (north) to where electricity is used and can be stored in hydro plants (south).

    2. Re:Alternatives? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Japan has a huge coast line, it's an ideal location for wind parks. Germany is investing heavily into that, but that means (among other things) to build HVDC transmission lines to reach the coast. Japan doesn't even need to do that. For reference, here is a report from the Royal Corps of Engineering about the costs of various power sources: Costs_Report. Wind is actually quite affordable despite the standby costs (taken into consideration by the report). Electric cars and demand shaping (e.g. with smart metering) could help bringing that down further.

      Extreme circumstances are normal in the pacific ring of fire, and just like Germany, Japan has no place to store the spent nuclear fuel. Neither country can afford to lose a chunk of land like the region around Fukushima - they are densely populated and the land is highly developed and valuable.

      That doesn't mean that nuclear power doesn't make sense anywhere, but Japan is the wrong place for it.

    3. Re:Alternatives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "You know what's even more dangerous than an accident at a nuclear plant?"

      cucumbers. ecoli in salad killed 40 people in europe last year.
      (aids, cars, air pollution, war, tobacco, heart disease, natural disasters, etc also come come out quite high)

  3. Re:Need login to read an article? by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least he has a name.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  4. Re:I know a bit of what's going on... by azalin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ah the possibilities of starting a pro-/anti-nuke, liberal vs tighter regulations and many more...
    But let's stay nice today and just state a few simple facts:
    • Nuclear is about as dangerous as possible, if not properly built, maintained and inspected by an independent(!) group
    • The benefits of having nuclear power are big and the risk of something going wrong is rather low, but
    • If the shit hits the fan, it does so big time.
    • There are newer and safer designs available, but most reactors in the wild are older versions
    • Nuclear isn't actually that cheap if factoring in ALL external costs. (Waste storage for a few thousand years, insurance that would completely cover the costs in case of meltdown, etc.)
    • Other energy sources have other drawbacks (pollution, price, radioactive fallout-yes I'm looking at you coal-, having to hand over money to dictators and many more)

    My opinion on this? Nuclear is fine because it produces a lot of energy with a comparatively low environmental impact. It is quickly adjustable to current needs and is independent of wind or weather. But if there ever was one industry that needs tight oversight and jail time for any manager that fucks up security it is nuclear. The oil spill was bad, but it is over. Though it will take many years for the ocean to regenerate it will. But if a reactor blows up for good, the damage stays with you for several hundred years. So you have to make damn sure it never happens.

  5. Re:Why politics should not dictate to science by dominious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet, fearing public opposition, he has said he will not restart the reactors without the approval of local community leaders."

    This is Slashdot:

    In one thread, people go paranoid about governments not thinking of their people.
    In another thread, governments are stupid because they ask their people of what to do.

  6. Re:See? by El+Torico · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's already significantly affected Japan. For the first time since 1980, Japan has a negative balance of trade. This is from the Trading Economics site page on Japan.

    Last year Japan’s trade balance fell into an annual deficit for the first time since 1980, driven by subdued global demand and soaring fossil fuel imports in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power crisis.

    I fully understand their desire to decrease dependence on nuclear power in light of the disaster, but quitting "cold turkey" obviously has had a strong negative impact.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  7. Re:Another example of cronyism by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, this is one of the rare cases where business is the force for "good", while public opinion is the force for "evil".

    If public didn't hear associate "radiation" with "oh god, a HORRIBLE DEATH GLOWING GREEN!", reactor subsystems would have been upgraded to more modern ones quite a while ago. But they can't be upgraded, because "upgrades to nuclear power plants peripherals" will be spun as "upgrading nuclear power plants" which will be heard as "we are building more nuclear power, HORRIBLE DEATH GLOWING GREEN!".

    So we end up having tech from 60s (when entire industry was born in 50s!) instead of modern reactors and modern peripherals that would have taken the punishment of that tsunami. Hell, we can't even research new tech because of public opinion, and are forced to use old tech. Fukushima was a great demonstration of how well plants were actually made - many forget that plants were built to withstand 7 magnitudes and reasonable tsunamis, and got hit by 9 magnitudes and biggest tsunami in a century and then some. And even so, the plant didn't cause a single death, even with tsunami wiping out essentially all infrastructure of the region and killing 30.000 people.

    We really should make a name for "stupid, loud and opinionated people" as a concept. "Sheepism" maybe?

  8. Re:energy rations? by wrook · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in Japan. Life here isn't like it is in the west. Before the tsunami the air conditioner in the office was set to 26 degrees C. After it was set to 28 decrees C. In the winter, the heater was set to 15 degrees C before the tsunami and 14 degrees C after. Even then, because it was a cold winter where I am, they ended up pushing up the thermostat to 15 degrees anyway.

    BTW, I work in a school and the class rooms are unheated/uncooled just like always.

    Conservation works reasonably well. The problem was that the Japanese were already conserving.

  9. Re:Another example of cronyism by FlatEric521 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Business decided where to put the reactor

    Uh, no.

    Technical reasons decided where to put the reactor. Like all nuclear power plants, Fukushima needed a massive body of water to assist in cooling the plant. Japan isn't known for its huge rivers or lakes, so the coast becomes the default location to place power plants.

  10. Re:See? by borrrden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably not....Japanese people are much more willing to put up with personal discomfort for the sake of the collective. A big part of their culture revolves around keeping harmony with the people around them, so speaking up with a complaint is unbecoming. Also having an idea that differs from other peoples' is frowned upon. This summer will probably turn out to be the same as last summer, with the rolling blackouts making a comeback. Although since more power plants have been shut down, the radius of blackouts might be extended. I don't know what my company will do during the blackouts if they come to our area, since we develop software and obviously can't do that with no power ;P.