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."

Comments

Need login to read an article?

[Joce640k]

Need login to read an article? Really??

Re:Need login to read an article?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+time+japan+shutting+down&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Li

Re:Need login to read an article?

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Linking from google search always works.

Re:Need login to read an article?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's O.K, it's just another pathetic anti-nuclear article submitted by mdsolar, a known kook and scaremonger. It's unlikely the NYTime article says anything remotely like mdsolars summary implies. In fact, just assume the complete opposite of anything mdsolar has written in the summary.

Re:Need login to read an article?

[Sarten-X]

At least he has a name.

Re:Need login to read an article?

[icebraining]

It's the NYT paywall - you just need to change the '_r' parameter in the URL to 0 instead of 4.

Re:Need login to read an article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilarious! :D

Re:Need login to read an article?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a summary, it's a quote taken directly from the article. So yes the article does say exactly the same as the summary.

Re:Need login to read an article?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's odd, I was able to find the article through their front page without ever seeing a paywall.

The url is http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/world/asia/japan-shutting-down-its-nuclear-power-industry.html
Clicking the article link brings me to a paywall.

I'm located in Europe, not sure if this has anything to do with it.

Re:Need login to read an article?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least this proves that Soulskill has an NY Times account. There's surely no way he'd post an article without first reading the source.

Re:Need login to read an article?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an out-of-context quote taken from a very long article, the tone of which does not quite align with mdsolar's crackpot hysteria. So, no.

See?

[Anonymous Coward]

And a year ago you were laughing at Germany going non-nuclear.

Now it is a competition between Germany and Japan to innovate the non-nuclear market with their new technologies.

Re:See?

[SJHillman]

We showed Japan the power of nuclear energy once and they apparently loved it. Maybe they need to see another demonstration?

Re:See?

[JosKarith]

And when (if) fusion becomes commercially viable what then? Japan was leading the world in fusion research and it was expected that they'd crack the break-even point first. I'd hate to see such an important development set back because a poorly maintained fusion reactor that was past its decommision date couldn't survive a simultaneous earthquake and tsunami...

Re:See?

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany doesn't have the same environmental threats to a nuclear facility that Japan does (namely building foundation issues, geological activity, and the tsunamis that stem from that actiity). It makes sense for Japan to steer away from it - it doesn't make sense for Germany to - we are still laughing at Germany.

Re:See?

[Stizark]

It's a shame, really. I'd love to see Japan eventually replacing the old reactors with the newer, safer ones. Especially in the more stable areas. I realize there's still a lot of hysteria in that area, still, but reason and logic could quell their fear. I think most people at with at least a modicum understanding of tech-- and most that I know, I've gathered from this site and the links provided-- realize the benefits newer reactors offer over the old.

Even so, if there are two nations with a history and will capable of innovating new tech for energy, it's Japan and Germany. I wish them the best in the effort. Who knows, the whole world might benefit from the research. Can you imagine a world not handicapped by the need for fossil fuels? Many oppressive regimes would lose the foundation on which they stand.

Re:See?

[Kreigaffe]

Wow, that sounds like JUST want we need -- Germany and Japan starving for energy.

Certainly that will end well!

Re:See?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing as secure than a nuclear reactor.

Except, when humans are working in it. I don't trust humans.

There should be something to keep them away from secure nuclear reactors... something like.. radiation..

Re:See?

[azalin]

Mmh looks like you mixed fusion and fission at least once in your reply.

Re:See?

[oodaloop]

Maybe they need to see another demonstration?

Did that already with Nagasaki. You mean a third time?

Re:See?

[JosKarith]

Yeah - my bad.
"poorly maintained fission reactor" is what I should have typed.

Re:See?

[El Torico]

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.

Re:See?

[El Torico]

Yes, I can imagine imagine a world not handicapped by the need for fossil fuels, but that's not going to happen in my life unless there are some truly astounding breakthroughs in alternative energy. The earth's population is increasing too rapidly for that. The global population may be as high as 10.5 billion by 2050 and the global energy demand will be proportionally higher. Although the use of alternative energy sources will increase, so will the use of conventional sources. The mix between oil, natural gas, and coal will change, but they will all still be used.

Re:See?

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew it! Aliens are spying on us!

Re:See?

[BlackSnake112]

Could always just send them a video of the tests done at bikini atoll.

Re:See?

[Stizark]

Exactly why I made the statement-- with the cost of fossil fuels rising, the need growing, and the supply diminishing (somewhat), most countries have the foresight to realize that they are not the long term solution. It is also expensive to sustain their use if you're not the country producing them. So I believe Japan, at least, will have the highest motivation to create such an alternate energy. Without the safety net of nuclear energy to protect them, they'll have little choice otherwise.

I'm with you, though-- I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime. But, I didn't expect people to quit using nuclear energy in my lifetime, either. There's nothing like disaster and the threat of imminent collapse to spur breathroughs.

Re:See?

[stabiesoft]

I think more likely it will be "hot" turkey this summer. Peak demand is A/C summer use, and with more plants offline this summer, it will be interesting. In the end, will being uncomfortably hot trump fear of nuke's? In the US, I know people would be screaming to turn them back on again so they can turn on their A/C.

Re:See?

[Ogive17]

Don't forget the strength of the Yen and the 2-3 months where the auto industry production was crippled in Japan.

Re:See?

[cdrguru]

What this proves is that it is possible in the 21st Century to pull the plug and shut down a good part of the electrical grid.

Think of the possibilities in the US... we could turn off the coal plants tomorrow and the air might get cleaner. It would certainly reduce the CO2 emissions and we could all sit around and wait to see if it had an effect on the climate. It might be a little darker at night and there might be a lot fewer computers available, but some folks certainly think it would be worth it. We are getting ready to re-elect one of them for another four years of somewhat questionable guidance.

So, what would the US look like without coal plants? Would we just buy lots of power from Canada encouraging them to build coal generating plants to sell us the electricity? How about an economic boom for Mexico, building power plants? No, I think the clear way forward would be to just bite the bullet and live with a lot less. Electricity, to start and then shortly after that just about everything else.

One thing to keep in mind is that it is very difficult to charge an electric car when there isn't enough electricity to go around as it is. The US might be building a couple of nuclear plants - construction has started - but they aren't going to be going online for maybe 10 years.

Now, you want to be really bold and daring? How about shutting down the coal plants and the nuclear plants together? There are certainly some folks that think that would be a really good idea. That would cut what, 80% of the electricity supply in the US... might be a bit of a challange there.

Re:See?

[Guignol]

that's because you fail to take the greenies into account in the environmental threats :)

Re:See?

[borrrden]

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.

Re:See?

[UnknowingFool]

I didn't think that the reactors at Fukushima were poorly maintained. The disaster planning/design however did not address both an earthquake and a tsunami of that size. Now they should have anticipated both as the plant was located along a shoreline, but that's a different matter. When the earthquake hit, the reactors shut down immediately and the emergency diesel generators kicked in to provide power and cooling according to plan. But these generators were located either on the ground floor or basements. The sea wall around the plant would protect it against it a 25 ft wave. The problem was the wave was at least 40 ft. The diesel generators were wiped out and the plant lost all power. Disaster planning did not address this scenario and operators had to improvise. I would also say that the company TEPCO as a whole was slow to react and not forthcoming about the reality of the situation.

Re:See?

[bzipitidoo]

Handicapped? Is that like Washington D.C. speak in which a "cut" means that a program suffered a smaller increase than wanted?

There isn't room for exponential growth. Doesn't matter what we do, such growth can never be more than temporary. We've expanded hugely over most of our history, and become accustomed and habituated to seemingly unending growth. We'll have to decide how we want to live with the space and resources we have. Do we push beyond the limits (if we haven't already) until nature reins us in with a horrifying collapse? Eat our seed corn and then starve? That's how they do it in Haiti. Do we follow the Afghanistan model and have constant fighting, bringing our population down that way? Very manly, builds character. Can this happen without someone reaching for the nuclear weapons, bringing on nuclear winter, and killing us all off? Do we push population right to the edge of disaster and then hang there, living a miserable life in as much discomfort as we can bear while staying alive? Or are we going to restrain ourselves?

Global population doesn't have to exceed 10 billion, that is totally up to us all. You speak of population "increasing too rapidly" in a very passive way, as if there's nothing we can do about it and it's not even our fault! Of course, some groups will not restrain themselves, what will we do about that? Beat them up? Or join them in a massive Tragedy of the Commons?

Re:See?

[couchslug]

"Now it is a competition between Germany and Japan to innovate the non-nuclear market with their new technologies."

Germany will have to buy a good bit of nuclear power from the French.
Yay for innovation!

Re:See?

[Bert64]

That would be a good reason to ask that they buy you some laptops, with good long life batteries...

Re:See?

[El Torico]

Global population doesn't have to exceed 10 billion, that is totally up to us all. You speak of population "increasing too rapidly" in a very passive way, as if there's nothing we can do about it and it's not even our fault! Of course, some groups will not restrain themselves, what will we do about that? Beat them up? Or join them in a massive Tragedy of the Commons?

I was quoting facts, so yes, the passive voice is perfectly cromulent. As for it being "our" fault, do you have children? If so, you've contributed to the problem.
I don't have children since my wife and I decided that there are enough people on the planet already. I'm not part of the "our" that you are trying to blame.
The good news is that the rate of increase is decreasing; it is also expected to continue to decrease. 10 billion people by 2050 is a high estimate; it may be as low as 7.5 billion. No, we don't have to fall into some dystopian extreme to moderate population growth; education, women's empowerment, and economic growth will do it.

Re:See?

[Bert64]

Shutting off all the coal and/or nuclear plants wouldn't be as beneficial as you think...

As you already pointed out, it would pretty much kill the electric car and force people back towards using gas powered cars.

It would result in more power plants of other types to be built.

It would result in the price of fuels other than coal to go up.

The relatively cheaper price of coal would cause more people to burn it on a smaller scale, eg for home fires.

The higher price of fuel and power would push up the prices of virtually everything else...

Re:See?

[Bardwick]

I agree 100%, but that puts it WAY too mildly. The trade imbalance went off a freaking cliff! Increased thier oil imports by 70% this year just to keep the lights on. The U.S. acted immediatley, not wanting to be outdone by the japanese: "While NFP dominated the headlines, the US Trade Balance (deficit) limped out and dropped far more than expected. At a $52.565bn Deficit, this is the worst trade balance since October 2008. Perhaps more shocking is the fact that the 3 month drop (rise in deficit) is the largest ever on record."

Re:See?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bold and daring? No, what you propose is insane and reckless. How about a rational, measured approach, or is that not "pure" enough?

Re:See?

[icebraining]

The Earth surface receives on average 116 petawatts from the Sun continually. Humanity as a whole uses less than 20 terawatts. We could power 7000 Earths with that energy.

We don't need to use less, we need to get smarter on how we capture it instead of burning through the reserves.

Re:See?

[icebraining]

Having children is not the only way to be part of the problem: the heads of the Catholic Church don't have them, yet they probably fucked up more than if they did by opposing contraception.

Re:See?

[theshibboleth]

You forgot your tags. So what's your beef here? That we don't know for sure that reducing CO2 emissions will reduce global warming? Let's not even talk about global warming then, eh? Think about how much soot, smog, acid rain, etc. is produced by coal plants. That alone I think justifies looking for an alternative. Electric cars are difficult, but remember that the alternative is oil cars--U.S. demand for oil helps boost the economies of oppressive fundamentalist regimes across the Middle East. Isn't it time we boost oppressive fundamentalist regimes right here in the U.S.A.? As for nuclear, nuclear fission is safe and efficient assuming we can trust that government and private industry will be competent in keeping it up to standards. But time and time again government and private industry have proven they cannot be trusted, that they are not competent (BP oil spill, Fukushima Daiichi, etc.). In addition nuclear would be better than coal, but if we were to try to convert over entirely to nuclear, the necessary isotopes of uranium, etc. would run out pretty quickly, so it could not be relied upon in a permanent way. Fusion on the other hand offers a lot more potential, because it only requires relatively light and abundant input chemicals.

Re:See?

[blind monkey 3]

I agree with most of your post but there is also evidence the plant was poorly maintained - Tepco admitted to falsifying maintenance records among several other misdemeanours.

TEPCO was also warned of the risk to the generators and did nothing to mitigate them - and still got an extension to their license (the 40 year old reactors' license had expired).

Hopefully something good will come out of this - Vermont (U.S. state) wants to refuse a request for a 20 year extension to the license of a similar design plant. A bit of backbone from our bureaucrats and politicians coupled with planning and foresight would go a long way in removing the stigma from nuclear (imo).

On a lighter note, we should take our manga comics more seriously - it appears one had predicted the Fukushima incident.

Re:See?

[rainer_d]

In fact, this winter it was the opposite most of the time (FR buying in DE).
Reason?
The French haven't gotten their act together in phasing out their hopelessly inefficient electric heatings - and the insulation of most houses is very bad. In contrast, Germany has worked hard to make heatings and houses fit for the 21st century.

Re:See?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see Japan invest in massive geothermal: they sit on the "Ring of Fire" and hot rock is near enough to the surface to make it viable.

Re:See?

[Kreigaffe]

India's investing heavily into Thorium-based reactors (India has thorium in spades), and there are modern reactor designs which can feed off (perhaps slightly-processed) waste from previous reactors, and you can use U-238 instead in breeder reactors.. long story short, we have *PLENTY* of fuel for nuclear fission reactors to produce enough energy for hundreds of years.

The trick is in *NOT* trusting that government and private industry will be competent in keeping safety standards high, but rather by them being compelled to *PROVE* that such is true (and no, not prove it to emotional nutjobs and enviro-whackos. to reasonable people. engineers, scientists, lay folk -- NOT accountants, politicians, and causeheads).

Shit be safe, yo. Shit be safe, shit be available, shit be able to provide so very much power to so very many people -- and shit be stopped by people who hear the word "nuclear!" and start sputtering out protests on points only tangentially related to the discussion at hand.

I don't know anyone who refuses to use automobiles as transportation, despite there having been many designs of cars in the early -- even later! -- years of the automotive industry which were, unquestionably, Unsafe At Any Speed. Public distrust of nuclear fission plants is akin to the public shitting on the, let's say Ford Focus (a successful and safe car design for many years now, while also being quite economical) all because they heard about the Pinto catching on fire. Reasonable people would call that insanity, but that's exactly what is happening and what is holding back fission power around the world. It's irrational and downright *stupid*.

Re:See?

[Zoxed]

> In contrast, Germany has worked hard to make heatings and houses fit for the 21st century.

Yep: we are coming up to 10 years in our PassivHaus in central Germany: not only is there little need for active heating, but it is incredibly comfortable to live in: draught / sound proofing, no hot/cold spots, ...

Re:See?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. The vast majority of the increase in population is coming from third world countries and most of that is Africa. The only increases in the first world are from third world immigration. Without immigration, every first world country's population would drop. While some progress is being made in India (a population ticking time bomb), none is being made in Africa.

Time to invest...

[Bomazi]

...in the candle industry.

Re:Time to invest...

[Sique]

Candles are a bad deal for lighting. Better to use the paraffine to power a small gasoline engine and use the eletricity.

Another example of cronyism

[GeneralTurgidson]

When government and businesses are in bed with each other, people get hurt.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[Anonymous Coward]

So business created the tsunami?

Re:Another example of cronyism

[drinkypoo]

So business created the tsunami?

Typically anonymous and cowardly comment. Business decided where to put the reactor, in a location they knew were unsafe, and government forced that decision through. So while business didn't create the tsunami, they deliberately created the situation in which a tsunami would cause a meltdown, and did so with government oversight.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[DesScorp]

So business created the tsunami?

Typically anonymous and cowardly comment. Business decided where to put the reactor, in a location they knew were unsafe, and government forced that decision through. So while business didn't create the tsunami, they deliberately created the situation in which a tsunami would cause a meltdown, and did so with government oversight.

Business doesn't decide anything in Japan. Japan has one of the most rigid centralized governments anywhere in the world. If you want to move a local street sign, you have to get permission from Tokyo. The government decides everything over there. I don't want to call Japan fascist... since they do have free elections there... but the Japanese government certainly does pick winners and losers in their corporate field in the way that classic fascist governments did, and the corporations in Japan take their marching orders from Tokyo. This is by design, and it's been the model since post WWII. This model is supposedly why Japan was going to rule the world via business (instead of by military force) by the mid-90's. Several books in the 80's touted the superiority of this model to the American market system, declaring the US system obsolete. It didn't quite work out that way. Japan is now in its' third decade of economic doldrums, yet the government clings to this top-down model. One of the things that Japanese companies found when they started building factories and plants in the US and abroad was that they had much more freedom to operate locally than back at home.

You seem to think that businesses tell the government what to do over there. Quite the opposite. The government bureaucracy completely rules that country. If the reactors were built in a bad place, then Tokyo was just fine with that.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[Luckyo]

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?

Re:Another example of cronyism

[LordLimecat]

they deliberately created the situation in which a tsunami would cause a meltdown, and did so with government oversight.

Is this like a plot from James bond or something? Youre saying businesses WANTED a meltdown and the issues that come with it?

Re:Another example of cronyism

[ColdWetDog]

The main reason Japan was stuck on Gen I reactor design was because the COMPANIES that ran the reactors didn't want to spend the money to upgrade and the GOVERNMENT thought that idea was just peachy.

It's called regulatory capture and the Japanese rewrote the book on it.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[BlackSnake112]

You have not been to Tsunami's R US yet? That place is a blast! You can choose form 3 meter tsunami waves to a whopping 150 meter high wave! The package deals only give you three 150 meter waves while the 3 meter set comes with fifteen waves.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[FlatEric521]

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.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[TFAFalcon]

The appropriate response would now be to do the following:
a) Fine the business for the cost of all cleanup (basically push them into bankruptcy, since the cleanup will take just about forever.
b) Prosecute the executives for negligence.

Do this a few times and any new powerplants will be much safer.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[TopSpin]

Business decided where to put the reactor

Technical reasons decided where to put the reactor.

You're both wrong. Cost decided where to put the reactor.

The reactor didn't have to be directly on the beach. Had it been placed one or two rows of foothills off the beach you wouldn't know the name Fukushima today. This would have cost more because a canal system would have been needed to flow cooling water.

The business vs. government debate is pathetic. These reactors require so much capital and legal coordination between business, government and rate payers that attempts to isolate blame to one or the other are truly stupid. TEPCO is quasi government. Rates paid to fund the huge capital costs of nuclear power are negotiated with rate payers.

There are no innocents. There are only malcontents and partisans beating each other over the head with bullshit sticks.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[Creepy]

If you were GE or Westinghouse and had a duopoly lead in design and implementation of light water and fast breeder reactors because the government paid you billions to research it, you probably would do anything in your power to squash competition and keep your duopoly even though safer, more promising alternatives were available.

How else can you explain how Gen 4 LFTR designs have received _ZERO_ government funding and many based on revisions of current designs have received billions? It is not in the best interest of big energy for another model that they don't have a duopoly on to emerge. That is why they drop terms like "unproven to scale" (don't have a link, but have seen the claim), "proliferation concerns", "slight differences in the waste," (see the video) etc. Um, yeah... Thorium is 99% more efficient than Uranium fuel with continuous reprocessing, pollutes itself making it bad for weapons, and has zero risk of meltdown, so is MUCH safer than Uranium... The worst waste decays in about 300 years (not 10k) and most can be reused. This is all FUD by an industry that doesn't want to invest in a technology for the simple reason that they have working technology that makes them a lot of money already.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[rtega]

You seem to think that businesses tell the government what to do over there. Quite the opposite. The government bureaucracy completely rules that country. If the reactors were built in a bad place, then Tokyo was just fine with that.

Don't know where you got that one from but sure as hell businesses run the place in Japan. You might be right for the street sign but for everything that is real life, forget it. The bureaucracy is intimately linked on all levels with businesses. Everything that goes contrary to businesses is simply not done. Help yourself a little by reading this: Amakudari.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[ewing2001]

it's amazing, that slashdot "readers" don't have anything to say about nukelies.com and probably never will. Sheeple are everywhere ; http://www.nukelies.com/ ; http://soundcloud.com/ewing2001/out-rageous-nukelies-com-nini http://soundcloud.com/ewing2001/megalomanico-the-bartender-who http://1649beginningofhumanz.tumblr.com/ http://tinyurl.com/occupybeyonce

Re:Another example of cronyism

[Qzukk]

Youre saying businesses WANTED a meltdown and the issues that come with it?

Is that equivalent to "did not want to spend tens of millions of dollars to prevent the meltdown since if it ever happened, it would happen long after the executive retired with a tens of millions of dollars bonus for saving the company money"?

Re:Another example of cronyism

[drinkypoo]

They had acceptable places to site the plant that would have simply cost a bit more. They knew that where they were putting the plant was unacceptable, and they knew there were acceptable places to site it, and they chose not to do so for economic reasons, that is to say, making sufficient profit. The Japanese government didn't really want to put it there, but GE got the USA to lean on Japan and they caved and now we have had a bunch of hot isotopes spread around the planet for no good reason, basically so some dickwads at GE could have a third or fourth yacht.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[drinkypoo]

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.

I am beyond fucking tied of hearing this lie. You have no idea how many man-hours of life will be lost due to the release of radioactives from fukushima. As such you simply can not say there was no loss of life. "It didn't kill anyone the day it failed" is not repeat not sufficient justification for the dangers of nuclear power.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[DrBoumBoum]

Is that true, or is it another fallacious argument aiming at representing nuclear industry as the poor, benevolent guy trying his best to go good but being thwarted by crazy, enraged, hateful, irrational, almighty hippies, luddites and joe-six-packs? Honest question here. I have a hard time figuring out how a bunch of idealist activists did prevent the development of safer nuclear reactor designs and, if they were so powerful as to be able to do that, how were people demonstrating in the streets by the thousands all over the world incapable of preventing the Iraq invasion for instance? This just doesn't cut it.

My feeling is that there is at least as much lies, blindness and dishonesty on the proponent side of NP than on the opposing side. In any case the condescending, contemptuous attitude towards NP skeptics that is so common here on slashdot in particular makes me strongly think that the issues at hand are definitely not as simple and clear-cut as the nuclear fanatics would like to make it appear.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[DrBoumBoum]

I read also that one of the reason to put them on the quake-threatened east coast rather than on the seismically more quiet west coast was that the dominant winds blowing eastwards meant that normal gaseous radioactive emissions were to be blown over the Pacific ocean rather than over populated areas. And it happened that during the Fukushima accident, the winds blowing mostly offshore did in fact prevent a much more serious outcome.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[Luckyo]

Indeed. Low level radiation is known to increase life expectancy in rats. It has no known effect on human life expectancy, mainly because it wasn't properly tested. That said, a great example is Mexico City, where background radiation is much greater then there ever was in Tokyo during "elevated radiation periods" when Fukushima was actively emitting radioactive clouds.

Did I mention there is absolutely no statistical spike of radiation-related increase of deaths or shorter life span in Mexico City when compared to other, less radioactive locations?

Now can we stop being stupid and claim things we don't know jack shit about?

Re:Another example of cronyism

[Luckyo]

Full disclosure: I have zero contact of any kind with any part of nuclear industry. I have a close relative that holds an advanced degree on nuclear engineering and had some practical experience building and testing breeder reactors designed to produce special durable materials for space satellites which is what drove me to study this stuff in my free time. He does not work with nuclear power plants, and never has. Most information I use is based on publicly available information, often peer reviewed studies and I use the aforementioned close relative to ask about things I'm not sure of.

As far as I know I have no one in my close circle of family and friends who are in any relationship with nuclear power generating industry or any kind. I do have at least one close family member who's fanatically against nuclear power, and is quite noticeably half-illogical half-hysterical about it.

Re:Another example of cronyism

[Anonymous Coward]

ugh. enough with this nonsense - if you'd kept track of the meltdowns you'd know that it was nothing to do with the tsunami - fukushima daichi 1 was already melting down before the tsunami even hit - the earthquake was enough to completely disrupt core coolant pipes and pumps, and as we all know, any nuclear plant on the face of the earth right now cannot avoid meltdown if its coolant is cut off.

but please, detail how exactly the cores were under complete control, and there was no leaked xenon (detected by multiple parties mind you), until the second the tsunami hit. good luck with that.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

With the shutdowns, costs for electricity, etc, will go up due to law of supply and demand. And the people won't like it, and blame the government...will be wonderous.

energy rations?

[e3m4n]

I guess with 1/3rd of their power offline, they could mandate energy rations to everyone. If they get tired of that system they can, as a community, opt to re-instate their reactors and make a long term plan to switch to some other non-petroleum source for power. They have brilliant scientists, I'm sure they can figure this out. Greed seems like less of a hindrance there than here in the USA.

Re:energy rations?

[ommerson]

The Japanese have been very successful in curbing demand. I was over in Japan for a week on a business trip last year, and it was interesting to see how they did it. This included absolutely all hand-driers in toilets being switched off, less air-conditioning (room temperature was set for 28C in the office), the business week of large corporations shifted to reduce peak-week-time demand and increase that on the weekend, and a move to more relaxed corporate dress-code - which included in many cases, a small towel attached to the waistband with which to mop off the sweat form the oppressive environment. There were no doubt more measures that I wasn't aware of, but life definitely carries on as normal without power cuts.

Our suspicion is that this state of affairs will become the norm.

Re:energy rations?

[mlush]

They certainly had enough room to make cuts, when I was last in Kyoto every hotel room had SuperKettles running in every room and heated toilet seats ... ironic given the location

Re:energy rations?

[operagost]

Freedom seems like less of a hindrance there than here in the USA.

FTFY.

Remember, this is the land of the mandatory home inspections by the police. Let's not hold them up as the model of a perfect society.

Re:energy rations?

[sunking2]

Yet if you look at they graphic in the article it looks like they've only managed to reduce demand by about 10%. Not a huge reduction when you take into account the changes in living standards. Just goes to show that conservation will only go so far and it's all the things in the background that a required on a day to day basis that is the big hitters.

Re:energy rations?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

less air-conditioning (room temperature was set for 28C in the office),

Which, in my case, would reduce work productivity to such a significant degree that saving the money for air conditioning just wouldn't be efficient at all. I'd rather work in the evening at home if I had to do that.

Re:energy rations?

[El Torico]

I lived in northern Japan last year during the summer. The Japanese voluntarily cut back their electricity use so much that they didn't need to impose energy rationing. I don't know if that has changed since I left.

Re:energy rations?

[ommerson]

I found it distinctly unpleasant to work in too. It is said that one can acclimatise to it though. Be warned though - the evenings are not necessarily cooler than Western room-temperature.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

less air-conditioning (room temperature was set for 28C in the office),

Which, in my case, would reduce work productivity to such a significant degree that saving the money for air conditioning just wouldn't be efficient at all. I'd rather work in the evening at home if I had to do that.

It's not about saving money, it's about saving electricity. Did you even read the summary?

Re:energy rations?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I found it distinctly unpleasant to work in too. It is said that one can acclimatise to it though. Be warned though - the evenings are not necessarily cooler than Western room-temperature.

Well, I usually acclimatize to high temperatures by means of getting a headache and sporadically vomiting. Bad thermoregulation on my part.

Re:energy rations?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's not about saving money, it's about saving electricity. Did you even read the summary?

Wait, you mean the prices are fixed?

Re:energy rations?

[wrook]

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.

Re:energy rations?

[bzipitidoo]

What do you mean "only" 10%? That is huge! Why do you act so unimpressed? What on earth do you expect, what counts as huge in your book?

You think it shows that conservation will only go so far? That Japan could cut energy use by that much that quickly shows just how wasteful we really are. Roughly 50% of our energy is used for simple heating and cooling. We could be comfortable and use far less if only we would build buildings right. Should be able to cut energy use for heating and cooling by at least 50%. And for a net gain-- the slightly higher cost of the buildings would be more than made up in lower heating and cooling costs. But we're too focused on the upfront cost. Obviously Japan can't just rebuild all their buildings overnight, so they have to compromise and live with a bit more temperature swing than they'd like.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see 28/26 in the summer but 15/14 in the winter?! Holy hell that must be uncomfortable unless it's really dry in Japan? I keep my thermostat at about 18/17 and that feels pretty bad if it's humid. I use 14/13 at night though.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's _only_ 10%, because power production reduced by 30. In other words, to keep up, this summer has to be cooler. At least 20% cooler.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Building building right... we used to know how....

Recently (about 2 years ago) I went on a trip through Europe to meet and mingle with relatives I had never met. I stayed 2 nights in my aunts thatched roof home. The walls were a earthen material that was akin to a hardened mud with sturdy wood posts as support members. The roof was thatched and the whole home seemed like a trip to another age. One of the most beautiful homes Ive ever visited. Anyhow, it was an old home. very very very old. None the less this home had the benefit of being extremely well insulated. A small wood burning stove in the center of the home and some clever duct work kept the house incredibly warm. Nice feather comforters were in each of the bed rooms which made for an almost too warm sleeping experience. The stove was extinguished before bed but the heat remained through the night. The thatched roof plays a big part in insulation in addition to looking cool as hell. They had a cellar that was deep below the home but was kept clean and painted. This room was quite cold. Perfect for storing lots of foods, vegetables, etc.

It's funny. It seems that over time, the only thing we have made possible is rapidly reproduced, costly to maintain, expensive homes that waste and waste and waste... especially here in America but certainly not exclusively. Now with vynil siding (blech) and plastic brick, we can have all the look of a "real" home with none of the benefits at twice the cost. Its like McDonalds took control of modern building design. What homes need is to be made of is earthen materials.. Wood, earth, stone, plant matter and you can have an efficient home that modern building design likely couldn't touch and certainly could not outlast. Fancy materials that boast lies is our choice these days and in my opinion should be reversed.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

We could be comfortable and use far less if only we would build buildings right

So... are you proposing that we demolish an absolutely vast number of houses so we can rebuild them? Not all houses were built in the last 5 years. In fact, I'd put good money on the vast majority being 10 year and older.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's _only_ 10%, because power production reduced by 30. In other words, to keep up, this summer has to be cooler. At least 20% cooler.

RD sees what you did there, and offers the following commentary on the desired thermal state of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor core.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

30% maybe? since that's the production lost. 10% isn't enough.

Re:energy rations?

[ultranova]

What do you mean "only" 10%? That is huge! Why do you act so unimpressed? What on earth do you expect, what counts as huge in your book?

Dunno what would count as "huge", but 33% would count as "adequate" since that's what a country that got 33% of its electricity from nuclear power would need to cut to make do without those power plants.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't speak to us US-ians in Celsius. Our only knowledge of it is 0 = water freezes and 100 = Water boils.

That's why I think of all the metric units, the temperature ones are the worst. Nobody cares much at what temperature water boils or freezes. You put it on the stove - boils. Freezer? Freezes. Personal comfort level is what most people care about when it comes to actually measuring temperature, and the Fahrenheit system of 0 = Fucking Cold and 100 = Fucking hot is just more intuitive :).

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy, just use the range from 0 to 25. 15 to 25 degree Celsius is OK for a living room, 0-5 is when people put on warm clothing outside (warm sweaters for scandinavians and russians), >25 is "fucking hot" (unless you live in Middle Asia/Africa and got used to it) and 0 is "fucking cold" (unless you live in Scandinavia/Siberia and got used to it).

Re:energy rations?

[rtega]

Conserving? I don't know where you live in Japan, but from everything I've seen they blow cold air straight into the hot air in summer. Japanese certainly know how to waste energy. There's a whole lot more to be conserved. They might reduce energy consumption in offices and schools but I've not seen anything of that in public shopping malls whatsoever. Business would probably be to affected if they did it.

Re:energy rations?

[Diamonddavej]

A good observation, and one that can be extrapolated to future energy saving initiatives. When the world accepts the reality to global warming and fossil fuels start to run out, we can expect a harsh reduction in living standards as people in their homes (mainly) are asked (forced) to use less energy while the wider economy uses the same amount of energy, otherwise provoking a recession.

Re:energy rations?

[Cerium]

Indeed. I studied in Japan for a year and the most obvious thing to me was the complete lack of insulation everywhere (single pane windows, paper thin walls, etc.), climate control devices for each room and, as you were eluding to, the ever-popular three-wall store with full climate control, effectively cooling/heating the outdoors.

I'm sure there are some cultural differences I never picked up on or something, but as far as energy saving went, this area in itself seemed like a no-brainer to me.

Re:energy rations?

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting to know that I'm not the only one who that happens to.

Reportage on Fukushima

[olau]

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.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

people are being kept out of their homes by fear and stupid regulations, not by any real danger. There is no evidence of health risks for radiation levels 10 or 100 times above 'safety' regulations.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Walterk]

Actually, I'd happily buy a house that like at a steep discount.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[RogueLeaderX]

[citation needed]

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has increased the maximum radiation exposure limit for children to 20 times the level set prior to the earthquakes of March 11th.
TEPCO hikes radiation limits as workers' exposure rises
British physicist Wade Allison calls for radical increase in radiation exposure limits

etc. etc.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Likewise farmers in Northern Japan, who although their crops are tested and certified free of radiation, cannot sell those crops except through Yakuza middlemen who ship them down south and get them labelled as originating from there. The effects of a nuclear disaster are not just about the direct loss of life, or increased cancer rates, there are a lot of other secondary social effects.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[wrook]

No. You are wrong. The people being kept out of their houses are in the immediate vicinity of the power plant. Where those houses are located it's a reasonable precaution.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[HapSlappy_2222]

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.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe anyone is stopping you.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

we better evacuate anyone who lives within 1km of a road. that would save a million lives per year.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[AmiMoJo]

Strangely there are not masses of Japanese science nerds who understand the real risks lining up to buy houses and land near the evacuation area, or even in it (since although you can't go there you could buy the property and move in when they re-open it). The idea of all the like-minded nerds moving to one area and setting up a rationally governed paradise has existed for years, and now this golden opportunity comes along and no-one wants to take it up.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[AmiMoJo]

I know a guy who was evacuated with his family to Minamisoma after the accident. He bought a dosimeter and gets readings of about 0.8mSv in the street outside his house, and more in some parts of his tiny garden. The old limit for children used to 1mSv so he daughter is only allowed outside for travel and for half an hour a week to play on a tarmac road (contaminated soil is too dangerous).

I'm sure lots of people would point out that the new limit to 20uSv/year and so there is absolutely nothing to worry about, but faced with the same situation of a government that you probably didn't trust to set safe levels in the first place suddenly raising them 20 fold after an accident would you behave differently?

He want to move out but there is no housing available and his wife has no job any more.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[AmiMoJo]

The key difference is that most plane crashes are due to one-off errors that result in sudden but limited injury/death. The nuclear industry is more like an airline that keeps having smaller accidents and near misses so people lose confidence in it and switch to another carrier. It isn't just nuclear, we won't put up with pollution from coal plants or anything else either, but nuclear is of particular interest right now because of Fukushima and because it is so heavily subsidised at a time when safer technologies need investment to scale up.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Rich0]

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.

This sounds a bit like having a doctor botch a surgery, and therefore refusing to go to the doctor the next time you're having chest pains.

By all means fix the regulations and reign in corruption and industry coziness/etc. However, refusing to use nuclear power does nothing to punish those who messed up (bureaucrats who will still be paid the same to watch over unused reactors) - instead it harms society as a whole.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

and because it is so heavily subsidised at a time when safer technologies need investment to scale up

Almost all of the nuclear subsidies which exist, exist specifically because of the FUD and misinformation spread by anti-nukers. The "safer technologies" have universally shown to have their own problems, even including NIMBY. Furthermore, the biggest problem with these "Safer technologies" isn't one of scale, its that they simply require much more research before they can become cost effective with competing technologies. And this is especially true when you honestly compare them against something like nuclear.

The fact is, for both todaya and tomorrow, nuclear remains the likely answer. Fukashima didn't change that though it certainly has allowed the anti-nuclear pundits wide birth to crank up the FUD.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Diamonddavej]

1.2 million people lost their ancestral homes when the Three Georges Dam flooded their lands and a 11 million lost their homes (and 170,000 were killed) when the Banqiao Dam collapsed in 1975. I still don't understand why most people disproportionately focus on nuclear.

Re:Reportage on Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

Scrape the topsoil of the ground down to 6 inches (never hope of having a garden that grows any food), and Get Karhcer Steam Pressure Cleaners and wash the exterior of the house with 20 people 8 hours a day for 3 weeks, then sure, why not.

Alternatives?

[paleo2002]

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.

Re:Alternatives?

[Hentes]

The difference between them is that Japan doesn't have fossil fuels either.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Alternatives?

[Greyfox]

Most of their citizens will probably move to China to follow all the jobs that leave due to all the companies leaving for countries that can meet their power demand. After everyone has left, the existing fossil fuel generation plants will easily be able to provide electricity for the remaining population! Problem solved!

PROBLEM SOLVED I SAY!

Re:Alternatives?

[olau]

I get the impression this is a temporary shutdown?

As for Germany, speaking as someone coming from a neighbour country, it seems they're really into getting more renewable energy sources up and running. If you were really interested in this, as opposed to just complaining, you could check out the Wikipedia page on renewable energy in Germany.

To be honest, I think the tech is there, it's just a question of dumping some money into it, and the increasing oil prices are helping with that. The Danish engineering society had a plan for Denmark to get rid of (I think?) 90+% of the current dependence on fossil fuels in 2050. We have no nuclear power plants.

Re:Alternatives?

[mws1066]

So maybe this is the chance for Japan to lead the way in serious and applicable alternative energy sources, particularly since they have no native access to fossil fuels.

Re:Alternatives?

[buchner.johannes]

They should engineer tsunami power plants. And there should be plenty of geothermal power.

Re:Alternatives?

[Asic Eng]

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.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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)

Re:Alternatives?

[Kreigaffe]

And then when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death!

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Germns plan to buy electricity from France. And guess where the French get their power from? Yup mostly nuclear power stations of which many are situated along the border with Germany. So from a safety perspective Germany has achieved little and driven up the cost of electricity.

Re:Alternatives?

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

Japan was already the #2 nation in the world at burning oil for power; Saudi Arabia was #1, no surprise. #3? Good ol' USA - courtesy Hawaii. Japan is the #3 oil consumer in the world; Japan - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The estimate is for them to increase oil consumption ca. 238k barrels per day to make up for the shortfall from offline nukes; oil only provides 10% of their generating capacity. This will add a few % points to the overall price of crude but Iran sanctions and growing demand from developing countries will be larger factors.

Japan also shed 423 kb/d in 2009, due to the recession, so they're simply backtracking to earlier consumption levels.

Re:Alternatives?

[tp1024]

Germany is getting gas from Russia, preferentially. During the cold-spell in february, Gazprom reduced gas deliveries to Germany for exactly one day, quite unlike deliveries to all the Eastern European countries that were much harder hit. Who cares about people freezing to dead, so long as it's not in Germany? Oh, of course, Germans refuse to get their own gas from fracking. Based on (justified) fears about the chemicals being used, they (unjustifiably) banned the whole industry, instead of merely banning the use of harmful chemicals.

Germany is also proudly wasting 2.3mio ha of agricultural land to make biogas, bioethanol and biodiesel. In 2010 Russia lost 10mio tons of wheat to the worst drought in 100 years. Supposedly, this caused price inflation on the world food markets. Well, Germany could have harvested 18mio tons of wheat on that land in 2010.

For all the talk about carbon neutral energy, Germany is turning towards burning more coal. Having mostly stopped to mine its own coal (except lignite), it is importing ever greater amounts of the stuff from abroad. Poland used to be the largest exporter of coal to Germany, but it too is phasing out coal mining in the coming years. Southern Africa and Australia are now focussing on the Asian market, leaving such trustworth partners as Russia and Columbia to take up the slack.

Meanwhile the Green party is proposing schemes to provide electricity to Germany with renewables leaving reserves of less than 2 weeks before lights go out (if storage is filled to the top!). Using efficiency values based on lower heating values (instead of higher heating values that they use everywhere else), ignoring energy cost of storage, assuming methane-storage round-trip efficiencies of 50% (current technology barely allows for 30%) and obfuscating the monetary cost has always been par for the course, so I won't complain about that anymore. Did I mention they oppose vital high voltage power lines for their damage in the environment and unsightliness, while demanding tens of thousands wind turbines to be build as soon as possible?

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we all know that Europe has tons of money to dump into renewable energy sources; it's not like there's a debt crisis or anything. Oh wait, there is.
How may people live in Denmark? About 5.5 million. That's a large city nearly everywhere else (Miami, USA has about 5.6 million and Nanjing, China has about 5.4 million), so your country doesn't have nearly the challenge that China, India, the US, Japan, and Germany has in making the transition to alternative energy reliance. Good luck though, I honestly hope that you can do it.

Re:Alternatives?

[DesScorp]

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.

Those supplies will run out eventually of course, but we're nowhere near running out right now. "Eventually" is a long way away. New discoveries are being made all the time, and the world's coal supply... even if demand is ramped up... has enough for centuries of use. The US alone has one quarter of the Earth's coal reserves, and after hundreds of years of industrial use, we've barely dented it. Prices will definitely rise as demand rises, but supply won't be exhausted. There will be no "world-wide war" over fossil fuels, anymore than there'll be a war over food.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they should build lots of wind farms right along the coast. I mean, there's no history of things like tsunamis or anything, right? That should work out just fine.

Re:Alternatives?

[Mashiki]

You could also check out some of the spiegel.de articles over the last two months. In which they showed that the only reason that renewable energy is profitable is due to massive government subsidies(covering around 80% of the costs), which the government is now cutting. Germany is going to have a very massive power problem very soon. Either power is going to hit 0.30kwh or more soon, or they're going to be restarting those nuke plants as opposed to buying all their extra power from France.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

(score:2, Funny)??!!?
there is nothing funny about cucumbers. people are dying. think of the children. ban all green food.

Re:Alternatives?

[CptNerd]

Yeah, put those wind farms on the coastline that's subject to horrendous tsunami.

Re:Alternatives?

[afidel]

More like they don't have France to generate nuclear power for them (this is the real world assessment of how Germany will continue to grow its economic output without nuclear power on their soil).

Re:Alternatives?

[HapSlappy_2222]

I agree, but one thing to keep in mind is public perception. A lot of these people are now scared shitless, and that's a difficult tide to go up against. Most policy-makers wouldn't have the backbone for it. I don't know what the right answer should be. It seems many of the people in charge don't either, so they're doing a classic fall-back maneuver. It sucks ass that the place to fall back to is coal, but I see why they feel they have to, until/unless a leader with some brass stands up.

Re:Alternatives?

[coolmoose25]

Oh noes! How will wind farms fair during an earthquake/tsunami? 80 foot whirling propellers of death. Why doesn't anyone think of the birds?

Re:Alternatives?

[Commi.M]

Tsunamis are harmless offshore.

Re:Alternatives?

[khallow]

Japan has a huge coast line, it's an ideal location for wind parks.

It's also ideal for nuclear power plants. Those use less land and off-shore real estate than wind farms (per unit of power generated), even counting the occasional accident like Fukushima.

Re:Alternatives?

[hxnwix]

Yes, we all know that Europe has tons of money to dump into renewable energy sources; it's not like there's a debt crisis or anything. Oh wait, there is.

How may people live in Denmark? About 5.5 million. That's a large city nearly everywhere else (Miami, USA has about 5.6 million and Nanjing, China has about 5.4 million), so your country doesn't have nearly the challenge that China, India, the US, Japan, and Germany has in making the transition to alternative energy reliance.
Good luck though, I honestly hope that you can do it.

High horse Norwegian, here. I'd like to point out that Norway's electricity is already 100% renewable. Right now. 100%. So much for "waah waah it can't be done." Incidentally, I pay about the equivalent of USD 0.04 per kilowatt hour in Oppland. Probably less than half what you pay. Deal with it.

Re:Alternatives?

[hxnwix]

Yes, they should build lots of wind farms right along the coast. I mean, there's no history of things like tsunamis or anything, right? That should work out just fine.

Wind turbines are mounted on tall, slender poles. They don't give a fuck about earthquake tsunamis. Perhaps a massive undersea landslide or asteroid impact that kicks up a 1km tall tsunami would wipe them out, but the commensurate reduction of demand imparted by losing 80% of the population would offset the loss of generating capacity handily.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're suggesting that if an energy source requires large government subsidies to survive its initial development and start up, it's not a viable energy source? Then I guess you would've been against nuclear power too when moving to those was proposed, then, because nuclear power plants often take decades before they pay off the initial development cost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

I suspect the time to recoup the investment costs are probably even higher for nuclear than they are for solar and wind, as at least for solar I hear that recouping the investment takes about 10 years or so.

And for all those arguing that nuclear is very safe, it's a bit like the argument that the stock market never loses money over time. The problem is that when a crisis does hit, the effects are long-standing and severe, and it shakes your faith in the entire system. In the stock market case, people lost 50% or more of their life savings in a matter of weeks, while in the case of nuclear, Japan lost miles of living space and farmland. (And BTW, I bet even nearby viable farmland is having trouble selling their products. People don't trust government reassurances *for some reason*, and they don't want to run a geiger counter over the food before meals.) I should add that all reports indicate that most of Japan's other plants are NOT prepared for a shock like what happened to the Fukushima plant on March 11th, and many Japanese (unlike /. posters) are well aware that there has been an uptick in earthquake activity rattling Japan ever since that event.

I suppose it's easy to post statistics and feel smug about it, but what if your family lived near one of these plants? Would you really be calling them up and saying "hey, it's safe, trust me! Even if there's another big quake, statistically speaking your country will be fine, so just stay put and be happy!" Well, I suppose there'd be the same fears if they lived near a solar or wind energy source... wait, no, there wouldn't be!

If the government is going to heavily subsidize an energy source, which it really should do as it brings significant energy security to the country, let it heavily subsidize safe and renewable energy sources. Fossil fuels are an eventual dead end and a source of endless conflict, and any alternative requires significant upfront investment, so if upfront investment is your argument against, then you are in practical terms arguing for no future decrease in dependency on fossil fuels.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're comparing apples to oranges because all your energy is subsidized. What you pay in no way reflects the real cost of said energy, dumbass.

Re:Alternatives?

[myth24601]

High horse Norwegian, here. I'd like to point out that Norway's electricity is already 100% renewable. Right now. 100%. So much for "waah waah it can't be done." Incidentally, I pay about the equivalent of USD 0.04 per kilowatt hour in Oppland. Probably less than half what you pay. Deal with it.

You need to go and update the wiki page that claims Norway gets 42% from Fossil fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway

Re:Alternatives?

[shutdown -p now]

Already in 2011 clean energies (wind/solar/biomass/hydro)

Lumping hydro in here with the rest of them is not good for coherent analysis. Hydro is definitely viable on large scales; the only problem is that it's already mostly at capacity in Europe, because it was historically one of the first efficient ways to generate electricity. So when you count it as green, it completely dwarfs all other tech (solar/wind/biomass) on one hand, making green look big - but, at the same time, it won't grow in the future. Wind/solar, on the other hand, have capacity for growth, but even if they grow tenfold, the overall "green with hydro" will not change by much.

Re:Alternatives?

[fnj]

Off shore wind is just about the most expensive of all forms of electrical generation.

Re:Alternatives?

[cpghost]

Right. Except that cucumbers weren't to blame for the e-coli, it was fenugreek that was contaminated. At least that's the official version.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why do you think Japan has entered into trade deficits for the first time in number of decades, with some largest trade deficits ever?

That's right - they are importing shitloads of coal, oil and gas. It is estimated that additional fuel costs as result of shutting down nuclear power are in the range of $50 BILLION (dollars) per year. So over 2 years, the cost is significantly more then the cost of compensation for all the people that were evacuated (cost for evacuees is in local currency and is returned to local economies, cost for fuel is in foreign currencies and kills local economies driving foreign economies)

Local businesses that have resisted the urge to migrate out of Japan are now hurting badly, primarily as a result of energy shortages.

Japan has order, but its people are not exactly "virtuous" as is the stereotype. There is significant discrimination in Japan about anything out of the norm. There is also enormous amount of ignorance, and not just about nuclear issues. As an example, take nuclear bomb survivors. They are discriminated and shunned in Japan to this day because there is a belief you'll catch "radiation sickness" by interacting with them, or even their kids and grand kids, etc.. It is quite ridicules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha#Discrimination

While I expected Japan to be rational, I guess my expectations were too high. Japan is literally killing its own economy right now and running record trade deficits. And I guess some, like mdsolar, are cheering on.

Re:Alternatives?

[AmiMoJo]

Fortunately they do have vast untapped geothermal and wind resources, as well as some significant solar. They could get 100% of their energy from geothermal alone if needs be, although obviously that wouldn't be the most efficient option.

Of course it needs investment. Nuclear attracted a lot because of the military uses (yes, even in Japan where they have the capability to build a weapon in a month or two if needs be) but perhaps Fukushima will be the thing that finally spurs the government into some serious action.

Re:Alternatives?

[Andy Dodd]

Apparently, that's due to Norway "exporting" their guarantees of origin - If they didn't do that (which is really a paper game), they would be 100% renewable.

However, saying "Norway is 100% renewable so that must be achievable in the rest of the world" is naive - Norway's geography happens to be very conducive to hydroelectricity, and their population happens to be very low.

For example, in 2008, hydro was around 98% of Norway's electrical production. This was around 4.3% of the total world hydroelectric production, supplying less than 0.1% of the world's population. (Norway has a population of approximately 5 million people.)

Hydro can't scale significantly beyond what is already available - Hydro was one of the first renewable energy resources to be developed, and in fact was developed earlier than many other power generation technologies. As a result - any area that is suitable for hydroelectric generation is already being used for hydro.

Re:Alternatives?

[AmiMoJo]

Done.

Re:Alternatives?

[mbkennel]

Nuclear has very high startup costs, and then pays off by generating large amounts of electricity.

"If the government is going to heavily subsidize an energy source, which it really should do as it brings significant energy security to the country, let it heavily subsidize safe and renewable energy sources. "

Sure, if they will, with realistic engineering, give as much duty-cycle adjusted power per capital investment & subsidy. The right metric to measure is the amount of coal-not-burnt-as-a-result, not the amount of euros put in.

Re:Alternatives?

[jiriki]

Completely wrong: Main renewable electricity sources were in 2011: Wind energy 38.1 %, biomass 26.2 %, hydropower 16.0 %, photovoltaics (solar) 15.6 % and biowaste 4.1 %. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Electricity_production )

Renewable energy excluding hydropower is about 15% of all electric energy produced. Increasing this Tenfold would give us 150% renewable energy. I guess we don't need all that much energy.

Re:Alternatives?

[jafac]

Quick, what's wrong with this picture?:
1. Interest rates on the global market are lower than at any time in history. (for banks, not consumers or small businesses).
2. Solar power panel technology has driven prices down so far, that manufacturers are going bankrupt and folding.
3. Japan and Germany are in desperate need to replace their nuclear electrical power generation infrastructure with something, anything, even if it doesn't work at night. . . hmmmm......

I can't see what would POSSIBLY be the problem here. . . can you?

Re:Alternatives?

[jafac]

I just hosted a couple, some cousins, who live in Germany, who were visiting. The woman's family owns a vineyard, and they power the whole thing with solar panels (on the rooftops of the barns), financed by low-interest government-backed loans. They had a horrible hailstorm a couple of years ago, which damaged their crops, AND their panels. Insurance paid to have them replaced and upgraded; though the lost sales from the crops were quite crippling to the business, they have projected that they will recover in 2 more years if things go well.

Conversely, my neighbors invested in solar panels in 1998 on their home. It was state law that the power company had to reimburse them for surplus power they generate. Well, they didn't. The state (Ah-nold) didn't enforce it, and the Bush Administration issued a ruling that said it was okay. They guy lost his shirt. Gotta love the USA. Keep voting for douchebags.

Re:Alternatives?

[jafac]

Those aren't power lines. Those are electrical fences, for the Joten Trolls.

Re:Alternatives?

[maestroX]

cucumbers. ecoli in salad killed 40 people in europe last year.

No worries. We managed to contain the problem by dumping all crop near Nova Zembla.

Re:Alternatives?

[ShakaUVM]

>And what are Japan, Germany, etc. going to do for energy once they've phased out their big, scary nuclear power plants?

More expensive and often less-clean alternatives.

People are batshit crazy over nuclear fears.

I'd rather live 10 miles away from a nuclear plant than 10 miles away from a coal-burner.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Most of the electricity comes from coal.
Which in the exhaust releases more radioactive material into the atmosphere on a continual basis every year than even the Fukushima disaster. Germany's decision to put a premature halt to nuclear energy before they got rid of coal was based on irrational fear rather than reason.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

why of course, none of the thousands of heart attacks and acute leukemia deaths that have occurred in the immediate area of the meltdowns are the fault of the radioactive isotopes.. they're coincidental! never mind that they're 3 standard deviations away from the norm for the japanese age groups involved... unless you can connect someone breathing in a specific particle from a specific fuel rod at a specific plant, it's just bad luck and nothing to do with nuclear power!

look, i know you really want to hold onto this dream that cesium-137 and strontium-90 have never killed anyone, ever, but eventually you'll have to deal with the fact that the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle is a death trap. the only sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is thorium's, but no one's researching that because ge, westinghouse and toshiba make way too much money refueling the current disintegrating nuclear plants.

although it's a statistical certainty, i hope there's not a catastrophic meltdown at one of the usa's MANY prehistoric mark-1-containment nuclear reactors. but if (when) it happens, and tens of thousands of people are at best uprooted and at worst sentenced to a tortuous death, perhaps you'll reconsider your faith in the current nuclear regime. and yes, it is faith, because anyone who's bothered to research the containment and failsafes of current reactors in the usa would be busy crossing their fingers, instead of blindly worshiping the god that is the NRC.

oh, definitely don't search for NRC investigators being bought off and bribed to ignore catastrophic safety violations. god forbid nuclear power is shown to be just as corrupt as every other industry, but with worst-case-scenarios that involve depopulating entire states.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Germany is the #1 consumer of world-wide PV production (~35%) and Japan in the top 5 (possible #1 by per-capita consumption). The US consumes less than 5% of world production.

Part of the reason that Solyndra (and other PV start-ups) failed was because they were set up to target the US market, which seems to have enormous growth potential because it's so small ("look at the growth potential!") but actually is small for structural reasons (suburbs and oil dependent transportation without urbanized residential and mass-transit alternatives that are intrinsically central and more efficient), so the consumption generally can not rise much because alternative's disadvantages (little things like thermodynamic inefficiencies) are at their very worst in practical senses compared to oil in the distributed US model of infrastructure (suburbs and cars/trucks). In other words, the US is deep in a local minima of energy optimization it can't escape from despite the fact that better energy minima exist as illustrated by much of Europe and Asia.

In terms of markets, this US local minima prevents alternatives from being adopted at a scale that either could change the US energy usage OR allows alternative/green to become a significant economic growth center. For PV, the US is already "disintermediated" completely and simply irrelevant to the "PV marketplace" in every way: >99% of all PV production is outside of the US and >95% of all PV consumption is outside of the US. There is no way to gain economic traction to be relevant in such a situation - Cameroon has as much chance of "taking the market" as the US does now.

The reality is World War is exactly the US strategy at this point. It's what every conflict of the last 10 years in the Middle East is about. It's what the saber rattling with China is about. It's what the hand's-off with the Euro crisis is about. It's a "last man standing is the winner" mentality even if it's only a pile of broken concrete and debris left over in the end. It's why the US seems so "irrational" in international and domestic policy: the end game is seen as the elimination of the rest of the world if the rest of the world doesn't become subservient to the US.

Re:Alternatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree. In Spain wind energy represented 16% of all electricity produced in 2010, more than hidroelectricity, and most of that capacity was built in just 10 years (until gas producing plants began to complain). Germany electricity may be 50% renewable in 15-20 years if they make the effort.

Low Power

[Eggbloke]

My dad was saying that Tokyo is depressing, apparently there are power shortages so most of the signs and escalators are turned off and the city is dark. How are they supposed to make up their energy requirements if they stop using nuclear?

Re:Low Power

[gtvr]

Coal? Hamsters on spinning exercise wheels?

Re:Low Power

[Tsian]

That is not really true. There was a period of (planned) rolling blackouts, but in the end energy conservation (and increased generation) meant that, except for immediately after the quake, the lights didn't go off.

However, many buildings (and stations) reduced lighting and took some escalators out of service. However, even those measures have mostly been abandoned, with escalators and the like operating as before (partly due to the fact that it wasn't practical to block off escalators in many of the busier stations). Many stores and offices, however, continue to turn off some of their lights.

That said, even at "reduced" lighting, most Japanese stations are still incredibly well lit. We aren't talking about platforms half shrouded in shadow so much as a slight reduction in the overall brightness level.

It will be interesting to see, however, what happens as we once again approach summer (and the increased energy demands due to A/C) combined with the current shut-down of nuclear power plants.

Re:Low Power

[Anonymous Coward]

This hasn't been the case for months. I was in Tokyo a few years back and again in september 2011, a few months after Fukushima. The difference was negligible. Signs and escalators were on as usual. There were no rolling blackouts. They had just switched back the airport express trains to the regular schedule too after running them on reduced traffic for a while. I did a fair bit of travelling around central and western Japan and there were no signs of power shortages anywhere (granted I didn't go anywhere very near to Fukushima). The only thing that reminded me that there had been any kind of nuclear power-related incident was that I found one grocery advertising guaranteed radiation-free food.

I strongly believe the scale and impact of the Fukushima incident was vastly exaggerated by western media for the sake of sensationalism. The consequences for those living nearby were severe. For everyone else life returned to normal after a few months.

Re:Low Power

[LittleImp]

They burn through a shitton of oil.

Re:Low Power

[operagost]

Tentacle porn?

Re:Low Power

[Bengie]

They've shut down many reactors since your time there. They didn't shut down 52 power plants in a month. They probably phased out several per month.

Your point is still interesting.

Re:Low Power

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm still here, and nobody noticed them shutting down more reactors. That's of course because they are planned shut-downs, and the slack is being taken up largely by burning natural gas.

The first couple weeks after the earthquake were a little unusual, but things are back to normal now.

Re:Low Power

[jafac]

. . . we can sell them lots of antidepressants. win-win!

Shutting down is the right thing to do

[dtjohnson]

Nuclear power is very expensive, generates toxic dangerous waste that requires long-term storage, and has the sizable potential to contaminate large areas of land making them uninhabitable for decades. Other power generation methods are much better.

Re:Shutting down is the right thing to do

[Anonymous Coward]

Except in one important area: Meeting demand.

Re:Shutting down is the right thing to do

[digitalsolo]

Can you give an example that has equivalent output/density and is not fossil fuel powered?

Re:Shutting down is the right thing to do

[thsths]

Fossil fuel power is even more expensive, generates toxic gasses and residue, and does contaminate large areas of land. It also has the problem that the fuel is running out.

Sometimes you have to pick an option that is not perfect, and nuclear was a perfectly good slice in the energy mix. Shutting it down suddenly just causes supply shortages.

Re:Shutting down is the right thing to do

[Bengie]

For everything you describes, coal is worse.

I wonder what power the plan on using. I know I'm hoping they use their awesome engineering to make new renewable sources.

Re:Shutting down is the right thing to do

[cpghost]

Demand and supply are interdependent. If you increase supply, demand grows accordingly, and if you cut supply or make it more expensive, demand goes down too. Not immediately of course, but after a transitional period where the system re-balances itself. The less power, the more pressure there will be on converting to more energy efficiency.

LOL, Bitter Nucleartard

[Anonymous Coward]

Love it!

Re:LOL, Bitter Nucleartard

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a reasonable question. They are going to have to get their electricity from somewhere & generating capacity don't grow on trees.

They don't have a lot of fossil fuels, so they are going to be importing coal, oil or gas. Coal plants take time to build, although they are easier than nuclear. Gas turbines are relatively quick and cheap to commission but the cost of fuel is extortionate right now & unlikely to improve.

Germany are taking the route of pretending to get by with wind power by importing nuclear electricity from France. That doesn't work for Japan.

Re:LOL, Bitter Nucleartard

[joib]

They are going to have to get their electricity from somewhere & generating capacity don't grow on trees.

Unless they burn, um, err, apples? Yes, APPLES!

1. 1. Solve world energy crisis
2. 2. Get Nobel peace price
3. 3. Profit!!!

Man, I'm awesome!

Re:LOL, Bitter Nucleartard

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany are taking the route of pretending to get by with wind power by importing nuclear electricity from France. That doesn't work for Japan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/europe-power-supply-idUSL5E8DD87020120214

Re:LOL, Bitter Nucleartard

[Kreigaffe]

France relies heavily on shitty heating equipment, France's homes are, generally, pretty shittily insulated against the elements (they lost more to a warm month than we have in Iraq and Afghanistan), and Germany fired up coal plants to meet demand.

Where's the news here?

Re:LOL, Bitter Nucleartard

[HapSlappy_2222]

I agree in concept, but apples are too delicious in pies. Instead, burn rhubarb (sick!). Now can I hold your Nobel for a minute?

I know a bit of what's going on...

[erroneus]

... but probably not much more than some of the more +1 Insightful commenters here.

The core of their problem is arrogance and the influence business has over government regulators. The days of shoguns and daimyos are long behind Japan but somehow the mindset still lives on. There are a few very large companies in Japan with a rich and tight lineage that dates back to before the Meiji restoration. Their influence over government and their "job-for-life" filial piety along with their reluctance to challenge the people "in charge" of things has led to a poorly regulated nuclear industry which allowed the Fukushima disaster to occur.

But Japan is not "unique" in this. It just so happens that they were the first to get tripped up with a natural disaster. But that said, they did a lot of things in the handling that simply made it worse and worse. (Still, they came in 2nd when you compare Fukushima to the BP oil spill and BP's handling of that.) In the US, the nuclear industry and been playing a pushing game where the NRC pushes the nuclear energy companies and the nuclear energy companies push back through various means not the least of which are lobbying and other forms of politics. One difference between the US and Japan is found in the success of independent watchdog groups who take personal interest in the environment and the safety of nuclear energy. Greenpeace is a huge annoyance, but they also serve an important purpose in that they can and do bring light to problems that would otherwise be swept under the rug. This exists less in Japan and problems that some people have knowledge of are often unheard and cannot speak. Their lack of openness is a critical problem.

My initial reaction to this turn is that Japan is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. They are an emotional and over-reaction group of people. But the US made them that way.... the US did it to Germany as well. When we 'pacified' them over the decades, we shifted their thinking and their sense of reason. So instead of saying "okay, here are the causes of the problem, let's fix them!" they are more concerned about who is to blame and are focusing on the fact that nuclear energy is an awesome and powerful source of energy which is also very dangerous. Well, yes... yes it is. But they forget that it's also controllable and containable with vigilant regulation and oversight.

Vigilance of regulation and oversight are expensive... and annoying... and definitely slow things down and make things cost more. But without it...?

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[drinkypoo]

One difference between the US and Japan is found in the success of independent watchdog groups who take personal interest in the environment and the safety of nuclear energy.

Too bad they are totally fucking pointless. Not only do we have reactors of the same exact type as what went kablooey at Fukushima Daiichi, but we also have reactors which are copies of it. And we have even more spent fuel lying around in pools waiting to be redistributed across our landscape.

My initial reaction to this turn is that Japan is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. They are an emotional and over-reaction group of people. But the US made them that way...

...When GE decided that Fukushima Daiichi #1 should be built on ground known to be unsafe, in spite of there being other, superior locations available, and when the US government forced the Japanese government to put the reactor where GE wanted it.

Oh, is that not what you were talking about?

Vigilance of regulation and oversight are expensive... and annoying... and definitely slow things down and make things cost more. But without it...?

Regulation and oversight did nothing to prevent the wholly preventable disaster at Fukushima Daiichi. In fact, they created the situation.

The simple truth is that humans are not mature enough to handle the awesome responsibility of nuclear power. We have demonstrated this time and again. We The People are not responsible enough to stop The Powers That Be from fucking up and poisoning us all. Until we are, Nuclear power is a Bad Idea. OK, so in theory you could make a safe reactor. Get back to me when that happens, and when we decommission all the old plants that aren't safe because it's the proper thing to do. Until then, my point stands, and you are a nuclear playboy.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[openfrog]

They are an emotional and over-reaction group of people. But the US made them that way.... the US did it to Germany as well. When we 'pacified' them over the decades, we shifted their thinking and their sense of reason. So instead of saying "okay, here are the causes of the problem, let's fix them!" they are more concerned about who is to blame and are focusing on the fact that nuclear energy is an awesome and powerful source of energy which is also very dangerous. Well, yes... yes it is. But they forget that it's also controllable and containable with vigilant regulation and oversight.

Vigilance of regulation and oversight are expensive... and annoying... and definitely slow things down and make things cost more. But without it...?

Not commenting on how reeking of paternalism and colonialism this is, you are just here contradicting what you asserted at the beginning of your post, that the cause of this is corporations dictating their own regulations to the government, except that you then try to localize the problem by linking it to Shoguns and Daimios and cultural traits.

From TFA:

“March 11 has shaken Japan to the root of its postwar identity,” said Takeo Kikkawa, an economist who specializes in energy issues at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo. “We were the country that suffered Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but then we showed we had the superior technology and technocratic expertise to safely tame this awesome power for peaceful economic progress. Nuclear accidents were things that happened in other countries.”

Is that what you call an emotional statement? From TFA again:

In many respects, Japan is already on the road to recovery from the huge earthquake and tsunami, which killed as many as 19,000 people, and to a lesser degree from the nuclear accident. The northeastern coastal towns that were flattened by the waves have cleaned up millions of tons of debris and are beginning to rebuild.
But it is the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi that looks likely to have a more lasting impact, even though it has yet to claim a single life. Japan is just beginning what promises to be a radiation cleanup that will last decades of the evacuated areas around the plant, where nearly 90,000 residents lost their homes. The nation is also groping to find effective ways to monitor health and protect its food supply from contamination by the accident.

...
From TFA still:

Japan has so far succeeded in avoiding shortages, thanks in part to a drastic conservation program that has involved turning off air-conditioning in the summer and office lights during the day.

With a third of their electricity cut off, they manage! That is remarkable and unexpected. The Japanese are showing great courage in keeping shut plants that cannot demonstrate that they are safe. The Japanese population is disciplined enough to follow drastic measures to save electricity, and it is working!

A great lesson to us all. I raise my hat to them.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[azalin]

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.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[operagost]

They are an emotional and over-reaction group of people. But the US made them that way.... the US did it to Germany as well. When we 'pacified' them over the decades, we shifted their thinking and their sense of reason. So instead of saying "okay, here are the causes of the problem, let's fix them!" they are more concerned about who is to blame and are focusing on the fact that nuclear energy is an awesome and powerful source of energy which is also very dangerous.

Because we didn't let them have an army, they lost the ability to make decisions and solve problems? Seriously? What else are we going to blame the US for now?

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Anonymous Coward]

With a third of their electricity cut off, they manage! That is remarkable and unexpected.

This is like saying of the USA: "With a third of their cars taken off the streets, they manage!"

Which would be neither remarkable nor unexpected, given just how many cars there are to go around.

Japanese waste electricity like Americans waste automobiles.

A great lesson to us all. I raise my hat to them.

You've obviously never spent any meaningful fraction of your life in Japan.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Solutions for all of your problems are available. You won't let us implement them. It's like complaining that the papers strewn across a house are a fire hazard, but heaven forbid they go to the recycling plant, that'd put us in danger on the roads!

Here's the real truth, more people are going to die this year as a result of fossil fuel usage than nuclear power, and far more damage is going to be done to the environment. And if you want to go without the energy generated, you're going to kill even more people.

You're a nuclear Chicken Little, worried about the sky falling to the point where you let the fox eat you up.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Anonymous Coward]

A simple solution for this: The individual who has final UNQUESTIONED yes/no authority on an atomic plant MUST live at JUST the minimum distance for habitation from it AND they must habitate that location for at least 60% of there non-work time AND they must be the LAST to leave in the event of an evacuation. In the event that multiple people have final unquestioned yes/no authority on a given atomic plant- they all have to live there (there's lots of space immediately around those things that no one wants to live on).

You could probably outright drop oversight bodies if you forced this sort of 'roman engineering check' on the decision makers- the concept of making a few tens of thousands of extra dollars vs not being able to use those dollars because you are dead will motivate even the most money hungry individual to do things safe and right.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand - people are extrodinarily resistant to new ways of doing things. The slighest
hint of new &| untested and all R&D stops. Getting the powers that be to fund a little (as these thing go)
R&D on LFTRs, just to see if they work, is near impossible. Well impossible here in NA. It matters
not that if they work, they represent a long term energy solution that represents a safe way to run
the nuclear energy industry.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Xphile101361]

Because we didn't let them have an army, they lost the ability to make decisions and solve problems? Seriously?

Yep. We had to destroy their arguments for logically invading other countries. By forcing them to emphasize that people in other countries are people too, we added an emotional element that destroyed their logical psyche.

It is sort of like when you take a Vulcan and add emotions.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[sshir]

And the big problem is that safety assessment of nuclear power plants relies on an assumption that operators and the government oversight are competent, there is no (and will be no) corruption and no sabotage.

That's bullshit right there.

Nuclear power creates significant financial risk and for high population density countries like Germany and Japan it does not make financial sense to use it (as long as alternatives are available).

For large, sparsely populated countries like USA, Russia etc - it seems alright (if you take threat of global warming into account).

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[khallow]

...When GE decided that Fukushima Daiichi #1 should be built on ground known to be unsafe

Two things to note here. First, the ground turned out to be safe. Fukushima weathered the earthquake just fine. The tsunami didn't have anything to do with the ground itself. Second, GE didn't make the decision on where to put the nuclear reactors. It just built them.

Regulation and oversight did nothing to prevent the wholly preventable disaster at Fukushima Daiichi. In fact, they created the situation.

I've read the reports and no, regulation and oversight didn't have that effect.

The simple truth is that humans are not mature enough to handle the awesome responsibility of nuclear power.

There we go. That's what all this logic fail was leading to. My take is that you demonstrate via your errorenous and unsupported arguments that you aren't responsible enough to make that decision.

But let's suppose you, despite the flaws in your arguments, are right. That humans are not mature enough for nuclear power. How do you fix that? One approach is not to try. If we're not mature enough to do a thing, then don't do it. What happens if you need something that you aren't mature enough to use? How do you bridge that gap?

The problem here is that getting maturity in the absence of it is something of a chicken and egg problem. There's no mature person (established by our assumption above) who knows how to responsibly handle nuclear power. So we can't learn in the usual way through training and education from someone who has already figured it out.

That leads to option two. In the absence of existing maturity, one can only become mature enough by accepting the responsibilities and being provisionally empowered to carry out those responsibilities. In other words, become mature enough to use nuclear power by using nuclear power (on a provisional basis) and all of us learning from the mistakes and misdeeds that result.

That's what we do now.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[mbkennel]

"Too bad they are totally fucking pointless. Not only do we have reactors of the same exact type as what went kablooey at Fukushima Daiichi, but we also have reactors which are copies of it. And we have even more spent fuel lying around in pools waiting to be redistributed across our landscape."

We don't have any which have all the generators below the water line in area which can have 40 meter floods.

The size of the Japan earthquake isn't even possible in California because of the difference in fault-types (Japan & the Indonesian catastrophes were subduction---one plate sliding over the other--in California it is one plate going in the opposite direction as another)

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Anonymous Coward]

The absurd thing you leave out is that coal plants produce more radioactivity per kilowatt and they spew that into the environment in the form of emissions and flyash. To add to that the flyash and other leftovers are toxic now and there no half life and are not really stored in underground caverns due to the astronomical volume. Next let us not forget how we have simply accepted cars emitting pollutants in the same environment we live in. So in fact if a nuclear plant blows up every year and spews its guts in the atmospehere we would still be ahead.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you leave out that scrubers for coal and oil and gas plants have been available for a generation, scrubbers that would sapture the fly ash and other toxics from the fly ash and that industry has in large part refused to retrofits plants with them, even when offered financial incentives like tax breaks.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[ultranova]

But if a reactor blows up for good, the damage stays with you for several hundred years.

Well... no. Chernobyl is turning into a forest right now. It may or may not be a healthy place to live, but it's not Mordor. And of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities hit with an actual nuclear weapon, have long since recovered.

Nuclear industry needs to be regulated - or better yet, the plants need to be owned and operated by the government rather than for-profit companies - but a plant that blows up is simply an industrial accident like any other, nothing less, nothing more.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[drinkypoo]

I've read the reports and no, regulation and oversight didn't have that effect.

The reactor was placed on that particular site so that GE could make more money, at the insistence of the US government, and over the protests of the Japanese government. So yes, it was regulation and oversight, it just wasn't the kind you want. It was the kind, however, that you actually get.

The problem here is that getting maturity in the absence of it is something of a chicken and egg problem. There's no mature person (established by our assumption above) who knows how to responsibly handle nuclear power. So we can't learn in the usual way through training and education from someone who has already figured it out.

That's not how it works. Responsibility is just this thing that you have or you don't. You can prove responsibility for one thing by demonstrating responsibility for some other thing. And we have not demonstrated sufficient responsibility for lesser things, really. Oil drilling? No. Coal mining? Not really. Natural gas? Frack no. Out atmosphere? Shitting it up. Water? Shitting it up.

In the absence of existing maturity, one can only become mature enough by accepting the responsibilities and being provisionally empowered to carry out those responsibilities.

That's a lot of shit, and you should know that. In the absence of existing maturity, you don't hand a child a gun. That's not how you build the maturity necessary to handle a gun. You build maturity with something lesser, like maybe a one-pump BB gun, and work your way up. Some kids might be mature enough not to point a gun at anything they don't want to kill. You can hand them the gun. No people on this planet has yet demonstrated the ability to maturely handle far less hazardous things. I'd start there.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[khallow]

and over the protests of the Japanese government

Uh huh. Could you provide a citation please.

That's not how it works. Responsibility is just this thing that you have or you don't. You can prove responsibility for one thing by demonstrating responsibility for some other thing. And we have not demonstrated sufficient responsibility for lesser things, really. Oil drilling? No. Coal mining? Not really. Natural gas? Frack no. Out atmosphere? Shitting it up. Water? Shitting it up.

There's a simple solution to this particular responsibility problem. We shouldn't let you near a position of responsibility.

You have no basis for your claims on these particular issues. Keep in mind that you are making the claim of irresponsibility on the result of a single nuclear accident (of little consequence, I might add). It's also worth noting that you don't have a case for any of these other technologies being used irresponsibly by society either.

That's a lot of shit, and you should know that. In the absence of existing maturity, you don't hand a child a gun. That's not how you build the maturity necessary to handle a gun. You build maturity with something lesser, like maybe a one-pump BB gun, and work your way up.

We already did this for nuclear power. We made all sorts of experimental reactors over the past 70 years demonstrating our ability to do nuclear power responsibly. Then we've followed up with extensive monitoring and regulation of existing civilian nuclear power.

No people on this planet has yet demonstrated the ability to maturely handle far less hazardous things. I'd start there.

That's bullshit.

Re:I know a bit of what's going on...

[Frangible]

That's a ridiculously condescending argument. So how do you explain over half the population in the US saying the exact same thing here? Reaper indoctrination?

They should shut down some of them

[Hentes]

Many of the Japanese nuclear plants are old unsecure BWRs, they should start working on safer ones so they can shut them down in 10 years.

Re:They should shut down some of them

[Kreigaffe]

Go back in time 30 years and say that, and we MIGHT have one or two newer plants today.

The fact that a new nuclear plant is orders of magnitude safer than any old design doesn't matter. This is an EMOTIONAL issue. Nuclear = bad! All nuclear plants are the same as the worst nuclear plants! Rabble rabble!

Re:They should shut down some of them

[HapSlappy_2222]

A thousand times this.

I hear so many people arguing that it's not reasonable for Japan to shut their reactors down instead of fixing the problems leading to the disaster, and they're all correct; it is! But it doesn't matter - people view nuclear power as more dangerous than ever now, and convincing an emotionally scared population otherwise is one of the hardest uphill battles to fight.

Something extravagant needs to be done to "prove" the safety of nuclear power. In fact, I think inventing "infallible nuclear safety suits for your entire family; act now and save!!!" would probably be more effective in reducing fear of nuclear power than 50 years of trouble-free reactor operation.

Re:They should shut down some of them

[Hentes]

It also has a practical side, it's not easy to get those plants to work again.

Re:They should shut down some of them

[Anonymous Coward]

er, i think the biggest issue to someone who actually understands contemporary nuclear reactor design, is that there isn't a single plant on the face of the earth that is passively safe (as of march 10, 2012).

the tsunami didn't cause the meltdowns in japan (unless you're stupid enough to believe the propaganda and ignore the NRC emails that were bouncing around during the the actual event), the earthquake disrupted the core cooling systems which led to complete loss of control before the waves ever hit the shore. the loss of diesel tanks to fuel coolant pumps doesn't matter much if the pipes leading to the reactor had already ruptured.

there are 23 reactors just in the usa that are *identical* in design to the woefully poor fukushima reactors. it's sickening to me that it's going to take a fully-fledged meltdown here in the usa (as almost happened at ft. calhoun and vermont yankee) before any of you shills figure out that the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle is a disaster waiting to happen, and embrace either renewables or thorium breeders as a sustainable source of power going forward.

or, you could keep sticking your head in the ground, and realize that when engineers design a reactor to withstand 1 in 10000 year events without passive safety, and you have hundreds of reactors, you'll get catastrophic failures every 20 years or so.

hope it's not in your backyard. or your parents'. or childrens'.

Opposition?

[Bensam123]

I'm not Japanese, but I'm pretty sure the only people opposing nuclear power in Japan are in politics and fearmongers from other countries. Sounds like a global politics issue, which is stupid.

I'm sure the citizens will be thrilled when they drop coal burning plants down right next to the nuclear plants that didn't emit any sort of noticeable byproducts.

Non-nuclear? Oh , you mean oil...

[Viol8]

... that they're currently shipping in in vast quantities? I'm sure thats doing wonders for their CO2 footprint.

Re:Non-nuclear? Oh , you mean oil...

[interkin3tic]

Are you sure they're making up the difference by using oil for electricity? I was under the impression that due to cost reasons, coal for electricity, oil for cars. Last I heard, only Iran burned oil for electricity. Is it a matter of "You can build a petroelum power plant really quickly, the coal ones aren't online yet?" I'm also aware and have heard from numerous Japanese residents that corporations basically run the government (like moreso than the US), is this a case of super corporation convincing bureaucrats to buy oil from them at a steeper markup than they could get away with for coal?

Re:Non-nuclear? Oh , you mean oil...

[TheTrueScotsman]

Yes, coal. That well-known zero-carbon fuel...

Re:Non-nuclear? Oh , you mean oil...

[interkin3tic]

Oh, sorry for not being clear, that was not my objection. You're right that coal or oil is bad for the environment compared to nuclear. Not disputing that at all. Oil for electricity though is still a dumber option than coal because oil is more expensive and we need to reserve oil for plastics and transport.

Damn hippies

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear power is dangerous, coal/oil power is dirty, wind power ruins the scenery, solarpower too expensive/inefficient and waterpower is bad for the fish population. Seriously if we are the dominant species on Earth why are we being held back by these counter-evolutionary thoughts. Stagnation is death!

Re:Damn hippies

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess we're stuck with geothermal/hydro if they continue to screw with things. I vote to use horses and oxen just so they can smell what they're stirring up.

Re:Damn hippies

[neonKow]

Recognizing and acknowledging drawbacks is country-evolutionary?

Re:Damn hippies

[Anonymous Coward]

Recognizing and acknowledging drawbacks and demanding to SHUT DOWN FUCKING EVERYTHING BECAUSE NUCULAR BAD is counter-evolutionary.

over reaction my ass !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Entire towns are fucking uninhabitable, yet some of you fuckers are talking about this being an over reaction ??????!!!!!!! When you live in Japan its a completely different story, easy to talk that pro nuclear talk when you're thousands of miles away. Melt down and radiation contamination happens in your fucking backyard and you will change your tune, you fucking nuclear industry shills !!!

Re:over reaction my ass !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Preach it brother. These fat faggots have nothing invested in what happens here. I hope they never have to make the call of putting a pregnant wife on a plane ride out because they don't know if the government is lying to you, simply inept or just as clueless as the avergae bastard on the street about the situation. But they'll post their bullshit here none the less about science being their god and how everything is just awesome and anyone who disagrees must be a luddite jesus horse young earther.

Nevermind the fact that the areas that were hit hardest by the tsunami are still completely fucked and they are now being asked to store radioactive waste because the faggot pussy ass government wants to spread that shit around instead of just keeping it all on site near the already uninhabitable areas surrounding the reactor. Or the buildings built with concrete and aggregate that was left radioactive after the tsunami but thanks to yakuza fucks and faggot ass TEPCO niggers ended up being sold and used to build new buildings that now must be torn down and the areas decontaminated.

Fuck these faggots. Go shove your microdicks in some uranium you stupid fucking pieces of shit!

Japan: Did CORRUPTION Cause This Problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://FORA.TV has an hour-long, in-depth talk on gov't / industry corruption in Japan by Mafia-like gangs:

+ Tokyo Underworld 2012: An Evening with Robert Whiting

The talk - summarising the speaker's book - covers origins going way back (eg, WW 2) through current involvement in gov't, CONSTRUCTION industry, etc.

With so MUCH money going into private pockets, ie, instead of buying what was needed for safer designs and/or better built nuclear power plants, you gotta ask: How much of Japan's current nuclear energy shutdown/crisis is due to [eg, Yakusa] corruption?

According to the author, here's a political side to all of this, some of which involves the US's (then) fight against Communism, etc.

I don't recall the author trying to link the corruption to construction issues with Japan's nuclear power plants, but it might be looked into.

You could even wonder how much devastation corruption may have caused to Japan's larger economy both before & since the power plants disasters.

(I don't like this author's chances of surviving the publication of his book, but... as a Disclaimer: I have -nil- to do with any Mafia-like undergrounds. :-)

Re:Japan: Did CORRUPTION Cause This Problem?

[ivi]

I've seen that talk, and - from the Fora web site:

"Summary [of talk]
        Robert Whiting has written a number of books on Japan, including You Gotta Have Wa, The Meaning of Ichiro and Tokyo Underworld, which is being developed as a series for HBO. In this lecture, Whiting addresses the intractable role of yakuza in virtually all areas of modern day society in Japan. He discusses the sequel to Tokyo Underworld that he is writing, shares insights into the genesis of the HBO project and talks about the recent National Geographic documentary Crime Lords of Tokyo, in which he appeared."

"Robert Whiting
        Robert Whiting is an author and journalist who has written several successful books on contemporary Japanese culture - which include topics such as baseball and American gangsters operating in Japan. He was born in New Jersey, grew up in California and graduated from Sophia University in Tokyo. He has lived in Japan for a total of more than three decades since he first arrived there in the early 1960s. He currently divides his time between homes in Tokyo and California."

PS Fora.tv is a subscription site (US$ 50.00 / year opens some content (including this talk); the rest is Pay to View)

We want more electrical power!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Local leaders: "No."

Then what? It's not like Japan has loads of alternatives, especially given it has almost zero domestic fossil fuel supply.

Re:We want more electrical power!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Local communities capable of running nuclear power plants but unwilling to do so will simply get little electricity from the grid. Their choice. An easy, democratic, just solution.

Re:We want more electrical power!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Why can't the populace choose this option and live with the consequences? Why do we keep wanting to change their opinions when we have no skin in the game?

Why politics should not dictate to science

[operagost]

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

Great... we have politics trumping both science and democracy.

Re:Why politics should not dictate to science

[dominious]

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.

Re:Why politics should not dictate to science

[Loki_1929]

It's not paranoia to lash out at governments that violate the fundamental human rights of their people.

It's not inconsistent to lash out at governments that prefer to let ignorant, fearful people drive policy decisions rather than educating them and doing the right thing. Getting the plants up and running is beneficial to the Japanese people and the economy (which is also beneficial to the people). Replacing those plants' power generation with increased output from less safe, vastly more damaging (in terms of environment and public health) sources does not benefit the people. This is quite clear and obvious to anyone looking at the situation with factual information and a brain to process it.

Re:Why politics should not dictate to science

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay Diversity!

Re:Why politics should not dictate to science

[ultranova]

It's not paranoia to lash out at governments that violate the fundamental human rights of their people.

It's not inconsistent to lash out at governments that prefer to let ignorant, fearful people drive policy decisions rather than educating them and doing the right thing.

It is, however, unreasonable to expect the government to listen to you but ignore others. Either the citizens have power over their government or they don't.

Re:Why politics should not dictate to science

[Loki_1929]

The citizens have the power to vote their government out of office if it's not abiding by their will. If the government becomes tyrannical, the people have the ability to revolt against it and overthrow it (see also: Arab Spring).

The Japanese government shouldn't listen only to me. The Japanese government should listen to reason and follow the course that's best for their people. In this case, the course that's best for their people is to operate clean, safe, nuclear power plants (and to do their job ensuring those plants remain clean and safe); NOT to shut down power plants that are clean and safe in favor of plants everyone knows are unsafe and horribly unclean.

Right now, the Japanese government is poisoning their own people with an energy policy that heavily favors power plants we know to be terribly hazardous to human health; both for the workers at those plants and anyone who lives near them or downstream from them. They're not doing this because they're malicious, but because their people are ignorant and full of fear about the vastly better alternative sitting there idling.

There just is no reasonable argument in favor of what they're doing right now. They should be fixing the problems of ignorance and fear while getting their people power in the cleanest, safest manner available. There's no justification for poisoning your own people while allowing them to remain ignorant of a better way.

Re:Why politics should not dictate to science

[ultranova]

The citizens have the power to vote their government out of office if it's not abiding by their will. If the government becomes tyrannical, the people have the ability to revolt against it and overthrow it (see also: Arab Spring).

The Japanese government shouldn't listen only to me. The Japanese government should listen to reason and follow the course that's best for their people. In this case, the course that's best for their people is to operate clean, safe, nuclear power plants (and to do their job ensuring those plants remain clean and safe); NOT to shut down power plants that are clean and safe in favor of plants everyone knows are unsafe and horribly unclean.

Unfortunately, what's best for the Japanese people seems to be something else than what the Japanese people want. Which gets us back to my point: either the Japanese government can go against the will of its people, in which case it can also do so when it does not have their best interests at heart, or it can't, in which case the people will get their less-than-optimal way in this matter.

It is impossible to have a government that can ignore the will of its people only when they happen to be wrong.

There just is no reasonable argument in favor of what they're doing right now. They should be fixing the problems of ignorance and fear while getting their people power in the cleanest, safest manner available. There's no justification for poisoning your own people while allowing them to remain ignorant of a better way.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.

Re:Why politics should not dictate to science

[Loki_1929]

The problem in this case is ignorance. If the government would simply provide simple, rational education to its citizens, there would be no problem implementing policy that's in the best interests of the people. So long as the government allows an ignorant populace to be paralyzed by fear of the invisible boogeyman of "radiation", the will of the people will be self-destructive and counter-productive.

It's been a year since the disaster happened. If the government had spent that time drilling the known facts about radiation (specifically as it relates to nuclear power plants) into the heads of the populace, there would be a broad consensus to move forward along a sensible path.

Cherries instead of apples

[fritsd]

Apples?? I dunno.. their pulp looks too bland to be useful.
Sounds to me like the juice from Japanese Cherries contains more anthocyanins to put into your el-cheapo Grätzel solar cell. (Are Anthocyanins actually any good for that? Could you use blueberry juice instead?)

Corporate America Wins

[MacGyver2210]

I love that Japan decided to move over 1/3 of their energy production away from the safest, most cost-efficient form of heat-power generation, and revert to something colossally terrible for the environment, with really no plan to do so in place. Clearly the best possible outcome, with the best results for everyone involved. /s

Re:Corporate America Wins

[DesScorp]

I love that Japan decided to move over 1/3 of their energy production away from the safest, most cost-efficient form of heat-power generation, and revert to something colossally terrible for the environment, with really no plan to do so in place. Clearly the best possible outcome, with the best results for everyone involved. /s

What does "corporate America" have to do with the Japanese decision on their reactors? And since when is nuclear cost-efficient? One of the reasons it's so hard to get nuclear plants built in the US is the massive costs involved in building them.

Re:Corporate America Wins

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing cost-intensive with cost-inefficient.

A nuclear plant has high start-up costs, yes. But a well-designed one also has far higher productivity and lower maintenance than the alternatives.

So for 100 billion dollars you might get 4 trillion worth of output.

Re:Corporate America Wins

[Anonymous Coward]

At a 5% discount rate and a 4 year build time (1 year late), a modern 1GW plant can produce electricity for less than $.03/kWh. And that is with the outrageous waste disposal fees and massive allowance for decommissioning.

It's only not cost efficient when plants are tactically sued to drag out construction for as long as possible, and reasonable means of disposing of waste are similarly stopped by lawsuits which trump scientific consensus.

Otherwise there is a reason Asia has started construction or has plans for nearly a hundred new gigawatts of nuclear electricity, instead of solar power plants or wind farms.

But even with the lawfare and self inflicted inefficiencies, the only two plants to go online in recent US history both produce electricity for less than $.03/kWh.

Re:Corporate America Wins

[Loki_1929]

It's exactly the kind of response one would expect from scared, ignorant people. You rarely get logical, beneficial results when you operate on fear and ignore fact.

Anybody in Japan please comment on TEPCO

[fritsd]

From what I read in the western media, TEPCO is losing incredible amounts of money cleaning up the Fukushima mess.
The Japanese also seem less than happy ("Private panel blames TEPCO's 'systematic negligence'") [note to Slashdot readers: that Asahi Shimbun newspaper doesn't seem to have a paywall].

However, I also read that TEPCO was strongly involved in developing Sodium-Sulfur batteries to help solve the storage problem associated with large rollout of intermittent electricity generators (i.e. solar only when it's sunny and wind turbines only when it's windy). Anything else than Sodium-Sulfur or other cheap redox couples, is probably too expensive for real large-scale use.

So, I really hope that the battery division of TEPCO survives any lawsuits/bankruptcy procedures/government sanctions because they seem to be working on transitioning Japan away from the nuclear addiction and towards a very clean (but slightly explosive) technology that the rest of the world is probably eager to share.
Anybody in Japan please comment if this makes sense. I don't read Japanese and have never been there.

Re:Anybody in Japan please comment on TEPCO

[wrook]

I've lived in Japan for the last 5 years. My Japanese is reasonable, though the newspaper can still be a challenge for me. Here is my take on it. I apologize if I make mistakes. Please try to get verification for whatever I say.

The situation is complicated. Basically TEPCO is billions in debt. The last I heard, the government is not likely to bail them out. This is significant, I think, because if the government decided to bail out TEPCO, they would in essence take on responsibility for dealing with the cleanup. There is money allocated for rebuilding the tsunami affected areas and already some of the slimier politicians have tried to siphon that money away for other things (like free health care for everyone under the age of 20 in their areas). TEPCO is on the hook, but if they fold, I don't think anyone will be responsible. The money allocated for rebuilding from the tsunami does not seem to address cleaning up after the nuclear problem, so I don't know what will happen.

For other nuclear reactors around the country, it is true they are shut down. I live close to the infamous reactor in Hamaoka and the local government has agreed for a long time to shut down the reactor (well, it never worked properly anyway -- it's been mostly shut down the entire time I've been here due to one problem or another). The people here actually picketed the power plant a couple of times. I've never seen that for any other issue. They don't want the power plant running. I can't imagine anything changing.

Japan is a strange place. For the most part the people just go along with the politicians. But if they set their mind, the politicians can not shift it. A similar situation occurred with the attempted privatization of the post office (impossible) and with changing the constitution to allow Japan to help the US in armed struggles (completely impossible). Attempting to go against the people led to the resignation of the prime minister each time (To be fair, I've lost count of the prime ministers we've had since I've been here, though...)

So the biggest problem is that while there is a definite political will to transition away from nuclear, there is no actual plan to do so and no resources assigned. TEPCO will likely go bust (after spending as much as they can on cleanup) without finishing cleaning up after Fukushima and the government seems unlikely to finish it either. Eventually someone will be guilted into paying for it, but it's not clear to me at the moment who it will be.

I may be wrong, but I think the government is hoping people simply will forget where their power comes from. They'll insert a new company to replace TEPCO (probably with most of the same players) and they will just go along as usual. But like the post office and the constitution, I suspect that they have misunderstood the political climate. I predict a fairly hectic year or two after which whatever plans they have now will be completely scrapped and replaced with something new. Oh and we will also get at least one (maybe two!) new prime ministers in that period as the shit hits the fan.

So basically, if you are interested to see what Japan will actually do, I'd wait and not jump to conclusions.

Re:Anybody in Japan please comment on TEPCO

[Loki_1929]

I don't need to be in Japan to know that this doesn't make any sense. First of all, TEPCO should be sued into oblivion and its management in prison cells right next to the Japanese regulators that allowed their plants to operate with known design defects for decades. So no, that company shouldn't be going anywhere. If someone wants to buy up the patents on whatever new technology they were developing, that money can go to pay the fines and lawsuits that company so richly deserves.

Secondly, it makes no sense for Japan to simply idle all their remaining plants. What they SHOULD be doing is a systematic examination of all their plants for known design issues like what felled the Fukushima reactors and actually FIX those. Then they should work on a regulatory overhaul so they aren't allowing known-unsafe plants to operate for decades at a stretch with no apparent oversight or concern for safety.

Lastly, they (and everyone else operating a nuclear power plant today) should be developing plans to cycle out very old plants and replace them with newer, safer, more efficient designs. Replacing 50 and 60 year old power plants with new ones that are safe and efficient? Imagine that! It's almost like it makes sense!

Even if they did none of this and just kept all the plants operating the same way they had been prior to the Fukushima mess, they'd still have the safest, cleanest power coming those plants. Yet they've decided instead to idle those plants and instead import massive amounts of horribly damaging and dangerous oil to burn for power. Frankly, it's sheer lunacy. There isn't a shred of logic to anything they've done. They spent decades operating on complacency and ignorance and now they're operating on fear and adrenaline.

Re:Anybody in Japan please comment on TEPCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking forward to big industrial Sodium-Sulfur battery fires, and their eventual phase-out.

Re:Anybody in Japan please comment on TEPCO

[subreality]

Japan is a strange place. For the most part the people just go along with the politicians. But if they set their mind, the politicians can not shift it. A similar situation occurred with the attempted privatization of the post office (impossible) and with changing the constitution to allow Japan to help the US in armed struggles (completely impossible). Attempting to go against the people led to the resignation of the prime minister each time (To be fair, I've lost count of the prime ministers we've had since I've been here, though...)

Strange place indeed - it appears you have an (at least partially) functioning representational democracy.

Redundancy.

[MaWeiTao]

Japan must have a ton of redundancy to be able to handle having so many reactors offline and still have enough power for everyone. I doubt the US is so well prepared.

go fuck yourselves you self righteous fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

How about all of you pro-nuclear faggots stop jacking off about how you would love to see more reactors built on a massive geologically active area with a government too inept to adequately ensure the long term safety of these reactors when all of you are sitting pretty far and well away from any possible fallout from something going wrong. For those of us with boots on the ground and families and lives at stake, I would not so kindly ask you fat fucking sloths to shut the fuck up and let those of us who have an actual say in how we would like to live our own lives here in Japan have a crack at it without every fat nerd with a hard on for nukes as long as his NIMBY ass doesn't have to raise kids near one (as if any of you will ever even touch a woman) spouting his aspergian "knowledge" about the safety of reactors and how everything is keen and peachy with nuclear.

I sit 200km from Fukushima and have to deal with the every day effects of what happened in human terms. There are kids here now living as refugees that have had their lives torn out from under them. Watched their friends die in front of their eyes. You want nukes so bad and think they are so awesome go shove some uranium up your fucking ass and go critical. Last time I checked we (Japanese citizens) still had a say without every neckbearded sperg berger from the IT department thinking they know better as to how we should run our lives.

So go fuck yourselves you self righteous fucks.

Re:go fuck yourselves you self righteous fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people die of coal-mining related illnesses? How many people die from fossil-fuel related illnesses? Or accidents? Any technology we build is fallible. Are you ready to embrace a lower standard of living if our energy future is limited? How about rolling blackouts? How about much more expensive gas? There are little to no alternatives that work when it comes to powering our way of life.

Those precious kids might not have heating in winter.

Re:go fuck yourselves you self righteous fucks

[mbkennel]

"How many people die of coal-mining related illnesses? "

From Japan's point of view, these people are Chinese and not Japanese, and don't vote.

Re:go fuck yourselves you self righteous fucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on, brother.

I only visit slashdot once in a while. I can't stand this place for more than a few minutes. 99.9% of the commenters are brain damaged nerds with no idea how the world really works.

MANKIND CANNOT POSSESS NUCLEAR POWER

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS THIS THIS A MILLION TIMES THIS!
Nuclear power is God's holy power that is BEYOND the RIGHT of mankind to tamper with.
Trample in God's holy ground and YE SHALL BE PUNISHED!
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima... Who is next?

Mankind must immediate cease all nuclear technology and KILL all who possess it.
Anyone who sees God's holy power must die in God's purifying fire.
Give to God what is God's, and give Caesar what is Caesar's!
There can be no compromise!

Re:MANKIND CANNOT POSSESS NUCLEAR POWER

[Creepy]

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima... Who is next?

you, preferably.

And if you're going to cite locations, Three Mile Island is a joke - .017 Curies of radiation released (though as I recall it did scale higher on the nuclear events scale because it was a partial meltdown). The Idaho Falls disaster in the 1960s released more (5x I think). Compare that to the 7000 Curies at Chernobyl or the 2400 at Fukushima to get perspective. The Bikini Atoll tests probably dumped more radiation in the air than any of those disasters.

btw, which "God" are you referring to, the Old Testament one that smites everyone, or the New Testament one that forgives you even if you break his very important not to break rules? And if you mean God in the Torah, then you mean the Old Testament God, and if you mean God in the Qur'an, you mean the Old Testament God (really, that God is pretty much from the same place), and if you mean God in, um, other religions then I have no fscking clue. You obviously mean monotheistic, though, because you capitalized God.

Threadjack

[Corwn of Amber]

just to post high enough that it'll be read, not that anyone with an opinion would care about mine:

That's fucking retarded. Japan is afraid of nuclear power now, what with being the only nation ever to have been a-bombed. Officials pander to a scared public by shutting down nuclear power although it's demonstrably safer and ecologically better than every other alternative.

Wind and solar are too weak, end of story.

Burning stuff is stupidly dirty. Coal power plants release even more radioactive crap than nuclear disasters, and that's nothing compared to the footprint of their carbon emission, without even beginning to count the other reasons those plants should have disappeared.

Marine barrages genocide entire ecosystems. What do you think happens when you block the tides with kilotons of concrete?

What else is there?

Re:Threadjack

[Bert64]

Exactly, I'm no big fan of nuclear but the alternatives are either even worse (dirtier, more damaging, unsustainable etc), or simply not viable at all.

Until such time as viable alternatives become available, they should be working on building more nuclear plants while improving the efficiency and safety of them.

Building nuclear power plants in an area that's prone to natural disasters was never a good plan...

Re:Threadjack

[Zoxed]

(Not that I necessarily agree with your other statements.)

> What else is there?

Easy: reduce energy consumption: switch off / efficient devices / more local production / more human power / better designed communities / ...

Can you smell the lud(dite)?

[Chas]

I'll take bureaucratic overreactions to luddite alarmism for 100 Alex!

Excellent

[gelfling]

Next we need to outlaw all fossil fuels and unwind the clock 200 years.

Re:Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? According to many people on this site, all we need is a new technology! Hydrogen, or orbital solar power, or He3 fusion reactors...

Yeah, that'll go well

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why are they pushing this nuclear protection at us so strong? Do they know something bad's gonna happen soon? Did something bad happen already and they just silenced it? What are they hiding? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING??!!1"

Another issue to consider

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasing reliance on petroleum-based sources of energy will lead to balance of trade issues, as more oil will have to be imported. This can have rolling consequences in GDP (GDP includes (imports - exports)) and currency valuation. This may also make it much more difficult to finance the large public debt, as you will need to sell more debt outside the country.

Unfortunate they weren't using thorium reactors.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unfortunate Japan was not using thorium reactors. If they had, none of this would've happened and they would be enjoying unlimited amounts of fiscally sustainable, safe energy without the risks of conventional nuclear nor the fiscal unsustainability of solar and wind power.

There, fixed that for ya.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like all nuclear^H^H^H^H^H^H^H power plants, Fukushima needed a massive body of water to assist in cooling the plant.

It's discouraging. Meltdowns are too easy.

[Animats]

A basic problem with some reactor designs is that a loss of control power causes core damage. The GE Mark 1 will suffer core damage after only one hour of station blackout, and a meltdown after about 14 hours. This was well known in the industry.

A few weeks ago, Slashdot posted transcripts of meetings after the Fukushima disaster. The NRC people immediately referred to the studies of the Peach Bottom plant (a GE Mark 1 in Pennsylvania), knowing quite well that a station blackout or loss of cooling water supply would cause a meltdown. There was no argument at the NRC meeting - everyone in the meeting was familiar with that risk.

What else is there?

[symbolset]

G e o t h e r m a l

Re:What else is there?

[PwnzerDragoon]

Geothermal energy can increase seismic activity. Using it to power an entire country in one of the most earthquake-prone areas of the world may not be the best idea.

Re:What else is there?

[symbolset]

A 3.4 magnitude tremor isn't exactly earth-shattering. Anyway, he asked "what else is there?" The answer is clean, local, baseload enhanced geothermal systems. There is more than enough thermal resources in Japan to meet their needs for the next thousand years. It offsets wind and solar resources much better than nuclear, as it can be safely dialled up and down for periods of calm and wind, night and day. If they had started a crash drilling program as soon as their reactors started melting down they might have plants online by now. If they'd thought to include it in their mix earlier they wouldn't even be having an energy crisis now, as EGS systems can run above their steady state capacity for emergencies for quite a long time before they deplete their thermal resource, buying time to build more plants.

But as you were. Let's go back to pretending there is no such thing.

A wise man once said

[jeremiahrich]

An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs.

WHEW!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

DEO GRATIAS.

JAPAN is still the leader in nuke technology, cause they are realizing how DANGEROUS it is....

ONE meltdown brought down ussr, we are deluding ourselves to think that this will be easy for japan to overcome... and even though shutting down a plant costs more than running it, it's WORTH IT.

pax et bonum to all my fellow living creatures that glow in the dark more than just a little bit since last march....

anyone remember for how long last year they said it was hardly a problem, then there was not a meltdown, no radiation, it would take not even 5 minutes to clean up the mess, yadda?

A Failure to Comprehend

[Anonymous Coward]

The events of 3/11/2011 and up to this day show a startling discovery.

The people of Nippon lack the ability to comprehend.

Wether the PM, or TEPCO Executives, Mayors, or Local peoples, they all exhibit a lack of the ability to comprehend.

I wonder if this is an effect of the intense carpet bombing of Nippon during WWII (the Nipponese still refer to this as the 'Pacific War' perhaps deflecting their involvment in World War 0 and World War I). The effect of that is that the population was decimated and most of the survivors are of very limited intellectual capicity. Hence through in-breeding post-WWII the Nippon people are on the verge of extinction.

Likely the federal state of Nippon will continue for a few more decades, perhaps no more than three. But, the end result is the extinction of the Nipponese.