Slashdot Mirror
Japan Aims To Abandon Nuclear Power By 2030s
mdsolar writes "Reuters reports that the Japanese government said it 'intends to stop using nuclear power by the 2030s, marking a major shift from policy goals set before last year's Fukushima disaster that sought to increase the share of atomic energy to more than half of electricity supply. Japan joins countries such as Germany and Switzerland in turning away from nuclear power ... Japan was the third-biggest user of atomic energy before the disaster. In abandoning atomic power, Japan aims to triple the share of renewable power to 30 percent of its energy mix, but will remain a top importer of oil, coal and gas for the foreseeable future. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's unpopular government, which could face an election this year, had faced intense lobbying from industries to maintain atomic energy and also concerns from its major ally, the United States, which supplied it with nuclear technology in the 1950s.' Meanwhile, the U.S. nuclear renaissance appears to be unraveling."
Just put it off for a while. It can be done safely. The path is obvious.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...from a dude that owns a solar-power company? The story is slashdot-worthy, but the tone is partisan fluff. Is he really the only guy submitting this story?
Oh man, a mdsolar story. I was beginning to miss his astroturf shenanigans.
Nuclear power is a damn better sight than oil is, that is for sure.
Just because some cheapskate made a nuclear reactor as cheaply as they possibly could have doesn't mean nuclear power is bad.
That reactor was as bad as the one in Springfield in The Simpsons! It is the real life incarnation of it!
Nuclear reactors are safe. What isn't safe are the morons who make them without having their inspections done and kept to reasonable standards in an unsafe area.
Japan itself is what is unsafe! Someone save Japan from itself, please.
No, not you America. Not you at all. Put your hand down America.
They have even been repairing units 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiachii to go back on line within the next few years. All other nuclear plants are being repaired and re-fitted. It looks like a long way from a plan to phase out nuclear power any time soon.
Again!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
"Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's unpopular government, which could face an election this year"
Are elections in Japan held on a need-only basis?
Evidently in addition to the regular elections at the end of the term.
The way I have seen the debate presented:
1. The world runs on fossil fuels primarily
2. Fossil fuels contribute to global warming
3. The world needs energy sources that don't contribute to global warming
4. Atomic energy does not produce CO2, but questions about its safety (Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 mile) or public worries about its safety persist
5. Renewable energy sources, in there current state, can't satisfy current or projected demand for energy
6. Oh no.
Not need-*only*, but when needed, yes. Like any parliamentary system, election are held if the government suffers a vote of no confidence. There's also a set term, at the end of which elections are held regardless, but they can happen early. in Japan, the term for the lower house is four years, but this wouldn't be the first time in recent history that an early election was called; the 2003 lower house went back to the polls in 2005.
Sorry that should say evidently The House of Representatives of the Japanese Diet can be dissolved at any time by the Emperor on the advice of the Prime Minister in addition to the regular elections at the end of the term.
Silly Japan, how are you going to fend off all of those space aliens without giant nuclear powered mecha?
In fact, it could be more than 20 prime ministers until that time.
The big question is, whether Japan is even capable of doing anything like this at all. They have been unable to implement internationally widespread safety measures that the contructors of the very reactors recommended, that have been destroyed in the accident. And that would have been cheap, less than $10bn for all 50 reactors, yet the Japanese didn't. And this isn't a singular experience.
Japan has stagnated economically for the last 25 years. Last year, the global shortage of harddisks wasn't down to the tsunami in Japan, but a flood in Thailand of all places. (Which intends to build at least 5 nuclear reactors, btw.) Currently, Japan is paying on the order of $30bn on imports per year to very imperfectly compensate for the lack of nuclear power - "volontary" blackouts and shutdown are continuing as power saving measures during the summer. And unlike other expenditures, Japan can't pay for this with domestic debt, because they actually have to pay a foreign country in foreign currency - which is unsustainable in the long run without a source of income, which hasn't been forthcoming in Japan for the last quarter of a century. And as Steins Law says, this will stop.
Renewable energy is expensive and no country has as yet installed anything in the way of the infrastructure require to use them on more than a small scale. So far, only the low-hanging fruits have been picked that stress the existing infrastructure to its limit. And Japan, being an island with two separate power systems, is in an even worse position than just about any other country imaginable.
The question for anyone outside Japan isn't just whether Japan will be capable of pulling it off. The question isn't just if one of the regularly resigning Prime Ministers of Japan turns his or her back to this policy and makes it null and void. The actual question is whether, by 2040, Japan is still going to matter.
Japan is a tiny, resource-poor but energy-hungry country. Nuclear energy is the only thing that makes sense economically. What are they going to replace it with? Oil? Natural gas? Those sources come from so far away and from such temperamental suppliers that it's too risky to depend on long-term.
To get reelected Japanese politicians have to put on an anti-nuclear Kibuki theatre to placate the masses. But the fact is they'll never give up nuclear and "renewable" energy sources won't ever put even a dent in their supersized energy demand.
If they increase their renewables to 30% of their total then that will more than replace current nuclear capacity, so their use of oil and coal for electricity won't go up. Furthermore you would actually expect it to go down as people switch to electric vehicles.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's probably not anything like American politics. I don't think there's anything in the world like American politics. Which is not to say that they won't forget their promises.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Similar thing applies in the Westminster system, it's up to the prime minister when to call the election, the only real limit is that it must be done before the end of their term. If parliament is gridlocked the queen (or her representative) can call an election to unclog things, such a scenario is called a double dissolution and AFAIK was last done here in Oz in the mid-70's when the governor general sacked the government because it's budget was rejected by the senate twice in a row.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
18.1% of Japan's power is nuclear generated. That's going to be a lot of fossil fuels, which must be imported. Importing large amounts of fossil fuels requires quite a bit of transportation, which also consumes resources as Japan has very little in the way of fossil fuels. Good for exporters, of course.
Replacing nearly a fifth of your country's power generation with ANY replacement is very expensive, time consuming process. Gearing up 44,000 MW is going to be entertaining. Renewables are not going to be very feasible, as Japan doesn't have lots of cheap land for it. Funny enough, burning coal tends to release plenty of radiation.
There's no easy choice. Nuclear power requires a high level of attention to detail, fanatical safety protocols and serious long term planning. It's complicated by social bias against building safer nuclear power and international politics. Renewables just can't economically hack it, at the moment. I hope they do someday, but not today. The third, unliked but default opinion is fossil fuels. Germany can get away with closing their nuclear plants by buying French nuclear energy. Japan really doesn't have that option. MAYBE if South Korea ramps up their nuclear power program, but I'm not familiar with any extremely large scale submarine power lines. Not on this scale, not anywhere close.
Yes, the erections are held on need-only basis. You do it differently? ;-D
Nuclear power has an very low deaths per kWh, even when you include chernobyl, 3mile island and fukushima ( http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html ). chernobyl is a terrible design (as the coolant boils, the reaction goes faster. fail), nothing like that could happen in any modern (by which i mean anything made in last few decades).
Switching to any other form of power generation will cost lives.
From a environmental point of view, suppose japan can build enough wind and solar to replace nuclear (big job on the scale of a war effort), if they did that along side nuclear they would be reducing carbon emissions. if you do it instead of nuclear then you are standing still. Now take a look at this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and have a read of IPCC, and explain how we are going to not hit 400 ppm.
He missed the point of spelling "Nuclear" the correct American way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular
Similar thing applies in the Westminster system, it's up to the prime minister when to call the election, the only real limit is that it must be done before the end of their term. If parliament is gridlocked the queen (or her representative) can call an election to unclog things, such a scenario is called a double dissolution and AFAIK was last done here in Oz in the mid-70's when the governor general sacked the government because it's budget was rejected by the senate twice in a row.
That used to be the case until the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Now the Westminster parliament can only be dissolved early if there is a vote of no confidence (which is not reversed within 14 days) or with a 2/3 majority - which for practical purposes means the opposition would also have to support it.
People shouldn't be turning away from nuclear, they should be embracing it. One of the greatest discoveries in the last 100 years and people are shying away from it because of teething issues. Of course the teething issues left huge marks, but so do a lot of things of tremendous amounts of potential and power. Leaps and bounds have been made in the field too. Everyone wants to get back to the basics, but harnessing the atom still remains an extremely viable option, let alone what would happen if it went mainstream.
Stuff like this really makes me sad. It's made me sad ever since I learned about nuclear power and found out it was never widely used... It made me ask why. And so far, after all these years, the only reason I can come up with is fear.
to shut nuclear plants down at a "country" level.
Either you reduce (axe) your power hunger, or you buy electricity from another country.
Replacing that by natural resources (non renewable) would be overkilling for the health.
There's also the theoretical renewable energy solution. But the time and the investments needed would scare all politicians.
A solution at planetary level it's a different thing. Probably photo-voltaic plants in a few main deserts plus a planetary power grid could be enough.
But also this would scare all politicians!
So, forget it.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
A lot of countries have variable elections. Via mechanisms that trigger elections or due to elections having a window of time to be held rather than a fixed date.
Australia, for example (since it's the one I've voted in) House of Representative election (which determine who the Government is) must be held within three years of the first sitting, but it can be called early by the Government. It's a silly way of doing things, the current Government already has many advantages in elections also letting them call the election at a time they think is best for then only makes that worse.
And it also has some rules to trigger an election (with the Senate getting included as well) when the Senate won't pass legislation that the House does multiple times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution
So "could face an election this year" is always true for Australia, well until the last couple of days of November anyway (33 days is the minimum amount of time between the government calling an election and the day of voting) and in practice earlier than that since having an election around Christmas time would be a really good way to lose.
These nuclear-phobic countries will be out-competed by China.
We provided them with some of our nuclear technology in the 1940s, too.
Just changing business dress-code from heavy suites to shorts and t-shirts, business style certainly. Allowing people to dry clothings outdoors on special dryers.
All is needed is a development of a new modern business style fashion and outdoor driers which look esthetically acceptable. It seems to be doable and relatively law-cost tasks.
No, but if 30-40% of your electrical supply is based on the sun shining a tropical storm can kill people dependent on electricity.
Japan should go with Geothermal. There is plenty of hot rock very close to the surface south east of Tokyo. There are also good GT sites close to Nagoya and Osaka. There is enough to meet all of their electricity needs for centuries.
One drawback for GT is minor earthquakes, but Japan has so many of those already, that a few more shouldn't matter.
The plant took an earthquake *and* flooding, and yet still the radiation leakage into the surrounding area was negligable. Containment held, even if it did need a bit of improvised emergency cooling. That was on an old plant design - if it had been built to a more modern design, there would have been no need even for that. And yet if you watched the television coverage, it looked like Chenobyl II. There was more airtime given to that nuclear plant than to all the rest of Japan put together, so it is no surprise people were terrified. The media played-up the nuclear aspect, because nuclear means scarey and scarey means viewers. And viewers mean money.
That's because, it isn't true. I can tell, because that's where I am and once you look under the hood, most is propaganda and the second highest energy prices in Europe. (The trophy for the highest prices goes to Danemark, which used to poster-child of renewables through using wind energy before everyone started looking at Germany. But the competition is close and Germany might claim first place in the coming years.)
Unless Japan manages to scale back its energy demand, then I find it difficult to believe that there is anything that trumps nuclear in terms of energy production, especially given its geography. For me the focus should be on improving nuclear and making it safer. Heck, I am curious why we haven't managed to develop a good thermocouple instead of using nuclear powered steam engines?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Wile E Coyote failed to catch the road runner because he'd try one thing, it would fail, and then he'd try something else.
Some of his plans were good. Damn good. They just had maybe a one or two things that needed to be fixed about their execution. But instead of trying to improve them, he'd move onto something else that was completely different.
Yes, nuclear power can be disastrous, and Japan learned that the hard way. But that doesn't mean it isn't a good plan. Its execution just needs to be perfected. The advantages are too great to pass, especially for coal and oil.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
If anything, Fukushima has re-assured me. It kind of seems like it went "really wrong" - but nobody died, and according to the scientific evidence, no one *will* die from Fukushima radiation. What am I missing - how can it go "really wrong"?
It appears to me that the biggest threat to public health if something goes wrong at a nuclear plant, is people panicking and causing harm to themselves or others - self medicating on Potassium Iodide and overdosing themsevles or their children; getting into traffic accidents while trying to evacuate, etc.
Those are potentially real harms, but can be minimized by honest reporting by the media and sustained public education. Instead, the public is convinced that any release of radioactive isotopes from a nuclear plants is an end-of-the-world scenario, which it clearly is not.
Every morning, yes.
Has no one else been wondering why Germany is being seen as a utopia with all of the answers, recently?
No. Germany is a prosperous western nation. Germany has its budget deficit under control. Germany has its trade balance under control. Germany financial laws minimized exposure to toxic debt. As a result, the effects of collapse of the debt bubble in '07-08, the so-called financial crisis, were much more limited in Germany, amounting to a total bailout liability of only about 5.5% of GDP. The costs to other western nations was/is much higher.
Among the many effects of this is that Germany still has the luxury of indulging new social programs. It is also the go-to repository of wealth whenever one of the unproductive and misgoverned PIGS needs to be propped up which gives Germany a great deal of influence in the EU.
In my opinion Germany has all of these things for three basic reasons;
First, Germany has managed to keep its spending under control. There are many public benefits and a great deal of wealth redistribution in Germany, but the Germans don't tolerate large accumulations of debt; if the revenue of the German treasury can't fund it the dependents don't get it. That includes the medical system and the education system.
Second, Germany has an industrial policy that isn't subject to certain veto by pressure groups and their civil lawsuits. This means Germany can make choices, like replacing nuclear reactors with renewable, coal or anything else they decide to use and it doesn't get killed by some judge. This attracts capital.
Finally, Germany protects its domestic industry and workers from unrestrained competition with Asia. Trade unions, businesses and governments can all, independently, pursue importers in court to enforce Germany's sovereign trade laws, and they do so with high frequency. This all somehow happens without statist punditry crying 'oh noes trade war!' The result is Germany has a fully developed industrial base and workforce that is very attractive to capital.
Wealth is important. Germany has consistently sustained real wealth creation since the end of of the Second World War through hard nosed trade policy, credible industrial policy and sound fiscal governance. It doesn't surprise me that Germany has earned some respect.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
"Japan lies in one of the most seismically active areas of the world, at the junction of the Eurasian, Pacific, and Philippine Sea plates" link
AccountKiller
No, evely molning.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
But most of the times when the Japanese PM changed, it wasn't because of new elections; rather the governing party changed leaders, which resulted in a new PM, since the PM is the leader of the governing party.
And yes, I know about the mah-jongg manga and anime. Give it up for Super-Aryan Hitler!