Slashdot Mirror
Will Japan's New Government Restart the Nuclear Power Program?
An anonymous reader writes in with a story about speculation that Japan might restart its nuclear power program. "Japan's newly-elected Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), a strong supporter of atomic energy use in the past, should restart plants shut after the world's worst nuclear crisis in 25 years, said the CEO of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd .
The LDP, headed by Japan's next prime minister Shinzo Abe, won a landslide victory on Sunday, fueling speculation that the new coalition government would take a softer stance on nuclear power. Public opinion remains divided on the role of atomic energy after natural disasters last year triggered a radiation crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant."
There are roughly 850 nuclear reactors in the world and so far only 3 have melted down. I don't see any reason for an overreaction because one plant turns to shit. It's a decent and clean way to power a nation in terms of pollutants and in terms of climate change (CO2).
It's worth noting that the LDP has been in control of Japan for roughly 53 of the past 57 years. There is obviously a pretty high tolerance for what they do to keep getting re-elected when they've formed the government in the Diet except for two segments...
It depends. Will hey subsidize new plants ? If not: they won't be build. Nuclear power is very expensive.
Real catgirls and in-house vocaloid personal assistants are in demand.
Nuclear power doesn't have to be inherently unsafe - it's simply a question of improving the engineering until the requisite safety threshold is met. Even solar panels are capable of killing lots of bugs and birds, which are fooled by their shine into thinking they're landing on "water". Even wind turbines also kill birds. No technology is absolutely perfect, but nuclear power has more scope to improve through better engineering. The Fukushima plant was old, and wasn't built to modern standards. Others should not be deterred from moving towards nuclear power in the future, just because of the failures of older-generation technology, and we should keep trying to improve the engineering. Nuclear power will help us move out into space.
Our Keiretsu had paid tremendous amount of Yen to y'all politician scumbags for favourable Nuclear plant contracts.
We want our fair share.
"...won a landslide victory on Sunday, fueling speculation that the new coalition government..."
How do you win a landslide, but still be forced to form a coalition government?
If this were almost anywhere else in the world, it would be an unconditional "Yes." Germany and a few other countries have been lucky enough to have access to enough alternative energy sources (believe it or not, wind, unlike air, isn't plentiful everywhere) to be close to, if not having already completed, going nuclear free. But Japan is small and it's population density very high. There just isn't enough land for solar or wind. That leaves only two alternatives for base load plants: Coal and nuclear. Coal is not a resource Japan has natively. It would have to depend on imports. Uranium however, can be sucked out of ocean water, albeit not very practical especially in light of their relationship with the US and other countries with stockpiles of uranium.
The only reason I think Japan might not return to nuclear power is because it's the only country to have been hit with nuclear weapons. It has left scars on the public's psyche that no other country really has to contend with. But yeah, any other country with such a high population density and limited land mass I don't see switching off their nuclear power plants no matter how unpopular they are. Those coal plants pump out way more radiation and smoke and other nastiness, and finding a place to locate it in such a densely populated region becomes very problematic.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Japan should focus on its robotic programme or the development of high tech worker protection clothes or nuclear diagnosis tools. These were the largest international embarassments of Japan during the Fukushima crisis. In the 80ths you expected Japan to come up with flying cars and nano technology wonders. Meanwhile Germany does the switch to renewables.
Nuclear power is one of the safest forms of energy if you look at the numbers. Unless every country bans nuclear power, countries that ban it will likely reconsider their decisions, because it's the only viable solution we have for the next decades.
Germany imports power from nuclear power producing countries. Once the German public decides that the price of power is becoming too high, what do you think is going to happen?
Not using nuclear power helps the tree huggers mental state, but using nuclear power helps the actual environment; less mining destruction, better air quality, less nuclear radiation, and so on.
All of these claims are subject to actually managing a plant based on common sense, years of experience in running these plants safely, and building them such that there is no problem when the power goes down for whatever reason and in the case of Japan, reinforcing them for known disasters.
France is an example of a country which has a lot of experience in managing nuclear power and as such has low energy prices, which in turn is good for their economy. Nothing but good things can come from investing more in nuclear power.
The thing that worries folks in Japan is not the suitability of the engineering or the technology in general. The problem is the Japanese culture of silence, cover-up and cronyism. When you're faced with something potentially as disastrous as a nuclear plant meltdown, you want to have reasonable assurance that the government is actually *regulating* the plant operators, not participating the in cover-ups and denials that problems exist.
Nuclear power actually has a pretty good safety record, except when plant operators do something patently stupid (Chernobyl), criminally stupid (Fukushima), or just plain make a mistake (Three Mile Island). So what you really want is to know that the government is looking out for the public's best interests, and not allowing plant operators to do stupid things...but in today's Japan, that's not what happens.
Can the LDP change that culture? Probably not, because frankly they have been in control of Japan for most of a really long time. They *are* the problem, in many ways. If you're a Japanese citizen, the LDP wanting to re-start Japan's nuclear plants probably doesn't sound so great to you.
It's worth noting that the massive earthquake needed to disable that nuclear plant also caused several oil refineries to outright explode. And the nuclear "disaster" was also largely overblown; none of the cleanup crew working INSIDE the plant has shown any sign of health issues, and the evacuation was a safety precaution that American "news" networks squawked at and circled like vultures and sensationalized into the start of the zombie apocalypse (4 days away, btw).
Even if nuclear energy WAS as terrible and evil as some people (i.e. oil companies and the people they fool) like to say, no amount of nuclear radiation in a few concentrated waste areas would be anywhere near as ecologically disastrous as the worldwide effect that CO2 emissions given off by oil and gas.
So I seriously hope the LDP restarts Japan's nuclear program. Closing it in favor of importing oil was one of the biggest environmental crimes in history.
As I understand it, the only solution to climate change is nuclear power:
1) Demand for power will increase dramatically no matter what we do. As middle classes explode in developing nations (India, China, Brazil, etc.), they will want the same benefits of energy that people in developed nations have. People in developed nations can't insist that others live with less while we liberally burn coal, gas, and oil to fuel our lifestyles.
2) The only technology that can meet power demands soon enough without causing climate change is nuclear. Wind/solar/etc simply don't have the technology, infrastructure, etc. to come online soon enough.
Yes, some people will die from nuclear accidents, but far more will die from climate change.
We can just assume any promises to just ditch all nuclear power to be hot air.
Contrary to Betteridge's Law, TFA says two reactors have already been restarted.
What it does not say is how Japan manages waste disposal from its reactors. In the US disposal is a big deal, politically, and we don't have a permanent solution. Does anyone know what Japan does with its nuclear waste?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Example: new 1600 MW power plant in France: latest estimated build cost: 8.000.000.000 Euros (form original 3.3B). It should have been up and running by now, but they are nowhere near that, 2016 is an optimistic estimate.
Due to the huge investment cost and long build times, there is substantial interest cost. Add to that the hight maintenance, and operational cost, and 10% downtime, and you are looking at more than 16 Bilion Euros total cost over any reasonable timeline.
16.000.000.000 Euros / (1600.000 kW * 24 hour * 356.25 days * 4 cents) = 28.5 years (excluding build time!)
So form the construction start, it takes about 40 years to break even. If cheap solar makes wholesale electricity prices drop an extra cent over the next decade, a nuclear power station may never break even at all. Even if you don't mind living next to one, would you invest in it?
Japan should focus on its robotic programme or the development of high tech worker protection clothes or nuclear diagnosis tools.
These were the largest international embarassments of Japan during the Fukushima crisis. In the 80ths you expected Japan to come up with flying cars and nano technology wonders.
Meanwhile Germany does the switch to renewables. Warning: PDF File
Fixed that for you.
Other power plants would have simply been washed away, leaving Japan without electricity. But most nuclear plants were strong enough to withstand the extreme conditions and can be restarted once the Japanese grow tired of the blackouts.
But instead of re-certifying decades old plants with iffy designs how about building new ones with better safety features? Job creation too.
It's like they've never heard of Godzilla!
I'm glad I diverted my energy stocks toward the Unicorn replication industry.
I agree with what you say, that developing solar and wind and hydro power can't keep up with the rate of growing demand. However, this article from last year's IEEE magazine points out there is enough renewable energy to meet the world's needs.
So, with enough discipline and forethought, one could use nuclear power as a transitional step away from fossil fuels, and later replace nuclear plants with wind and solar as they age and need to be decommissioned.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
What is needed is to replace all of those old reactors with new safe ones that will burn the majority of the 'waste'. Either GE PRISM or a new Thorium reactors would be smart for them. Regardless, they should be small produced in factories, rather than monsters produced on-site. And new tighter regs need to be put in place.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
People who use computers with a real OS in 2012 do not need warnings about PDF files.
Do you need warnings about links to JPEG files too?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
So, with enough discipline and forethought, one could use nuclear power as a transitional step away from fossil fuels, and later replace nuclear plants with wind and solar as they age and need to be decommissioned.
I'm not so sure we are going to ever totally replace them in this progression. Renewable sources are not usually very reliable. If the wind doesn't blow, windmills are useless. Or if it's midnight, there is nothing a solar plant can do for your power consumption needs.
What we need is a market based 'all of the above" solution.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The LDP has indeed been in the driving seat for a LONG time. Both during the rise AND fall of Japan in fact. The reason they got kicked out was NOT because people really liked the alternative but because they were fucking sick of the LDP. Same as Labour with Blair got back after the Brits were totally fed up with Tory sleeze and to an extent even how Obama was elected because he was not Bush.
And then it turned out the new guys couldn't fix a decade and longer of mis management and the honey moon ended. So... to punish the new guy for not instantly fixing the world, lets elect the old guys, that will show that new guy! Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.
The LDP are the guys who created Fukushima, not the accident but the corruption surrounding it. This is the party that wants to take a though line over China, despite the fact that all the meaningless rhetoric is hurting the already fragile Japanese economy because the Chinese are no longer buying Japanese. This is the party that tried to spend its way out of the depression with endless borrowing and countless construction projects to nowhere. It is recognized by respectable economists that cutting all spending isn't a good way to fight a recession but uncontrolled spending doesn't work either.
These guys made a mess of Japan, do you really think they learned their lesson? I doubt it. Japan should stop antagonizing an enemy that has good reason to hate their guts while reminding all other "western" asian countries they got a common enemy (South Korea doesn't like to reminded of WW2 Japan anymore then China does. Neither does India for that matter. Don't forget that where the Germans have spend their time since WW2 mostly apologizing (although not actually to the point of prosecuting their war criminals until they are likely to drop dead before the trial) the Japanese have not. Japan has no good will in the area, just a failing economy and US backing. They are tolerated, not loved. And nobody wants to see Japan get imperialistic ideas again.
No, electing the LDP is a stupid move by the Japanese voter. These guys only know how to spend, create cartels and antagonize their far more powerful neighbours and stop them from buying Japanese exports.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
How is this different than any other environmental disaster? Are you aware that huge swaths of land have been rendered uninhabitable by mining and other industrial operations? That spills caused by oil drilling have residual environmental impacts decades after cleanup? If an uninhabitable zone is your concern, what about the huge swaths of land consumed by hydro-electric, solar, and wind power?
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/Issues/AlaskaCoal/CoalMineReclamation.html
Actually, it is cheap. The real problem is that these are built wrong. They continue to build on-site monsters with one-off software and equipment. Worse, they are doing LWRs, which require loads of active safety.
BUT, by building small thorium reactors, these can be built SAFELY, and cheaply. And if we did these, I WOULD invest into them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... they will restart, as they have learned or understood nothing. Nuclear is expensive, when when you do not take long-term waste storage or catastrophes into account.
As to all the techophiles here: What kind of fuel do you think we are going to use to explore this solar system? Fusion is looking worse every year. And fission? Forget it, there is not that much Uranium available in the first place. And it is being wasted for generating electricity where perfectly good alternatives are available. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The problem isn't limited to Japan, nor is it limited to nuclear power. It's human nature to overemphasize large high-impact events, while overlooking small low-impact events. Even when cumulatively the low-impact events have a greater effect than the high-impact event. Wind power killed more people than nuclear power last year (mostly falling deaths of maintenance workers), despite generating about 1/10th the power of nuclear and the second-worst nuclear accident in history happening that year. The difference is that each wind-caused death only made the local news, while Fukushima made global news. (Don't even get me started on how many people are killed by the pollution spewing out of coal plants.)
Same thing happens with a mass shooting. The average of over 30 homicides a day by guns in the U.S. is not enough to stoke a debate about gun control, but if 26 of them happen in one place it is. How does that make any sense? Or with plane crashes. About 100 people are killed per year in the U.S. in commercial airliner accidents, and after each crash we have criticism of how the system failed, and we have to make air travel safer. Yet 40,000 people are killed in car accidents a year in the U.S. and nobody questions automobile or traffic safety.
It's just how we are wired, and we need to start recognizing and addressing this flaw in human nature. We have to stop making policy based on anecdotes and emotional response to large statistical outliers. We need to be making it based on averages and overall trends. (Or I guess you could just give up and exploit it, like states do with lotteries. Millions of people losing a few bucks is glossed over, while the though of being the one person who wins millions prevails and overrides our better judgement. So they've enshrined a system which is negative sum and thus destroys productivity into state law.)
How many tons of CO2 are being released needlessly every day these reactors are off line?
who wants to restart reactors in a country they don't even live in need to STFU. You have no skin in this game.
It's worth noting that by "landslide" you mean they got 28% of the votes, with support of 17% of eligible voters, and actually received somewhat fewer votes than in their disaster election three years ago. A mandate it is not.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Not really a "new prime minister", since he already took the job 5 years ago.
Japan chained Godzilla to a treadmill.
Once he gets tired, MechaGodzilla will take a turn.
Then Mothra
Then back to Godzilla.
Yeah, right.
I don't understand why the government can't just turn the electricity off for 3 days a week.
More importantly, what will the world do to stop this aggressive power from it's nuclear ambitions that are obviously in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Oh wait I thought we were talking about Iran here.
It stopped when they stopped building reactors - it's just the long tail down until the things get too expensive to maintain. A "nuclear power program" is about making progress towards effective nuclear power generation capacity and they gave up on that years ago, instead just keeping what they have running until it wears out.
With so little money going into R&D and the people involved in building the previous generation of reactors long gone into other jobs it's not going to happen without some sort of Apollo project moment to direct enough resources to get their nuclear energy industry going again. At least they have more chance than the USA though, where vested interests pushing hard for TMI painted green and paid for by the taxpayer are solidily getting in the way or kneecapping any chance of progress with civilian nuclear.
The difference, of course, is that if you tear a wind turbine down, drain a dam, or cart solar cells away the land can be used for something else immediately, whereas land around Fukushima and Chernobyl is pretty much ruined for the foreseeable future.
The only technology that can meet power demands soon enough without causing climate change is technology of NO.
NO, we will NOT bow to your irrational power demands. You are NOT entitled to get ever more energy and toys each year. NO, you can't have more energy, because there is NO more of it. Suck it up and learn to live frugally and responsibly.
The fact is, that just like the last 60 years, nuke power will continue to be a part of the world's power matrix. However, the problem that America made WRT fossil fuel, is that we allowed it to dominate everything. Instead, we need a VERY diversified energy matrix. That means ALL of the AE (geo-thermal, wind, solar, etc), COMBINED with nukes COMBINED with say CH4 make sense. Somewhere down the road, we can drop CH4 and move to H2. However, our tech is not there for that. OTOH, we have plenty of CH4 here in America and should use it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Everybody is reactionary. Shooting at schools, we demand gun control. Nuclear meltdown after worst natural disaster to hit area, we demand shutting down the reactors.
So the problem here is Japan's insatiable need for energy vs the alternatives to nuclear power, and quite frankly the alternatives do not stack up.
Everybody wants solar power, and wind power, and power from fluffy rabbits nibbling on carrots, and all other kinds of nice Utopian ideas that make use sleep well at night. Hell, why not just tap into Gaia for all our energy needs. But these alternatives do not produce the amount of power required to power cities and nations, period.
The only thing I could hope for out of Japan's nuclear crisis is that if a nation of highly technological perfectionists started focusing on alternative energy, maybe, just maybe, they could find viable solutions for alternative energy to ween themselves off of fossil or nuclear energy that the rest of us could use eventually.
But, in the short term, they need the energy and nuclear energy is just too far attractive a source of real amounts of energy spite of all their woes.
Every person that says to just switch to solar or wind or other green energies is clueless of the amount of energy required for cities and nations. Every person claiming that using nuclear energy is about greed and contempt for human safety is being sensational and reactionary. The only viable short term solution to avoid nuclear energy is to burn fossil fuels and so not turning them back on will cause greater global damage then the potential of having them on.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Make them stop killing whales and dolphins. Everything they do is selfish and reckless