Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Japan's New Government Restart the Nuclear Power Program?

Posted by samzenpus on from the back-in-business dept.

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."

34 of 177 comments (clear)

  1. Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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).

    1. Re:Hopefully by kav2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except when they DO melt down, it can be catastrophic in terms of consequences.

      Both Chernobyl and Fukushima resulted in an uninhabitable zone that will take decades to clean up, if that is at all possible, and long-lasting effects on the ecosystem.

      Japan has no territory to spare for exclusion zones.

    2. Re:Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Not to mention this is one of Japan's only real options. They have one of the highest domestic consumptions of energy per capita in the world, and have no real domestic resources. Their options are nuclear power, with Uranium imported from Australia, or coal imported from either China or the US, or natural gas imported from the Middle East. Their oil is mostly imported from the Middle East (about 90%). As the world's third biggest economy and with a huge electricity and energy demand, between those options nuclear energy with Australian imports is the safest economically and politically.

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

      Yes, Coal's constant spewing of fly ash, carbon dioxide, and various other assorted chemicals like mercury and thorium, into the atmosphere in which we breath is a much better alternative than having a relatively small exclusion zone from a disaster every forty years (Chernobyl was the only other one to require such an effort).

      And the newer reactors at Fukushima Daichi, the ones built with a few added safety features... not a single one of those failed. Just the old, poorly designed reactors 1, 2, and 3. 4, 5, and 6 shut down just fine. But that's a reason to condemn the newer, safer designs too. Because nobody learns anything from past failures.

      And let's totally ignore that not a single person died from the meltdown. Nevermind the ever increasing death toll from the pollution coal plants cause. We should totally shut down all nuclear plants.

      (For the sarcasm impaired, the previous was entirely sarcasm.)

    4. Re:Hopefully by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it's telling that even counting Chernobyl, the deaths per terawatt hour for nuclear is the lowest there is.

      If you look at civilian nuclear power, it's a good sign that it took 40+ years of civilian nuclear power for there to be a plant that released anything more than a few bananas' worth of contamination outside the plant boundary. (Yes, you'd receive more radiation eating a banana a day for a year than you would have at the TMI plant boundary.) Even then, for the first significant civilian contamination incident to happen, it required a massive natural disaster that killed *25,000 people within days*.

      (As to why I say 40+ years - While the Soviets claim that Chernobyl was a "civilian" reactor, in my opinion a graphite-moderated water-cooled reactor can't be considered civilian. Its safety was fundamentally compromised by its weapons-friendly design.)

      Chernobyl was not an accident - it was an act of gross negligence compounded with compromises in safety done to allow the reactor to be used for weapons production if desired. (Reactors with a positive void coefficient have never been legal in the USA to my knowledge.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    5. Re:Hopefully by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comparing Fukishima to Chernobyl is ridiculous. Chernobyl basically had no safety systems, was operated in the worst way possible, and the disaster and following cleanup were done in such a way that it would be hard to conceive of a worse outcome. The amount of radiation released in the 1st second of Chernobyls overload that lead to the eventual meltdown (and killed everyone operating it at the time) released more radiation by several orders of magnitude than the entire failure at Fukishima.

      And Modern reactors CAN NOT melt down. It's physically impossible. But we're not building those due to the lobbying efforts of environmental groups. What should be done is a thorough review of existing reactor designs, and the government should fund upgrades or replacements of these older, more dangerous reactors. We then need to move on to more stable, efficient and reliable reactors.

      Our next step is space based solar arrays. But those are at least 50 years off. So we need nuclear for now.

    6. Re:Hopefully by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Not to mention this is one of Japan's only real options. They have one of the highest domestic consumptions of energy per capita in the world, and have no real domestic resources. Their options are nuclear power, with Uranium imported from Australia, or coal imported from either China or the US, or natural gas imported from the Middle East. Their oil is mostly imported from the Middle East (about 90%). As the world's third biggest economy and with a huge electricity and energy demand, between those options nuclear energy with Australian imports is the safest economically and politically.

      At the end of the day this is exactly why Japan will be forced back to Nuclear power.

      They simply don't have the land mass for solar solar generation, and until every roof can be economically covered with solar panels its not going to fly.
      Wind power totaling over 2300 MW is currently installed, out of the national total of 282 GW of total installed electricity generating capacity.

      Still, Japan produces most of its power from Thermal/Fossil plants.
      Since virtually every bit of this is imported, it represents a huge drain on the economy.

      I doubt Japan can afford to do anything but return to nuclear power, perhaps after significant re-engineering.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:Hopefully by bobbied · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if you added up all the land which is now unusable from mining coal and disposing ash if you would get anywhere close to the size of the exclusion zones...

      I'm thinking that Necular power has even less impact per terawatt hour in land use too..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Hopefully by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But we're not building those due to the lobbying efforts of environmental groups.

      That's an interesting perspective. We're not building them because no one is even applying to build them, and the industry has made clear that it isn't interested in building or operating additional reactors without even more insulation from any responsibility for disasters than they already have. The lobbying effects of environmental groups are relevant insofar as environmental groups are sometimes among the groups opposing the increased socialized risk to support private profit that such additional liability shields involve.

    9. Re:Hopefully by fireylord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Comparing Fukishima to Chernobyl is ridiculous. Chernobyl basically had no safety systems,

      Incorrect. They had safety systems, sadly they were all disabled for the purpose of running the test that led directly to the disaster. The big design flaw at Chernobyl was the large positive void coefficient. Bad idea, made even worse by not explaining this to the technicians running the plant, nor (from what i understand) what a void coefficient was.

    10. Re:Hopefully by Rising+Ape · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't know where you live but that isn't allowed in western Europe. We require our coal plants to be reasonably clean and any new ones will have carbon capture built in.

      Hardly - the scrubbers may filter out *most* of the pollutants, but not all by a long way. As for carbon capture - that's still limited to a tiny number of small scale test projects at the moment. None of the planned coal plants in Germany will have it, for example.

    11. Re:Hopefully by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just coal. Hydroelectric dams create a large reservoir behind them, making that land unusable. China had to permanently relocate 1.3 million people to build Three Gorges Dam. And ice throws from wind turbines are now recognized as a hazard, with a recommended setback distance of 1.5x(D+H), or about a quarter kilometer radius for a standard GE 1.5 MW turbine (80-100 meters high, 77-82.5 m diameter blades). Figure the exclusion zone front/back is one-fifth that (eyeballing the diagrams), for a total of 0.5*.05 = 0.025 km^2 per turbine. Nuclear's capacity factor is about 0.9, so the 4700 MW Fukushima plant generated on average 4230 MW. To match that with wind at a (optimistic) capacity factor of 0.25, you'd need 16920 MW nameplate capacity, or 11280 of the 1.5 MW turbines. That works out to 282 km^2 of unusable land (well you might be able to farm on it provided the insurance company was ok with the liability to the farmer). Yes Fukushima's evacuation zone is bigger, but that was only after an accident. The exclusion zone around a turbine in ice-prone climates would be unavoidable and permanent as long as the turbine is there.

      Everything has its drawbacks. The moment you start comparing assuming one of the choices has no drawbacks, you're doing it wrong.

    12. Re:Hopefully by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      And Modern reactors CAN NOT melt down.

      Famous last words.

      Our next step is space based solar arrays. But those are at least 50 years off.

      You know Scotland is on target to produce 200% as much energy as it requires, and that half of that will be renewable, by 2020, right?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The issue isn't insulation from responsibility for disasters. The industry wants loan guarantees so they can borrow money at a reasonable rate to fund construction. Chernobyl and Three Mile island didn't kill nuclear power in the US. Shoreham did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant). Investors built a nuclear power plant that they could never operate because the governor refused to approve the evacuation plan. You're never going to be able to borrow billions of dollars at a reasonable interest rate for a project that might be killed at the last minute by political pressure from the uninformed.

    14. Re:Hopefully by tp1024 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. Units 7 and 8 had not been build. Unit 5 and 6 were offline for refuelling. Unit 6 was the only one having a surviving emergency diesel generator. Which wasn't luck. It was a Mark II containment, the same that was used in all four reactors of Fukushima Daini (all with the same generator surviving the tsunami) and the single reactor in Tokai (dito).

    15. Re:Hopefully by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      I don't know where you live but that isn't allowed in western Europe. We require our coal plants to be reasonably clean and any new ones will have carbon capture built in.

      The Chinese don't. And the Chinese are much more numerous than us Europeans. I'm willing to venture a guess that all this crap will eventually spread to you no matter where you live.

      It seems odd that many on Slashdot seem to think that somehow we are capable of keeping all the dangerous radioactive stuff in and dispose of it safely, but are totally unable to control emissions from coal plants in the slightest.

      It's not odd, it's a matter of volume.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Hopefully by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Japan also has no alternative source of energy that isn't extremely dependent on imports from unstable regions. They basically either invest massively into coal, including coal imports, or they restart nuclear. They simply have no alternatives, as they are indeed a small island for the population they have.

      They still have serious problems with power to this day because of nuclear shut downs.

    17. Re:Hopefully by greg_barton · · Score: 2

      The design the grandparent post refers to is no doubt the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Note the word "liquid." It's already running in a melted state, so can't melt down.

    18. Re:Hopefully by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody is bothering to apply because they know that enviros will make it their mission in life to make the project unfeasible - economically, socially, and if necessary at the homes of the officials involved. There is a religious fervor that exists, opposition to nuclear power has a long and storied history. There are people who would love to relive their youth and teach a new generation the joys of thwarting new technology.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    19. Re:Hopefully by nojayuk · · Score: 2

      They're burning coal, natural gas, oil and garbage to generate electricity. They've recommissioned a bunch of older mothballed thermal power stations, the ones with inadequate pollution controls in the main.

    20. Re:Hopefully by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      It's obvious if you think about it for a second:

      Nuclear reactor: Big steel container that's mostly isolated from the outside world, with a concrete strucutre around it if something goes FUBAR.

      Coal plant: Big furnace that burns shit someone dug out of the ground (and will probably get cancer from said activity) and dumps the products into the atmosphere.

      Guess which one is designed not to let crap out.

  2. LDP back in the driver seat by Guspaz · · Score: 2

    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...

  3. Nuclear Power is the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nuclear Power is the Future by alexander_686 · · Score: 2

      It’s not more engineering per say that is needed.

      You have 2 trends. On one side there is a lot of energy expended into theoretical safeguards to appease the NIMBYs who – by definition – can never be appeased. On the other hand there engineers who, though the use of theory, think they can make safe proof designs.

      The end results are very expensive bespoke nuclear power plants. Because of this customization, lessons learned at one plant can’t be translated to the next plat. What society needs is a frank discussion of what we want and the risks we are willing to take. Roll out a dozen plants and figure out what works and what does not – and apply those practical lessons (as well as any ideas that theory has) and build the next dozen.

      The Economist did a good special report earlier this year. Here is the first of 6 articles.
      http://www.economist.com/node/21549098

  4. The problem isn't technological; it's cultural by drdread66 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. I hope so by JosephTX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:huh? by harmony7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    To give some context for those of you not in Japan: There were 15 political parties in this election. Out of 480 seats in the lower house, LDP won 294 seats. The party that came in second (the DPJ) won 57 seats, and the party that came in third won 54 seats. This huge difference is probably why the expression "landslide" was used.

    The LDP does not yet control the upper house. In Japan, legislation generally must pass in both houses. To overrule decisions made by the upper house, 2/3 of the lower house, or 320 votes are needed, which is the reason for the coalition.

  7. Waste Disposal by SirGarlon · · Score: 2

    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.
  8. nuclear power is too expensive when done safely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  9. They would be crazy to NOT restart it by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    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.
  10. Well... depends by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. Wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  12. It's not cultural, it's human by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

  13. What what? by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2

    Japan chained Godzilla to a treadmill.

    Once he gets tired, MechaGodzilla will take a turn.

    Then Mothra

    Then back to Godzilla.

    --
    Yeah, right.