Slashdot Mirror
Japan Has Restarted Five Nuclear Power Reactors In 2018 (oilvoice.com)
With Shikoku Electric Power Company's 890 megawatt (MW) Ikata-3 reactor, Japan has restarted a total of five nuclear reactors in 2018. "Japan had suspended its nuclear fleet in 2013 for mandatory safety checks and upgrades following the 2011 Fukushima accident, and before 2018 only four reactors had been restarted," reports OilVoice. From the report: Following the Fukushima accident, as each Japanese nuclear reactor entered its scheduled maintenance and refueling outage, it was not returned to operation. Between September 2013 and August 2015, Japan's entire reactor fleet was suspended from operation, leaving the country with no nuclear generation. Sendai Units 1 and 2, in Japan's Kagoshima Prefecture, were the first reactors to be restarted in August and October 2015, respectively.
The restart of Japan's nuclear power plants requires the approval of both Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) and the central government, as well as consent from the governments of local prefectures. In July 2013, the NRA issued more stringent safety regulations to address issues dealing with tsunamis and seismic events, complete loss of station power, and emergency preparedness. As part of Japan's long-term energy policy, issued in April 2014, the central government called for the nuclear share of total electricity generation to reach 20%-22% by 2030, which would require 25 to 30 reactors to be in operation by then. In 2017, four operating nuclear reactors provided 3% of Japan's total electricity generation.
The restart of Japan's nuclear power plants requires the approval of both Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) and the central government, as well as consent from the governments of local prefectures. In July 2013, the NRA issued more stringent safety regulations to address issues dealing with tsunamis and seismic events, complete loss of station power, and emergency preparedness. As part of Japan's long-term energy policy, issued in April 2014, the central government called for the nuclear share of total electricity generation to reach 20%-22% by 2030, which would require 25 to 30 reactors to be in operation by then. In 2017, four operating nuclear reactors provided 3% of Japan's total electricity generation.
Mostly coal.
Nope. In 2015 Japan was:
39% gas
34% coal
9% oil
8.4% hydro
~4.3% other renewables
0.9% nuclear
Data from the IEA: https://www.iea.org/statistics...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Only you are calling them "alternative energy", most people call it renewable energy.
Okay then, define "renewable energy" for me and then tell me how nuclear power does not fit that definition. Let me guess, wind and solar do not require mining fuel from the ground but instead rely on extracting the energy from natural processes that are never ending. Sound about right? Well, that's a nice definition but when wind and solar requires more than ten times the mining to get that energy that seems like a rather misleading definition. Take a look here at the material needed for wind and solar energy: http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2018/08/why-i-favor-nuclear-power.html
All the steel, copper, aluminum, and so on needed for the wires and structures for that wind and solar has to come from somewhere. Kind of like how we need a lot of steel and so on for nuclear power. Oh, and uranium too but that's actually a very small part of the equation since we can get so much energy from so little uranium.
If you believe that "renewable energy" means it's good for the environment then you are quite ignorant on how wind and solar power actually works. If you want to see an environmental disaster then let's get all our energy from wind and solar. People will be begging for something else as the mining needed will be tearing open the earth for the resources required to extract energy from with wind and sunshine.
Oh, and there's enough uranium and thorium in the ground for nuclear power to last well beyond when the sun strips Earth of its atmosphere. We will run out of wind and sun before we run out of nuclear fuel.
Only you are calling them "alternative energy", most people call it renewable energy.
Okay then, define "renewable energy" for me and then tell me how nuclear power does not fit that definition.
Nuclear power isn't renewable because the fuel is spent, it cannot be renewed. The clue is in the name. It's not a fossil fuel either. Even if your claim that there will still be plenty left when we're done was true it is irrelevant to the question.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I've been doing a lot of research and have found that most people make decisions about what they think of nuclear energy based on 10 common myths. Knowing the truth about Nuclear Energy leads to better decision-making from top to bottom.
10 Myths about Nuclear Energy:
# 1: Americans get most of their yearly radiation dose from nuclear power plants.
Truth: We are surrounded by naturally occurring radiation. Only 0.005% of the average Americanâ(TM)s yearly radiation dose comes from nuclear power; 100 times less than we get from coal [1], 200 times less than a cross-country flight, and about the same as eating 1 banana per year [2].
# 2: A nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb.
Truth: It is impossible for a reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon; these weapons contain very special materials in very particular configurations, neither of which are present in a nuclear reactor.
#3: Nuclear energy is bad for the environment.
Truth: Nuclear reactors emit no greenhouse gasses during operation. Over their full lifetimes, they result in comparable emissions to renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar [3]. Nuclear energy requires less land use than most other forms of energy.
# 4: Nuclear energy is not safe.
Truth: Nuclear energy is as safe or safer than any other form of energy available. No member of the public has ever been injured or killed in the entire 50-year history of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. In fact, recent studies have shown that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an office [4].
# 5: There is no solution for huge amounts of nuclear waste being generated.
Truth: All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this âoewasteâ can be recycled [5]. Used fuel is currently being safely stored. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent scientific advisory panels in every major country support geological disposal of such wastes as the preferred safe method for their ultimate disposal[6].
# 6: Most Americans donâ(TM)t support nuclear power.
Truth: In a survey conducted in September 2013, it was found that 82% of Americans feel nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the countryâ(TM)s future electricity needs, and half believe this importance will increase with time. In addition, 84% of respondents favor renewing operating licenses for nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards. Also, 77% believe that nuclear power plants operating in the United States are safe and secure, a four percentage point increase from last February[7].
# 7: An American âoeChernobylâ would kill thousands of people.
Truth: A Chernobyl-type accident could not have happened outside of the Soviet Union because this type of reactor was never built or operated here. The known fatalities during the Chernobyl accident were mostly emergency first responders [8]. Of the people known to have received a high radiation dose, the increase in cancer incidence is too small to measure due to other causes of cancer such as air pollution and tobacco use.
# 8: Nuclear waste cannot be safely transported.
Truth: Used fuel is being safely shipped by truck, rail, and cargo ship today. To date, thousands of shipments have been transported with no leaks or cracks of the specially-designed casks [9].
# 9: Used nuclear fuel is deadly for 10,000 years.
Truth: Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts [10]. Most of the waste from this process will require a storage time of less than 300 years. Finally, less than 1% is radioactive for 10,000 years. This portion is not much more radioactive than some things found in nature, and can be easily shielded to protect humans and wildlife.
# 10: Nuclear energy canâ(TM)t reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Truth: Nuclear-generated electri
Here's your citation: https://oilvoice.com/Opinion/2...
If Japan had enough wind and solar power to avoid the politically problematic decision of restarting their nuclear power plants then they'd have built solar panels instead. If Japan was willing to revert to a pre-industrial economy then they'd have not bothered to restart mothballed coal plants when they ordered all the nuclear power plants shut down.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
> Arguably, breeder reactors do renew the fuel.
They convert one resource ("fertile material") into fuel, but since that fertile material is itself not renewable the entire process isn't renewable.
Solar is considered renewable because there is an effectively unlimited supply of sunlight. Even if the sun is only expected to last another few billion years, that is a pretty solid prediction and is so far beyond the horizon it can safely be considered unlimited.
Wind and hydro are renewable because the air and water are not lost forever once they pass through the turbines.
Biofuels are renewable because once you burn them, the carbon that was released into the air can be recaptured by more plants and turned back into biofuel. Logistical issues aside, this is a closed-loop carbon cycle and thus renewable.
Nuclear is not renewable because once the fuel is spent, it's gone. There are some tricks to make new fuel, but there's no reasonable way to take all the waste and put it back into the system ad infinitum. Reprocessing spent fuel just removes contaminants and re-purifies the unused portion; it does not make new fuel from spent fuel.
=Smidge=
Seems like every post that makes a good point has a 1 score. Somebody doesn't like nuclear power here but they'd better get used to the idea.