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
> 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.