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.
What is the other 80% of electrical generation?
Mostly coal.
It seems like if the "fleet" was shutdown and all the generation was lost for 3+ years, why did they need to start turning them on now?
Because importing all that coal to make up for the lost nuclear electrical generation capacity was costing a lot of money, producing a lot of pollution, and alternatives are far more expensive.
I remember something of a joke I was once told... Do you know what a physician calls "alternative medicine" that works? Medicine.
That's what I think of when people tell me we need more "alternative energy". If "alternative energy" worked then we'd just call it "energy".
I'll believe wind and solar energy can compete with nuclear power when people no longer refer to them as "alternative energy".
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Japan doesn't have enough sun and wind to run an industrial economy, and neither does it buy into the Green dream of devolving the economy into primitive foraging tribes. While its nuclear plants were down, it even has to import coal for the interim mothballed power plants.
Most importantly, Japan doesn't have western defeatism. When a problem comes up, it gets worked on and solved.
Only you are calling them "alternative energy", most people call it renewable energy.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The military doesn't need commercial liability insurance. That alone makes commercial nuclear shipping uneconomical. It's actually kind of perverse, it's cheaper to use polluting diesel than to insure against the risk of a nuclear shipping accident.
The Navy model can't be applied to commercial ships. The Navy has an endless supply of well trained people to monitor the reactors, people who are largely immune to cost considerations. The supply and maintenance contracts are gold plated.
For shipping we might look at hydrogen for fuel. At least we can make that cleanly.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Only if your country is run by idiots. For one thing, you shouldn't be storing it, you should be recycling it, remove the neutron poisons, recover the unused uranium and the plutonium which was incidentally bred during operation (although I'm not sure how much you can usefully include in new fuel due to the isotope that's thermally hot). What's left over is quite small in volume, and then you have to wait a maximum of 600 years before it's no more radioactive than the ore from which is was mined.
That fusion reactor may be 150 gigameters away, but it's still a safety hazard! You can't even look at it directly without putting your eyes at risk, not to mention the cancer it causes.
True, they tend to call it "renewables", because if they just pushed for "clean" energy, that would include nuclear, and since we all know nuclear power is the ultimate evil anything that might encourage it's use is Bad and Wrong... Green activists that would rather see increases in Greenhouse Gas Emissions are one of the psychological puzzles of the modern world...