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.
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
Nuclear power will be with us for a very long time in some form. I say this because of the 200 or so nuclear reactors in operation by the USA roughly half of them are operated by the US Navy.
It turns out that you can in fact put a nuclear power reactor just about anywhere you like, such as on about 70% of the world's surface. They do take years of planning and construction but so do a lot of things. I recall hearing that Boeing plans out their aircraft lines out to 30 years in the future. They hit the "Y2K bug" in 1970.
There is no modern navy in the world that will power their ships with wind and solar power. There's always stories that pop up every few months or so of some company or another that plans to have some cargo ships with sails on them. Greenpeace like to talk big about their boat, Rainbow Warrior, calling it a "sailing yacht". This boat does in fact have sails, and with them it can sail about 5 knots in a good wind. What they don't like to talk about is the 1800 HP diesel engine it has. For someone that likes to go about harassing oil rigs at sea they seem rather hypocritical for using so much of the products from those oil rigs to get there.
So, how are we to expect to get people and products over the sea unless it's by nuclear power or petroleum?
People like to point out how experiments with commercial shipping by nuclear power failed in the past. Well, that happens when oil prices takes a dive. Having organizations like Greenpeace harassing the crews and owners of these boats didn't help either. That's going to have to change if we find it politically or economically problematic for shipping to use oil.
Oh, let's not forget air travel. Even if someone developed some leap in electric aircraft technology tomorrow there's going to be 30 years before Boeing uses that technology in their airplanes.
You might think our electricity will come from wind, sun, and batteries but that's something like 1/3rd of the energy we use. About 1/3rd is transportation and the remaining 1/3rd is things like industry and heating. That's not going to be from wind and sun. That's going to be nuclear, coal, or natural gas. And, again, that will be true for at least 30 years if not hundreds of years.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest energy sources, as well as one of the safest. The fact that a modern industrialized nation like Japan realizes this, should be encouraging for those who care about the planet's climate and health.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
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 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.
And solar is just nuclear power with the reactor fueled at the beginning of the solar system (and yes, it will run out...eventually ;-p) and stored 150 gigameters away...
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Enslaved Pokemon forced to spin giant turbines.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well, after a wind tower reaches its end of life in 20, maybe 25 years, you can recycle the metals pretty easily. The plastics used to insulate wires, etc. not so much. Doubt much of a solar panel can be recycled, but I don't have any figures off the top of my head on their lifecycle, might not be as ultra short as wind towers, which are subject to lots of stress, with many parts needing to be as light as possible, forcing engineers into tough yield (of power) and longevity tradeoffs, and they're badly exposed to the elements. Solar cells, you ought to be able to seal them up pretty well, but I have no idea how much they're subject to degradation over time.
Nuclear, even from an optimist's perspective, seems to be an abjectly terrible idea for the more small scale/dispersed requirements. It's a pity; because some of its features are very attractive(radiothermal generators pretty much give you something that puts out the power of a decent size battery; except for several decades; all sorts of things that currently use a beefy diesel engine or generator are large enough to make use of a nuclear reactor without heroic minaturization efforts); but the more widely you distribute something the more often the owner is negligent or incompetent and doesn't really do things like 'maintenance' or 'disposal' properly.
The soviet use of radiothermal generators gave us a bunch of (not well sealed) Strontium 90 sources floating around, not necessarily even documented in the worse cases; use in commercial shipping would likely end up with a bunch of reactors ending up in one of the hellholes where shipbreaking is cheap because regulations are thin and workers largely expendable.
It's much easier to get adequate standards for operational competence when you have fewer specialist operators; but that rules out a lot of distributed applications. As it is, isotope sealed sources with assorted medical, industrial, and scientific applications already go missing all the time; increasing the number(and power) of those things being used out and about seems likely to go poorly.
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.
> 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.