environment

Nuclear power industry vies for bigger role in decarbonizing planet

10 Comments
By Richard Valdmanis, Sarah McFarlane and Valerie Volcovici

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


10 Comments
Login to comment

Having failed to do enough soon enough we now seem to have few options but to ramp up nuclear power. Now it could be get boiled soon or get irradiated later. It need not have been this way. This is the lesson for humanity: we are incapable of taking a long-term view and greed and capitalism simply exaggerate that failing.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Nuclear is a huge money loser and of course contributes spectacularly to radioactivity on occasion.. Japan will never finish paying for Fukushima. Thanks to Tepco and all the LDP corrupted pols who supported this

man made nuclear disaster.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Nuclear is definitely the wrong way to go!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Only way to go if we are serious about reducing emissions. Other options not viable for constant load bearing and carbon kills way more people than nukes ever have,

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"When you talk about nuclear, you're talking about a confirmed energy producer which is not part of the problem, but rather part of the solution," IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi told Reuters in an interview.

"You will see that that nuclear energy has a really solid, very consistent safety record," he added.

Come on Mr Grossi, just coz you say it does, doesn’t change reality!

Chernobyl, Russia

Long Island, New York

Sellafield, UK

Fukui, Japan

Ibaraki, Japan (2)

Kyshtym, Russia

Nuclear testing fallout

etc etc

And how many more that have also been hushed up?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nuclear Energy is like magic! You can run a massive ship for 30+ years without refueling!

One single bomb can destroy cities.

Nuclear power plants can run for 60+ years safely and clean. New generation Reactors are becoming more safe, easier to maintain! Fukushima Reactor was very old! Ready to retire! Hit by massive 9 Earthquake and Giant Tsunami!

Nuclear, especially for Japan! Is necessary and needed! ! !

We don't have natural resources, not enough land, island nation!

You can't run a major economy with the lights off! ! !

Japanese companies are suffering, some are going out of business. Our citizens will freeze in the winter!

I've been talking about some of this issues for over a decade! LDP needs to do more, be ahead of the curb, instead of reacting when it happens!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

At this point in our energy development, there are better alternatives to burning coal for energy, but we still need to use nuclear energy and natural gas.

The goal should be to eventually stop using CO2 emitting natural gas plants, and to phase out nuclear power plants, but that time has not yet arrived. Maybe in a few decades we will be able to approach a scenario where almost all of our energy is produced with clean, and thoroughly safe, energy. In the meantime, we have to use what we have to use.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I don't see a long term alternative to nuclear power to replace fossil fueled power plants to provide the baseload for power grids. Batteries will not get a grid through a winter night much less power some Nordic nations where there is no sunlight for weeks on end. Opportunities to use pumped hydropower are geographically limited and dams have their own set of environmental drawbacks. Wind and solar power are not available all day and all night, every day and every night. What will power a city on a stinking hot, humid windless summer night? Until fusion power is technically possible I see no good alternatives to nuclear power that are non-polluting. The French model of nuclear power that makes full use of the fuel cycle and thus generates the bare minimum of waste has much to recommend.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@kurisupisu, a list of fatal dam failures would require many pages. Dam failures have killed many thousands over the past two centuries. The 1975 Banqiao Reservoir Dam Failure killed an estimated 171,000 people. The 1979 Machchhu dam failure killed between 1,800 to 25,00 depending on the estimate. The 1889 South Fork Dam failure in Pennsylvania killed over 2,200 people. About 1,900 were killed when a huge landslide caused by water in the reservoir loosened an ancient landslide and the volume of material overtopped Vajont Dam in Italy with a wall of water 100 meters tall. The dam itself did not fail and stand to this day but the reservoir was almost completely filled by the landside and the water was displaced over top of the dam resulting in a deadly flood downstream. Etc. And you can be sure there will be more such fatal dam failures.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Desert Tortoise

Chalk and cheese my friend.

A dam failing will kill 100s or 1000s on the day.

A nuclear disaster will kill slowly and also maim your great grand children…uncountable

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites