national

No time to waste, warns Japanese climate activist

99 Comments
By Natsuko Fukue

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

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


99 Comments
Login to comment

But where are we gonna get the rest of the energy without coal? After most nuclear plants shut down, we have to get energy from somewhere. Without proper money injection, i don't think companies can even switch to more eco-friendly energy plants. We have to buy all our coal from overseas too.

And even if we manage it, is gonna be hard to make a difference when the biggest coal consumer nations in the world refuse to change their ways. India and China combine already consume more than 20times what Japan consume. I don't think it gonna help much fighting climate change considering all our neighbors are actually increasing their consumption of goal each year instead of decreasing.

3 ( +20 / -17 )

@Hiro

But where are we gonna get the rest of the energy without coal?

Renewables, just like the UK and others.

Kyushu is routinely throwing away vast amounts of solar energy. Why is it not sent to Honshu? The lousy grid.

Hokkaido has a vast potential for wind generation. They get all their energy from coal.

Make it a national priority to upgrade the grid!

6 ( +22 / -16 )

Sadly i think there is too much focus on energy and not enough on pollution and resource depletion. With oceans full of plastic and fish stocks declining due to overfishing and destruction of habitats etc. the world needs to find a more wholistic approach to saving the planet and thereby ourselves.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

But where are we gonna get the rest of the energy without coal?

not from coal. True story

How can you type but not use a search engine??

-6 ( +11 / -17 )

But where are we gonna get the rest of the energy without coal?

Uh renewable energy is actually a thing - hydropower, geothermal power, wind power, solar power - all of which Japan can easily invest in and utilize. If Japan actually eco-friendly worked with the land they live on, they would realize that there are copious opportunities to harness different types of green renewable energy.

3 ( +14 / -11 )

@happyhere, do you know that solar energy and wind generation require a vast amount of lands to operate?

Not to mention solar energy cause massive pollution too because the solar panels themselves can leak harmful toxic materials that hurt the environments.

Is hard to have these two option on a nation that experiences typhoon,flooding,landslides and earthquakes on a yearly basis. Is not like we haven't try building them, but finding suitable lands to sustain the whole nation is not easy. This is why i said it require massive amount of money injection to even achieve this goal. And the goverment also had to sell massive amount of lands to companies.

-8 ( +12 / -20 )

And don't forget winter. What is your option on winter when the cold freeze the wind panels or when there aren't any sun for the solar panels? We will probably freeze to dead.

-3 ( +14 / -17 )

Solar energy in Japan causes massive forest destruction.

When all buildings and houses will have mandatory solar panels on the roof, solar energy will be more efficient. But in that case, corporations will not get any money. That’s why it is not done

1 ( +15 / -14 )

Correction

Solar energy in Japan causes massive forest destruction in Japan

0 ( +12 / -12 )

Does Kimiko Hirata give any indication whatsoever why she has any kind of hope? For many people hope ended in 2005 with peak oil and then we reached peak gas in 2011. We needed to transition to renewables well before peak oil because all the technology and hardware requires a lot of oil.

By the 2030s total meltdown of the climate will have begun. We have already reached 420 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which cannot be reversed for many years. This guarantees temperature increases of an average of at least 2 degrees centigrade by 2040. This may not seem like a lot but it is.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

@happyhere, one of the major problems in Japan is that western Japan operates at 60Hz and eastern Japan 50Hz so that's why you can't just "send" the power elsewhere. After 3/11, the government talked about "researching" how to resolve this problem. The obvious choice would be to unify into one system but I believe one study showed that the infrastructure cost would be too expensive, which then leads to the next obvious alternative; increasing the number of converter stations. Toshiba in April announced the start of one of new converter stations. Is this enough? I'm not sure, but if there are any electrical engineers out there who are familiar with Japan's energy infrastructure, I'm all ears.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Not to mention solar energy cause massive pollution too

We get it. Solar and wind is a lot dirtier than coal. Go Trump forever!!!

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

"Our future will be gone if we don't act now."

Pure hyperbole.

The cleanest, reliable source for electricity is nuclear.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

@dbsaiya

Yes, I am aware of the two frequency issue. But that does not stop Kyushu supplying Kansai and Hokkaido supplying Kanto.

There is no excuse for having more than two well-connected grids: one for each frequency.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Good for her. But it isnt really fair that Japan has to meet CO2 emissions reductions, while China can continue on its merry way polluting at huge levels. Why does China have a free pass to pollute?

China should be forced to make a committment before the developed nations like Japan pledge any more reductions in fossil fuel use.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Japan was the sixth-biggest contributor to global greenhouse emissions in 2017

Maybe its the 6-th biggest, but contributes to only 3% of the emissions. The thing is, until burning is the cheapest way to produce energy, these movements will have only one result: more things will be made in China.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The greatest mistake was not to have one unified power grid system like in the UK. Generating power where is best and transmitting the generated power wherever it's needed.

The cost of unifying the grid is too expensive. Many power-sensitive devices would also need to be replaced. Electrical machines designed for 50Hz can usually work safely in a 60Hz power supply, but not applicable to 60Hz machines to be run in a 50Hz power supply.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@zichi

Both frequency areas in Japan have roughly the same population as the UK. So each has the scale required to reach the same level of renewables as the UK. About 40% at present.

The frequency issue is a red herring.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Is she aware of NFTS I wonder? They are truly a nightmare for any environmental activist.

https://www.wired.com/story/nfts-hot-effect-earth-climate/

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Many people are missing an important point - we need to seriously reduce the demand of energy. So much is wasted - lighting up the night sky, heating toilets, vending machines .....

If we used only what we needed, renewables alone could easily satisfy demand very quickly.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

The cleanest, reliable source for electricity is nuclear.

It's clean, but limited. Look at the Science articles (Yes Kids!! That's right!!! Written by real Scientists!!!). The entire world cannot go nuclear. Possibly expanded, but cannot come close to giving the complete global population power. It can be part of the clean solution but not the entire solution.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

happyhere

@zichi

Both frequency areas in Japan have roughly the same population as the UK. So each has the scale required to reach the same level of renewables as the UK. About 40% at present.

The frequency issue is a red herring.

It's not a red herring. After the Tohoku disasters and the nuclear disaster, there were power outages that could have been managed better with a single unified power system.

When it comes to the power grid Japan is two countries.

Wave power generated in Hokkaido can not be transmitted to Kyushu. Kyushu probably has the highest numbers of solar panels but on many days the total power is not being used.

I agree that renewable energy can be increased probably at least to 30% of total power. More offshore bladeless wind turbines.

The problem remains the generation of the baseload or the overnight power which was generated by nuclear energy and now by coal. That amount to about 25% of total power.

At this moment in the UK renewables are generating just 18% of total power. But the UK has achieved with renewables and coalless most day but still need nuclear energy.

https://gridwatch.co.uk

5 ( +7 / -2 )

She's not a scientist and has no way of assessing whether what she's told is true or not. This is important as a lot of climate 'science' is just wrong (but conveniently forgotten): https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/28/egg-on-their-faces-10-climate-alarmist-predictions-for-2020-that-went-horribly-wrong-n1289371

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

happyhere

the power demand of the UK is less than 300 terawatthours (TWh).

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-generation-2018-falls-to-lowest-since-1994

https://theconversation.com/britains-electricity-use-is-at-its-lowest-for-decades-but-will-never-be-this-low-again-152360

Japan electricity generation at about 950 terawatthours (TWh)

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The Tepco headquarters in Uchisaiwaicho used to have a real-time graph of the electricity usage for the Tokyo metro area. The biggest spike in the usage (pre Covid) according to their engineers was the neon and street lights that gets turned on at dusk. Like clockwork every day, a bit less on weekends. Talk about wasting resources.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It is quite easy to deal with the 50/60hz situation. First, most appliances are 50/60Hz. Just a quick glance at home, all the appliances have 50/60hz labels. Then, we have few frequency converter stations. Sending electricity from Hokkaido to Kyushu directly would be more or less the same as through a frequency converter station - anything can happen on the way.

Anyway, back to the topic. She is right. But everything is discussed here for a very long time, it is discussed on several levels, then a final research is done, a report is made and finally somebody approves it after consultation with someone else. Another thing is that most people in leadership positions in here are old men. They make decisions. And they're not very willing to listen to someone younger, and moreover, if it's a woman. That's just a fact here.

To be honest, I don't get the fact that Japan is so heavily dependent on coal despite having no significant reserves. Virtually all coal is imported. And that's not very cost vs performance efficient. Nuclear power has a better price vs power ratio, not to mention transport capacity. Then there are renewables. But the problem with renewables is that the same arguments against it always come up. With wind power, it's that it defaces the landscape. With solar panels, that they cause deforestation. Etc. Yet wind farms or solar panels can be put anywhere, even at sea (see e.g. Denmark, the Netherlands, northern Germany). And the reason why some countries generate only a few percent of their energy from renewable sources? Because the above arguments against them, or even opposition to them, often prevail in those countries.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

If we used only what we needed, renewables alone could easily satisfy demand very quickly.

Part of this solution is to regulate energy costs to the consumer (so to make it NOT too cheap) in order to encourage household energy savings. Perhaps it should be a little more expensive than what we are paying now as we get more and more renewables. But people who are living in poverty should have their budget needs considered and they should not be left out.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@zichi

Of course one grid is better than two, but that won't happen will it?

I am simply saying that two grids is better than the 10 they have now.

After 3/11 Hokkaido could only supply a trickle to Honshu. In 2018 during the Hokkaido blackout again only a trickle could be supplied from Tohoku. Both use the same frequency.

@Hiro

That Hokkaido blackout was caused by the main coal plant going down. Luckily they did have a few renewable sources to provide emergency power. Renewables can be widely distributed and hence much more robust in emergencies.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Here in Tokyo we have thousands of tree-less streets lined with vending machines keeping drinks cold in the sun, and warm in the winter, 24 hours a day. If this world is not going to become pretty much uninhabitable for humans in the next century, we need to start right where we are and design our cities in ways that are more sustainable.

Personally, outside of a few European countries, I don't think there is any will to do so, certainly not in Japan, and I'm grateful that I don't have grandchildren who will have to grow up through the climate disaster this planet is about to go through.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

The inconvenient truth here is that economic growth is inimical to saving the planet. Or is it?

*

What if we tilted our paradigm towards 「*I am enough;*** **less-is-moreas the true luxury?

*

Pity the poor, polluting their way out of inferiority complexes with their conspicuous consumption.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Many people are missing an important point - we need to seriously reduce the demand of energy. So much is wasted - lighting up the night sky, heating toilets, vending machines .....

If we used only what we needed, renewables alone could easily satisfy demand very quickly.

I'm not sold that ths is a useful way of framing the issue. Basically we have two options going forward:

Option 1: We develop and deploy energy systems that are 100% carbon neutral. Then we can use electricity like we do now, minimize disruptions and not piss everyone off.

Option 2: Instead of Option 1 we instead concentrate on telling everyone to just not use energy because we are still using dirty sources. This is massively disruptive to people's lives. People's bums get cold in January because they can't use the heated toilet seats. They get into more car crashes at nights because the street lights are turned off. They no longer understand that all the food in Japan ever produced is insanely delicious because they can't turn the TV on every night to watch talents screaming this fact into their face non stop. Everyone gets super pissed off and in the end they probably don't reduce their consumption enough to make a real difference anyway.

To me, Option #2 just makes no sense, even without getting into the fact that residential energy consumption which people have some control over through their personal decisions is only a minority of total energy use.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

And the reason why some countries generate only a few percent of their energy from renewable sources? Because the above arguments against them, or even opposition to them, often prevail in those countries.

It was in the 1880s when coal was first used to generate electricity for homes and factories.

(energy.com)

That's close to 150 years ago and we are early in the renewables game. Things can't drastically transform overnight. This will take patience and decades as we transition into a reliable energy portfolio. We will have more reliable renewables. And at the same time fossil fuel based sources -although reduced - will have to be on standby at least in case the wind completely dies down in the middle of the night on that rare but inevitable occasion.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I think Japan should import a portion of its electricity, say 10-15%, from solar plants in Mongolia. Mongolia's location would extend solar supply into the Japanese evening.

There is the security issue, but Japan is already dependent on imported everything, oil, food, and coal included. All of these could be blockaded.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

She's not a scientist and has no way of assessing whether what she's told is true or not. This is important as a lot of climate 'science' is just wrong (but conveniently forgotten):

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/28/egg-on-their-faces-10-climate-alarmist-predictions-for-2020-that-went-horribly-wrong-n1289371

Well, lets see if I follow your logic here. In order to prove that a non-scientist has "no way of assessing whether what she's told is true or not" you, a non-scientist, provide us a link to an article written by another non-scientist whose qualification, according to his bio at the end, is that he likes to "ceaselessly talk about politics, religion and culture."

So if she can't assess whether what she is being told is true or not because she is not a scientist, why does that not also prevent you and the guy who wrote that article, also not scientists, from being able to assess whether what you are told is true or not?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Despite having devoted her adult life to tackling climate change, Hirata had no particular interest in environmental issues as a child.

Seems I'm not the only one who's merely interested in playing as a child

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@nishikat, nuclear is not limited. Solar and wind are “limited.”

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Solar energy in Japan causes massive forest destruction.

Are you for real. I live in the countryside and travel around a bit. Never seen a single tree cut down for solar. Mostly solar farms are in disused rice paddies as the farmers are too old.

japan needs to utilize geothermal energy.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

No time to waste, warns Japanese climate activist

REPENT!

THE END OF THE WORLD IS NEAR!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@nishikat, nuclear is not limited. Solar and wind are “limited.”

Meaning we can get 100% of our electricity needs from nuclear around the world? Here are some Scientific quotes from https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html:

@@@@@

*Land and location:** One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.*

*Lifetime:** Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.*

*Uranium abundance:** At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)*

*Exotic metals:** The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, these metals have many competing industrial uses; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry. If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis. This is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.*

@@@@@

There are other points but these above quotes catch my attention the most. Again please let us know how nuclear is NOT limited? Can it really supply every human on earth electricity? Considering the above facts.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

She's not a scientist and has no way of assessing whether what she's told is true or not.

Exactly. We need to listen about this topic from somebody serious (like physics Nobel winner) and neutral enough to be sure he/she is not receiving profits from ‘climate catastrophe’.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Grid unification is next to impossible.

Best to hope for is maximize interoperability by utilizing conversion systems.

Problem is not just practical, it's also political.

How to do unification?

East will convert to west standard?

Or west will convert to east standard?

Use a third standard perhaps?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'll let my car idle out in the driveway for 20 minutes after I get home tomorrow in her honor.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Try surviving a Japanese summer without AC, I dare you. 99.9% of Westerners couldn't do it.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

happyhere

@zichi

Of course one grid is better than two, but that won't happen will it?

I am simply saying that two grids is better than the 10 they have now.

There are two grid systems. The power between Hokkaido and Honshu is limited and need to increase.

After 3/11 Hokkaido could only supply a trickle to Honshu. In 2018 during the Hokkaido blackout again only a trickle could be supplied from Tohoku. Both use the same frequency.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

More emphasis on Conservation is needed.

g a Japanese summer without AC

Better designed buildings are needed in Japan. As are cooling systems that do not require as much energy as typical A/C. Plus better fabrics.

Where are the entrepreneurs that can bring these things. How about R&D funding for building deign and better fabrics for all seasons. Take money from every nation's defense budgets. US has Defense Advanced Projects Research coming up with better ways to kill people, Biden needs to bring back the clean energy research branch that Trump and his R's cut.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Renewables, just like the UK and others.

In other words, learn to accept that when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, civilization as we know it will grind to a halt. I'd suggest putting candles in your house to afford youerself the small luxury of nighttime lighting, but that involves burning stuff so the greenies won't have that, either.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

A 60HZ electric motor running at 3500 rpm will only run at 3000 rpm on 50HZ.

It will run with the following problems for a 50Hz motor running on 60Hz: The core loss will increase and cause overheating of the core. As the core loss will increase, the Power Factor of the motor will reduce. The motor speed will be higher, so the shaft load will increase.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The impact of climate change varies among individuals, businesses and states. Carbon-neutral can't be a common and global solution.

Just for example, Russia benefits from the rising temperature as it gets the Arctic Route open. Its economy still depends heavily on fossil fuels and natural gas whose underground reservoirs can be made accessible thanks to the climate change melting the frozen land. Agriculture and agribusiness may be born and prosper in formerly frozen wasteland.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

No need for this woman or others like her to worry too much about the CO2 emissions and the climate control problem, people like jacinda adern have it well in hand in NZ, the country with the smallest carbon footprint being hit the hardest with its new legislation on vehicles and carbon neutral schemes, the world will be safe ...

Instead of people banging on about the 6th worst producer how about they get on THE worst top 3 producers and then once they have sorted them out we maybe ok.

By the way I do not have any guilt about living producing a carbon footprint Kimiko Hirata

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Anyone who brings "climate change" as a base for their reasoning is either an idiot or a scammer. Climate simply ALWAYS changes, and it has been warmer than now for centuries around the year 1000 and around the lare Roman Republic period. Climate change is being used by the Globalists just as Covid is, to subjugate.

In addition to this, Solar and Wind turbines are not eco friendly, look it up.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

Solar and Wind turbines are not eco friendly, look it up.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

In the 1970s we were warned of a new ice age within the next 20 years.

In the 1980s we were told that we'd all be fried by the UV coming through the hole in the ozone layer in no shor time at all.

In the 1990s we were told that the Earth was warming up and that within a few short years Europe would become a desert wasteland and, with even greater calamity, the seas would rise up like the days of Noah and inundate a quarter of the globe.

In the 2000s, talk was how climate change would alter weather patterns such as to cause devastation and destruction the likes noone has seen since Jaweh packed up his belongings and went into exile.

Now we are being told that CO2 in atmosphere is the bogeyman and we are all going to suffocate terribly. Or something.

Peddlers of impending doom have pushing this line since at least as far back as the People's Crusade in the 11th century, and where we once were to face the wrath of God, we are now supposed to face the wrath of Mother Earth. Fortunately, like the scruffy man wandering around in a sandwich board reading "THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH", more prudent individuals take no notice of green activism.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Anyone who brings "climate change" as a base for their reasoning is either an idiot or a scammer. 

Clean air for our lungs? Prevent lung cancer? They say living is a polluted city is as bad as smoking a pack of cigarettes daily

But the acceleration of climate change proves it's man-made. We are talking about big and bad changes just years away instead of thousands of years away. I'm glad Trump is no longer president and hope that lasts

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Green New Deal mentality…back to the 19th century.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Worth a read

Electricity Review 2020.

https://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/electricity_eview_japan/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2021/04/14/2020ERJ_full.pdf

"Vortex Bladeless is a vortex induced vibration resonant wind generator. It harnesses wind energy from a phenomenon of vorticity called Vortex Shedding. Basically, bladeless technology consists of a cylinder fixed vertically with an elastic rod. The cylinder oscillates on a wind range, which then generates electricity through an alternator system. In other words, it is a wind turbine which is not actually a turbine."

https://vortexbladeless.com/technology-design/

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I remember environmentalists saying exactly the same thing 50 years ago in the 70’s. Very little has changed since then. What makes this woman think she can change the world’s reliance on fossil fuels? I’m sure she loves her car, the lights and hot water in her house and the convenience of a gazillion trains every five minutes. All of these outspoken twits demand the abolishment of fossil fuels, but none of them have solid alternatives and do not supply any information on the sacrifices they themselves are prepared to make to achieve their impractical goals.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Notice how the enviro-hucksters are deeply reticient when asked to comment upon the inherent limitations of renewable energy. Aside from fossil and nuclear, only hydro can produce enough power to cover base load, though hot air from the green lobby runs a close second. So greenies, answer this: using only renewables, how do you intend to produce enough electricity to meet demand a) during the long winter nights, or b) when there is either too little or too much wind?

Be specfic, please.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Lack of investments for decades in the power grid system. Smart grids are needed. Microgrids generating power and supply for a small number of homes like 500.

Baseload power currently generated from coal could be generated from LNG.

Many homes in our area have solar panels. They also have fuel cells for hot water which also generate electricity.

https://www.itcenex.com/en/business/detail/enefarm/index.html

Making homes power independent will reduce central demands.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So greenies, answer this: using only renewables, how do you intend to produce enough electricity to meet demand a) during the long winter nights, or b) when there is either too little or too much wind?

Ultra capacitors to help smooth things out for one. Also here is an interesting article from MIT (non Trump territory). Remember this will take decades - beyond our lifetime. Fossil fuel plants have existed for 150 years and before those went mainstream there were Trump type non Science people who doubted Mr. Tesla.

Anyone who doubts climate change...you are welcome to corner the market of that prime Miami coast real estate. The only question is what will be left of it when your grandchildren inherit it. Remember years vs thousands of years

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Making homes power independent will reduce central demands.

Precisely. But think of the plush amakudari jobs that'd disappear.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I will continue driving ICE cars until the world runs out of oil.

No EV's for me.

I'll do everything I can do increase my carbon footprint just to irk the eco-nuts and tree huggers out there.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

In the 1970s we were warned of a new ice age within the next 20 years.

No we weren't. It was never the scientific consensus that there would be another ice age in 20 years, in the 1970s or now.

In the 1980s we were told that we'd all be fried by the UV coming through the hole in the ozone layer in no shor time at all.

Well, there was a hole in the ozone layer, and increased UV rays did get through the atmosphere as a result so the scientists were correct. Nobody said anybody would be "fried" but there is a well established connection between exposure to UV rays and increased risk of skin cancer. Again, scientists correct. The scientific community warned about that, governments got together and agreed to phase out the use of CFCs that were the prime contributors to the problem and prevented the layer from being further depleted. Again, the scientists were correct.

In the 1990s we were told that the Earth was warming up and that within a few short years Europe would become a desert wasteland and, with even greater calamity, the seas would rise up like the days of Noah and inundate a quarter of the globe.

The scientific consensus in the 1990s was never that Europe was going to become a desert wasteland within a few years or anything like that.

In the 2000s, talk was how climate change would alter weather patterns such as to cause devastation and destruction the likes noone has seen since Jaweh packed up his belongings and went into exile.

The scientific consensus doesn't use comparisons to whatever Jaweh is to describe things. But otherwise yeah, they have been saying it will alter weather patterns and that this will be destructive. They've also been saying these effects won't materialize until later this century.

Now we are being told that CO2 in atmosphere is the bogeyman and we are all going to suffocate terribly. Or something.

Now you are being told basically the same thing as scientists were saying in the 2000s and 1990s, but since you don't understand what they were saying back then or now I guess its easier to just lie about it. Have fun with that.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I love the, "But. But, China is bad'erer than us." Comments.

Comparing yourself to the one person you know you're better than, and ignoring the 100s of other who are better than you, should be registered as a UNISCO Cultural Heritage.

Yeah China is huge and creates pollution. Doesn't mean Japan shouldn't do anything. Japan burns or buries 3.3million tons of food a year. They waste more than 6.5 million tons annually. They import more than 10 million tons of corn as animal food a year.

40 billion Plastic bags a year.

Worlds leading plastic rubbish exporter.

There are 100s of things Japan could do within the year which would make an actual difference. Things as mind numbingly simple as banning plastic bags.

But it's much easier to just say, "ah, it doesn't matter I soiled myself. It hasn't started leaking through my pants yet and that guy over there looks dirtier than me anyway"

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I feel like Japan has so much potential to be environmentally friendly and carbon neutral and have the potential to lead the world in this area, especially without history of building buildings with wood rather than cement, living in side-by-side with nature, strong recycling program etc.

I see some comments suggest why Japan needs to do this when China and other countries are still using coal... I think every country has its own challenges and whilst China still uses massive amount of coal, they are leading the world in solar energy and development in sustainable farming so they are doing something about this issue. Although it would be nice if other countries can collectively work on this, being environmentally friendly isn't a competition. It's a teamwork.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

A typical "You Again, China" issue. China is responsible for nearly 30% of the global CO2 emissions while Japan at 3%.

Technically, it's much easier, more cost-efficient, energy-saving and eco-friendly to cut China produced carbons by half or more, rather than to try to squeeze Japan's further from 3 to 2%. Political games make things more complicated to resolve.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

A typical "You Again, China" issue. China is responsible for nearly 30% of the global CO2 emissions while Japan at 3%.

Technically, it's much easier, more cost-efficient, energy-saving and eco-friendly to cut China produced carbons by half or more, rather than to try to squeeze Japan's further from 3 to 2%. Political games make things more complicated to resolve.

How is it easy for China, a much larger country that has only recently developed, to cut its emissions by half or more, but somehow it is difficult for Japan, a smaller and wealthier country per capita, to cut its rate???

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Technically, it's much easier, more cost-efficient, energy-saving and eco-friendly to cut China produced carbons by half or more, rather than to try to squeeze Japan's further from 3 to 2%.

The self-congratulatory smugness of the West is nauseating.

CO2 emissions from Western countries has been dropping, not because they are doing any better than anyone else but because they have been outsourcing all those dirty blue-collar manufacturing jobs to China. It's like dumping Fido's turds over into next door's garden and then saying "Nothing to see here!".

Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear completely (if even at all possible) will drive hundreds of thousands into fuel poverty and perhaps even into absolute poverty. Who exactly is going to pay for the envrionmentalists' met dreams exactly?

You and me are - with our livelihoods.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Modern coal plants are pretty clean: 99.2% of dust is filtered, so they only emit CO2 which is transformed into the oxygen and food by oceans, swamps and forests. They are also extremely energy efficient. And no complex facilities are required to store coal, just place it under the roof, making it the most catastrophe-resistant power source. There are many highly developed countries among the biggest coal consumers e.g. UAE and Israel.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

@noriahojanen

Technically, it's much easier, more cost-efficient, energy-saving and eco-friendly to cut China produced carbons by half or more

Easy peasy : just have to bring back all the production facilities which where moved to China.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The contribution of "green energy" to the total of energy consumed at present is just few percent, and is off according to all projections including IPCC.

To shift to "green energy" one has to expend a lot of conventional energy, which makes the "green energy" not at all green (consider also replacement of green infrastructure every 20-30 years).

This means that there is no viable ethical solution to energy needs, which, I suppose, makes world owners frustrated.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

No time to waste, warns Japanese climate activist

While I can't say I disagree, they've had the Doomsday Clock at 11:58 or so for decades and they've never, ever scaled it back, even when positive news comes out on a peace deal or on climate action. Its becoming harder and harder to trust scientists these days with everything so political. Just look at how they lied to us in the "Proximal Origins of Covid-19" article published in Nature Medicine. Total coverup.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

spent half of her life for ...what... for getting funds from some organizations?

i feel sorry about her...

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

CO2 emissions from Western countries has been dropping, not because they are doing any better than anyone else but because they have been outsourcing all those dirty blue-collar manufacturing jobs to China. It's like dumping Fido's turds over into next door's garden and then saying "Nothing to see here!".

Exactly !

Stop comparing with China/India since we use these countries to produce our goods and recycle our wastes.

Let's have a look at our consumption habits before blaming China.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

So greenies, answer this: using only renewables, how do you intend to produce enough electricity to meet demand a) during the long winter nights, or b) when there is either too little or too much wind?

It's a fair question. One approach would be to focus more on the storage of excess power from renewables when too much is being generated, for example, by using the excess power to create hydrogen.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Kumagaijin

While I can't say I disagree, they've had the Doomsday Clock at 11:58 or so for decades and they've never, ever scaled it back, even when positive news comes out on a peace deal or on climate action.

False.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#/media/File:Doomsday_Clock_graph.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Anyone watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

Gives some insight into some of what the greens think believe want things to be,

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

False.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock#/media/File:Doomsday_Clock_graph.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

Ok, I was exaggerating a little. I'm not a scientist so I can be wrong.

Since 1991, they've scaled it back once. Not even after Kyoto or the Iran nuclear deal and many other good news events did they scale it back. The world is a much safer place (nuclear wise) than compared to the Cold War, yet they keep moving the clock closer and closer just to scare the public.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Not even after Kyoto or the Iran nuclear deal and many other good news events did they scale it back. The world is a much safer place (nuclear wise) than compared to the Cold War, yet they keep moving the clock closer and closer just to scare the public.

Well, lets consider the two examples you cite.

Kyoto Protocol: The agreement was never really going to work since it excluded major emitters like China and India and the US never ratified it. And its basically fallen to the wayside.

Iran nuclear deal: Also an agreement that has largely fallen apart/been sabotaged and hasn't really been able to reduce the risk of conflict.

I'm not sure I agree that the world is a safer place compared to the cold war. Obviously its better to not have two superpowers with their hands on the nuclear buttons, but that threat has been replaced by the greater dispersal of nuclear weapons to smaller and much less stable countries like North Korea and Pakistan.

Also the clock isn't just measuring nuclear threats, but existential threats. We face a lot of those. During the Cold War climate change wasn't a concern, now it is. AI wasn't a concern, now it is. 9-11 scale terrorism and the two decades of never-ending war that followed wasn't a concern, now it is. Etc etc.

There might have been some "drift" in recent years in how they set the clock, but there are good reasons why it has gone way closer to midnight since 1991.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Lost count of the number of "no time to waste, last chance" warnings over the last 40 years. Cooling, warming, changing, ozone layer depletion, oil will run out...... what did I forget?

None of these have happened, and this latest lunacy won't either.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Cooling, warming, changing, ozone layer depletion, oil will run out...... what did I forget?

None of these have happened

Where have you been the past 50 years?

Global warming - Showing the change in global surface temperatures over time. The period from the 1990 on is particularly eye-catching.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Ozone depletion - The ozone hole began spreading over southern Australia in the 1970s and 80s. Between 1982 and 2010, the incidence of melanoma of the skin rose by 60%.

https://climateandhealthalliance.org/resources/impacts/skin-cancer-in-australia/

Climate change -

Just lookout the past few years in Japan. Higher temperatures, greater incidence of flooding, more powerful and unpredictable typhoons... just the past week or so, instead of the typical drizzly rainy season weather we've been having hot sunny days punctuated by tropical-style squalls. It didn't use to be like this. Maybe you've forgotten what Japan was like 10, 20, 30 years ago?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Ah, a Japanese Greta.

Why Western do-gooders do their best to destroy our economies, China is constructing more coal-fired power plants than are in operation in the entire EU. And that trend will not be changed by Western virtue signalling.

Fact is, the world economies still depend on fossil fuel. I am all for research into better nuclear and other technologies, but this idea that Western virtue signalling does anything else than shift more power to China is just absurd.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Gobshite

Lost count of the number of "no time to waste, last chance" warnings over the last 40 years. Cooling, warming, changing, ozone layer depletion, oil will run out...... what did I forget?

None of these have happened, and this latest lunacy won't either.

Well, all of these things exist, plus many others, but the idea that a) any of them is the end of the world and b) that well-spoken Western politicians (while the CCP laughs) can change all that painlessly with some tax increase and new laws is just childish. But that is what the press tells us.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

"The scientists say we're headed for environmental catastrophe ... !"

Scientists can be bought just as easily as politicians. And like politicians, they often have their own agendas to push.

Yes, we have environmental problems. But this alarmist, "no time to waste," running-out-of-time rhetoric is over the top.

Yes, human activity can and does dirty the water, the air, and the ground. But climate isn't about that -- it's about weather. And this idea that human activity can change the weather on a global scale is absurd.

Climate change is real. It's been going on for millions of years. There have been at least four major warming periods spanning the last 3,000 years. Guess what? Human activity had nothing to do with them.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

No time to waste, warns Japanese climate activist

No, we have a huge amount of time to live above poverty level thank you very much.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

A 60HZ electric motor running at 3500 rpm will only run at 3000 rpm on 50HZ.

That only applies to synchronous motors. Most power tools and household appliances use commutated universal motors. On that type of motor load limits speed. if you run one with no load the rpm will continue to increase until the motor suffers a mechanical failure and/or catches fire. Lots of Youtube videos of this btw. You have a bazillion universal motors in Japan operating things like blenders, hair dryers, fans, power tools, vacuum cleaners and the like that operate just fine on both 50Hz and 60 Hz power. Panasonic for example doesn't sell different model appliances for 50Hz and 60Hz applications.

Because I do things that require me to use a volt/ohm meter periodically I know the power in our home can vary on any given day between 109 volts to 122 volts. Voltage and frequency are not as critical to simple appliances as you imagine. I even run a few Japanese 100 volt appliances on US 120 volt power with no ill effects.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There are also millions of synchronous motors in use.

Appliances that can be used in either area 50Hz/60Hz. Televisions and radios can be used.

Appliances that can be used but with reduced efficiency. Refrigerators and air-conditioners will work, but less efficiently.

Appliances that cannot be used at a different frequency area. Washing machines, microwave ovens, fluorescent lights (unless an inverter- s used), clothes driers, etc.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Appliances that cannot be used at a different frequency area. Washing machines, microwave ovens, fluorescent lights (unless an inverter- s used), clothes driers, etc.

That is not true. Japanese appliance makers do not sell different models of these appliances for different frequencies. In fact if you look on the product label they all say "100v, 50/60Hz". I have these in my home now. Most are on a 100v converter but some run just dandy on 120v/60Hz power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I originally became interested in this because I had a Miele vacuum apart trying to determine why it would suddenly shut off. I took the main circuit board out and on the back was stamped "US/Japan". The problem ended up being dirty swivel contacts in the hose but it made do some research on power and home appliances.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kansai Electric Power Company KEPCO

Voltage and Frequency Differences in Japan

Some appliances cannot be used at different frequencies.

Be careful to not use electrical appliances that cannot be used at a different frequency.

https://www.kansai-td.co.jp/english/home/guide/article-01.html

●Some appliances can be used as is.

▼Home appliances that can be used at 50Hz / 60Hz.

・TV, radio, toaster, kotatsu, electric blanket, etc.

▼Household appliances that can be used at different frequencies but whose performance changes.

・Vacuum cleaner, electric fan, mixer, refrigerator, air conditioner, hair dryer, etc.

▼Household appliances that cannot be used at different frequencies.

・Washing machine, microwave oven, etc.

For details, please check with your electronics store or manufacturer.

https://www.leopalace21.com/custhelp/en/daily_life/00646.html

But yes there are also many appliances that can be used on 50hz/60Hz.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well, all of these things exist

Sure they do, and none of them caused by man made CO2. There is enough evidence, if people can be bothered to research instead of blindly following people like Kimiko Thunderstruck, that CO2 levels in this planet's history have been far higher than now, the world didn't end, instead it thrived.

Temperatures have been higher, lower, sea levels have NOT changed significantly as scare mongers will tell you. Obama bought a house in spitting distance from the sea for over $10million, what does that tell you. Al Gore became a multi millionaire peddling this stuff, what does that tell you.

Read about Mototaka Nakamura, I'm sure Kimiko knows who he is. Just one of many scientists that say that climate modelling is unreliable and shouldn't be used to make major policies.

Oh, that claim that 97% of scientists believe it, read about that too, completely made up.

I'm all for pollution reduction, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. How about reducing CO2 to zero? See what happens then.......

0 ( +5 / -5 )

In referendum of June 13, Swiss people rejected their gov. proposal to introduce another "carbon tax" to be included in airplane tickets and fuel prices.

They focused on (a) small Swiss contribution to total CO2 production (I would say - total consumption of energy sources), and (b) negative effects on economy that "carbon taxes" bring.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Gobshite

Sure they do, and none of them caused by man made CO2. 

Well, obviously everything has an "effect". The problem with the current "global warming" narrative is that it focuses simplistically on one single factor, exaggerates it and then proposes simplistic solutions that in no way even address the issue that they claim exists.

This is so clearly political, it just astounding to see how many people fall for it.

Patrick Moore just wrote a book about the issue, I would recommend to take a look:

https://www.amazon.com/Fake-Invisible-Catastrophes-Threats-Doom/dp/B08TFYJFMR

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Gobshite

I'm all for pollution reduction, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. How about reducing CO2 to zero? See what happens then.......

In that case, we all die. Maybe for some evil genius that is the plan?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm all for pollution reduction, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. How about reducing CO2 to zero? See what happens then.......

I agree it's wrong to label CO2 as a pollutant. However, it does have an effect on temperatures. I don't think anyone is calling for zero CO2 in the atmosphere (at least I hope not). Too much or too little are both worth worrying about.

Patrick Moore just wrote a book about the issue, 

In case any Brits are wondering, that's not the same Patrick Moore who entertained us on The Sky At Night.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

1: Make it compulsory that all new buildings must have solar panels fitted to the roof or convenient space.

2: The J goverment should subsidise the instalation of SP on older houses. every roof is lost power generation.

3: Hydrothermal is clean and can be easily done.

4: Wind generation

5: Food waste, this is where food waste is collected from restaurants, schools etc, taken to a plant where its liquidised and then put in a large tank, and the methane is drawn off and used to run a generator, advantages are electricity, very little goes to land fill of incineration and spent slury is dried and then sold back to farmers for fertiliser. This is becoming vey popular in the UK.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

On my previous comment ( number 5) if these plants are constructed near a co that uses lots of hot water in its manufacturing process, the hot water generated and electricity can be directly fed into the other co, thus saving that co to buy it in thus saving tens of thousends of yen.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

https://www.edina.eu/case-studies/biffa.....

this system has multiple benefits it would be ideal for devloping countries as well as other countries, if one was to built in a colder region of Japan the spent heat could be plumbed into a seniors rest home was underfloor heating. or a school.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Global warming is real and the trouble coming is beyond imagining.

Science does not care what you believe, nor does nature.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

She should spend her time developing technology that would provide for clean energy extraction from coal.

The need for energy will never be significantly reduced, and coal is cheap , plentiful and readily available.

What this world would most benefit from is a way to use coal fuel in an environmentally friendly manner.

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