national

Critics say reactor restart decision risks health of people, economy

114 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

114 Comments
Login to comment

10,000 people is good, considering it was a work day. I hope there's some pics of that protest. Onniyama, is that you on facebook?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Thank you (Japan Today) for finally covering that more than 10,000 people took time to (protest) against the restart of nuclear power plants. It would be even better if the story was printed on the same day that it happened!, just not sure why you are a day late!. The headlines say (Critics say reactor restart decision risk health of people , economy), When you say "Critics" do you mean ( the majority of Japan?) No one is perfect, when it come to (the news) but please keep trying!. Thank you for a platform to speak from!

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Noda and his cronies keep saying the necessary safety checks have been done, but they only mention stress tests. Instead of repeatingly stating Japan needs to put the reactors online they should be more forthcoming with information about the actual safety of these reactors to sell the idea to the public. I see a new PM in the next few months. Number 17 in 16 years. Go Japan, go! This could be a new world record, if it isn't already.

3 ( +6 / -4 )

It's time to see some actual documents. We are tired of the politics of lies!

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Wow... perhaps now that health issues have been mentioned in the news story perhaps I will finally be allowed to mention that MIT have brought a study which questions the impact of radiation on health. That a doctor from Oxford University has also claimed that the effects of radiation have been grossly exaggerated because of fear mongering created because of potential nuclear war. That WHO and UNESCAR have, according to Nature magazine, reported that there would be 'few deaths' as a result of the Fukushima disaster and that nature also reported that the leading cause of death will be the stress based on misinformation from the government/media. That and the fact that the other forms of power which have been used to make up the shortfall are known to cause serious health effects.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

“We can no longer go back to a life that depends on candles,” ruling party heavyweight Yoshito Sengoku said in an interview with the Sankei newspaper this week.

But it's ok to go back to a life that risks death by radiation induced causes. Have you asked the people of Fukushima, Sengoku-san? Or anyone outside the parliamentary bubble that seems to shield you from reality?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

i hope this guy sues for the the 15 years hes been without work and not supporting his family!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I keep seeing the figure of 50 reactors mentioned when in fact, currently the maximum number of reactors would be nearer to 32 provided those ones passed the stress tests. The 3/11 disaster destroyed both the Fukushima plants with a total of 10 reactors. The Tokai reactor was damaged and failed the stress test, 2 reactors at Hamaoka can be used until the new sea wall is finished. Seven TEPCO reactors in Niigata can't be used until a new sea wall is finished. 2 reactors at Tsuruga discovered to be on a fault line. Prior to 3/11 there were 54 reactors. I think 1 reactor in Kyushu failed the stress test?

If Japan is to generate 15% of total power with nuclear energy it would take about 17-20 reactors.

The 2 Oi reactors can generate 3GW of power. To generate 3GW of power from solar energy would require enough solar panels to cover 18 sq miles. But in fact, the area would need to be greater than that because solar energy does not generate power 24/7.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

“We can no longer go back to a life that depends on candles,” ruling party heavyweight Yoshito Sengoku said So this forward thinking heavyweight seems to believe without N-Power it's back to candles ?????. This spurious line is pathetic, shows the debate if there was one is backed with award winning arguments like this. And he is a "heavyweight" shudder to think of the mentality of those below him.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

“There is no such thing as a perfect score when it comes to disaster prevention steps,”

There's certainly no perfect score card when it comes to picking politicians, that's for sure. When it comes to using something that threatens the lives of MILLIONS, though, and has killed hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in the past, you'd think you want to make sure it's secure before putting it into use. But hey... what country are we talking about again?

“We can no longer go back to a life that depends on candles,”

Ah, good old Sengoku.... did he use a candle a week ago? I doubt it. But the reactors were off.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Cricky and Smithinjapan. You are totally right about the candle remark. That is one of the mostly ignorant remarks by a politician to date. How do these people get elected? REMzzz. Yes, I am on Facebook. How would you know which is me?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Heda_Madness. I guess stress from worrying about radiation is more lethal than stress from worrying about things eh?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

When it comes to using something that threatens the lives of MILLIONS, though, and has killed hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in the past, you'd think you want to make sure it's secure before putting it into use. But hey... what country are we talking about again?

Ahh! A master of hyperbole! Nuclear power plants have not killed "hundreds of thousands" of Japanese, no matter how hard you try to make the claim. Oh, you mean the nuclear WEAPONS dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yeah, but see that's what those WEAPONS were designed to do. WEAPONS kill large numbers of people.

How many years have nuclear reactors been operating in Japan? During that time, how many deaths occurred due to the reactors' operations? Look HARD, look LONG, but the only deaths you'll find (if any) will likely be typical industrial-type fatalities rather than anything specific to nuclear energy.

To try and tie deaths caused by a nuclear weapon to peaceful power generation using nuclear power is ludicrous. Otherwise, I guess we need to call for the removal of T.N.T. from all construction sites, because that was the active ingredient in bombs and shells for the last century, huh? We'll just let the workers pick-ax through all that rock. They'll be SO happy that you managed to get that material that has killed TENS OF MILLIONS since it was invented out of their list of tools they could use!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

“There is no such thing as a perfect score when it comes to disaster prevention steps,” Trade Minister Yukio Edano told a news conference after the announcement.

Shortly after the 3.11 man-made disaster, Minister Edano went before the Japanese people and as their representative, chosen to protect their safety, told them that there was no meltdown and that everything would be all right, when in fact he knew otherwise. He blatantly lied to the citizens and in doing so, convinced some people to remain in heavily contaminated areas. Not only should he not be trusted, nor continue to represent and make decisions for the Japanese people, an independent investigation should be launched to see if his lies were negligent and even criminal in intent.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

“We can no longer go back to a life that depends on candles,” ruling party heavyweight Yoshito Sengoku said

Of course he would say that. He's 66 years old and closer to the end than the beginning. Why would he care if there's another nuclear accident?

Plus isn't 60 the retirement age here? He should be playing 碁 and not making decisions that affect future generations based on his bank account.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Onniyama, Find my last post in the old thread, where i posted some protest pics for you, by different photographers..

Activists have collected more than 7.5 million signatures on a petition urging an end to nuclear power. Protesters have poured into the street almost daily over the past week.

Wow, 7.5M is a lot!!! Definitely progress, although petitions can be nearly worthless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SmithinJapan - "There's certainly no perfect score card when it comes to picking politicians, that's for sure. When it comes to using something that threatens the lives of MILLIONS, though, and has killed hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in the past, you'd think you want to make sure it's secure before putting it into use. But hey... what country are we talking about again?"

Are you comparing a nuclear power plant to an atom bomb?

If so, why? A-bombs create nuclear blast waves, suck air out of the immediate atmosphere, have devastating shock, sound and heat waves, and can create a nuclear winter in the immediate vicinity.

Does a melting down nuclear plant have and do any of these?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

critics = Greenpeace? LMAO!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

For all those against re-starting the reactors, perhaps they could list for the rest of us some constructive, realistic, useable alternatives to generating energy using nuclear power plants?

Because slamming Sengoku about a comment about using candles isn't moving the debate forward in the slightest.

Solutions, not complaints, please

1 ( +4 / -3 )

critics = Greenpeace? LMAO!

Ad hominem... are you arguing facts or are you not.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Thomas Anderson: With only 2.8 million individual supporters (most non-Japanese) what have they ever accomplished in Japan besides being a "critic"?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

repose to warispeaceJun. 17, 2012 - 11:48AM JST : Shortly after 3/11 there was no meltdown. If a meltdown occurred (it is highly probable, but not verified yet), it would have started the next day when the battery backups and last operational generator went offline. Not a lie, simply he spoke based on facts available at the time. When an issue was recognized as one that could (but likely will not) affect health, they quickly mandated an evacuation that likely killed more people than the radiation ever will.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The Harper:

" But it's ok to go back to a life that risks death by radiation induced causes. Have you asked the people of Fukushima, Sengoku-san? Or anyone outside the parliamentary bubble that seems to shield you from reality? "

There was no death by radiation. And you should answer the qeustion: are you ready to go back to a life with candles?

It is all good and well to promote research into energy alternatives. But this hysterical demand to shut down a large part of Japans power supply right now is beyond childish.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Thomas Anderson: With only 2.8 million individual supporters (most non-Japanese) what have they ever accomplished in Japan besides being a "critic"?

Like I said you should argue with facts, not about who they are.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

WilliB, for the first time ever, I agree with you.

Wow. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thomas Anderson: Who's arguing? I'm asking question and having a great time in the process. Could you perhaps answer my on-topic question instead of telling me what ti do while being a "critic" of people's character? Thx!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

response to zichiJun. 17, 2012 - 09:30AM JST: The 50 reactor quote is the number of reactors that can be restated with time. Daini did not suffer structural damage to the ractor cores themselves, so while it may take time to repair, it can be done. Additionally, Dai-ichi 5 and 6 are perfectly useful, as is 4 if the spent fuel pool is repaired. Due to both Japanese and international regulations though, four will have to be decommissioned, and 5 and 6 will likely be defueled and never actually started.

Additionally, due to incident light angles and shadow reception issues with solar panels, the actual land area need per GWe is closer to 58sq km, so you are looking at about 170 sq km land for 3GWe. That of course, is nothing compared to the land requirements of wind (about 600sq km). And of course, panel production releases plenty of dangerous chemicals that are gram for gram more toxic than nuclear waste.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Ahhh the Sunday mod has started

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heda_Madness, In fact, according to the MIT research combined with research by Bernard L. Cohen, more people will die as a result of NOT using nuclear than by using it. These people are simply overreacting by underinformation, and the media loves to feed off it and make it worse. After all, non-apocalyptic news stories don't sell right?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Zichi-san said: "The 2 Oi reactors can generate 3GW of power. To generate 3GW of power from solar energy would require enough solar panels to cover 18 sq miles. But in fact, the area would need to be greater than that because solar energy does not generate power 24/7."

Not sure,but are you saying that relying only upon solar energy will not replace that 3GW? Might be so, but a long term solution would include a great many types of renewals, not just one...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Patricia Yarrow

I agree with you. I give the figures for solar energy so that people could understand what's involved. I'm all in favor of finding solutions to the problems, like if solar energy would need so much flat space, then we could think about going vertical, and upwards.

The long term solution to finding new energy will involve several sources and not just one. Solar, wind, biomass, biogas, biofuels, geothermal, tidal and wave, small hydro's for local generation. Better use of using the unused overnight power by converting it to copressed air stored in bags on the seabed and released during power peak demand to drive turbines.

Within 10 years, the country country could be generating 20% of its power from renewables. Within 20-30 years that could be increased to 50%.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

warispeaceJUN. 17, 2012 - 11:48AM JST

Minister Edano went before the Japanese people and as their representative, chosen to protect their safety, told them that there was no meltdown and that everything would be all right,

I just want to make things accurate.

A couple days after 3.11, 2011, Edano DID say “There is a possibility that meltdown has occurred.”

CNN reports "a meltdown may have occurred in at least one nuclear power reactor in Japan, the country's chief cabinet secretary, Yukio Edano, said Sunday, adding that authorities are concerned about the possibility of another meltdown at a second reactor." "We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred. It is inside the reactor. We can't see. However, we are assuming that a meltdown has occurred," Edano told CNN about the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility. "Because it's inside the reactor, we cannot directly check it, but we are taking measures on the assumption of the possible partial meltdown," Edano said, reports the Washington Post.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.nuclear/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

http://english.ntdtv.com/ntdtv_en/news_asia/2011-03-28/japanese-officials-confirm-meltdown-at-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

response to zichiJun. 17, 2012 - 01:59PM JST : Compressed air bags in not a viable engineering solution. The maximum recoverable energy capacity of compressed air is very low, low enough that it isn't even researched. Not to mention a bladder failure could result in a localized tsunami or sink nearby boats. That would be a very big health risk. Bio fuels (mass, gas, oils) have the same problems as normal fuel, with the added issue of higher volatile organic compounds. Those compounds pollute the air can can cause breathing issues, and if stagnated due to low wind, reach toxic levels.

Vertical solar panels are even more dangerous, simply look at what happened with the Vdara hotel actually burning people due to the reflective surface. If you place solar towers near populated areas, what will happen. Even more, what will happen to everything from insects to airplanes? Most airports are south to north oriented to minimize effects of sunlight on pilots, but if a giant solar tower starts reflecting sunlight into pilots eyes during landing or takeoff, what will happen? Every energy option has it's issues, some more obvious than others. People like to point out the ones they know about, but often forget that everything was engineered, taking advantages and disadvantages into account.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

basroil,

The 50 reactor quote is the number of reactors that can be restated with time. Daini did not suffer structural damage to the ractor cores themselves, so while it may take time to repair, it can be done. Additionally, Dai-ichi 5 and 6 are perfectly useful, as is 4 if the spent fuel pool is repaired. Due to both Japanese and international regulations though, four will have to be decommissioned, and 5 and 6 will likely be defueled and never actually started.

According to the plant manager at the second Fukushima plant, it came very close to it's own meltdowns. The plant was badly damaged by the earthquake and tsunami. The No1 reactor still does not have mains power supply. The government have declared the area around the first Fukushima plant is so highly contaminated with radiation, an area which includes the second Fukushima plant, that no one will ever be allowed to live there again. The second Fukushima plant will never run again. At the end of last year, TEPCO completed the paperwork to decommission all six reactors at the first Fukushima plant. That is a lost of all 10 reactors. The government have requested the Tokai NPP be decommissioned because of its age and the fact it failed the stress test. The two reactors at Tsuruga are under government investigation so we'll have to wait until the results are known to know if they'll ever be allowed to start again. Probably, the TEPCO plant in Niigata will be given permission to start again once the safety levels are increased. There seems to be a serious problem with a reactor in Kyushu but I don't know the details. Corrosion, I think? There's probably at least 15 reactors which will never operate again.

Additionally, due to incident light angles and shadow reception issues with solar panels, the actual land area need per GWe is closer to 58sq km, so you are looking at about 170 sq km land for 3GWe. That of course, is nothing compared to the land requirements of wind (about 600sq km). And of course, panel production releases plenty of dangerous chemicals that are gram for gram more toxic than nuclear waste.

You need to start thinking outside of the box, or more likely, outside of the nuclear reactor. The country needs to resolve and change the energy it uses and the way it uses it. The government have already hinted that in its new energy policy due at the end of July, nuclear energy will be limited to 15% and not the originally planned 50%. Unless you want to go on using coal, oil and gas, alternative energy sources will have to be developed. Your own country, America, generates 50% of its power from coal.

Horizontal solar plants would require too much flat land space, but there are solutions like building them vertically or turning them into off shore floating islands, which might be a good idea, since the power generated could be used to produce compressed air, stored in bags on the seabed, and released during peak power demand to drive turbines. This is already happening in other places. Large off shore wind plants and don't tell me about storms without mentioning the hundreds of oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico which are frequently hit by hurricanes, including CAT5's.

The future of renewable energy isn't just about solar energy, but about all forms of clean and available energy. Solar, wind, biomass, biofuel, tidal and wave. Small local hydro's. Cell fuel energy servers.

You seem to frequently over look the very solid fact that nuclear power plants are massive and complex. During their construction, they use millions of tons of raw materials, steel, iron, copper, plastics from oil, concrete, uranium. Much of it is firstly mined or drilled for. Uranium miners develop cancers, which has happened in Australia, there the miners have been seeking compensation for decades. 

Your constant  negativity is tiring.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Vertical solar panels are even more dangerous, simply look at what happened with the Vdara hotel actually burning people due to the reflective surface. If you place solar towers near populated areas, what will happen. Even more, what will happen to everything from insects to airplanes? Most airports are south to north oriented to minimize effects of sunlight on pilots, but if a giant solar tower starts reflecting sunlight into pilots eyes during landing or takeoff, what will happen? Every energy option has it's issues, some more obvious than others. People like to point out the ones they know about, but often forget that everything was engineered, taking advantages and disadvantages into account.

If you are talking about reflectivity, a new anti-glare coating has been developed based on the molecular structure of moth eyes. It's quite impressive, where you literally can't see the glass.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Having seen the advertisements aimed at even the nikkeijin to work and cleanup the mess in the radioactive areas , I wonder who will be left to take care of the next disaster?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

basroil,

Compressed air bags in not a viable engineering solution. The maximum recoverable energy capacity of compressed air is very low, low enough that it isn't even researched. Not to mention a bladder failure could result in a localized tsunami or sink nearby boats. That would be a very big health risk. Bio fuels (mass, gas, oils) have the same problems as normal fuel, with the added issue of higher volatile organic compounds. Those compounds pollute the air can can cause breathing issues, and if stagnated due to low wind, reach toxic levels.

Sometimes, your comments have me be on the floor rolling with laughter. Exploding air bags on the seabed would cause a tsunami and even sink nearby boats. Well I suppose, boats could be warned to stay away, much like they do with sunken ship wrecks. Much of the overnight power, especially from nuclear reactors which run at full speed 24/7 is wasted unless used for pumped hydro stations, but they are more costly to build than producing compressed air and storing it in bags on the seabed. Due to the water pressure, a large volume of compressed air can be stored in a small bag. There's nothing magical about nuclear reactors, they are just a kettle producing steam to turn power turbines which generate electricity. There are other ways to turn the turbines, like in hydro dams or even compressed air. 

Waste matter goes into into land fills and produces methane gas which escapes and enters the atmosphere adding to the problem of climate change. By turning it into biomass or biofuel no more methane would be produced than from a land fill but we can use it to generate power. Other waste is burnt so if that's the case, at least use the heat to generate power, which happens in cities like Osaka. Going back to the biomass and biofuel, if it's used in a cell energy server, like the Bloom Energy Servers, since no heat is involved, there's zero emissions.

There would be zero health risks from using compressed air, unlike nuclear fuel, which at least, gives cancer to the uranium miners.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/04/green-machine-undersea-air-bag.html

You know, there's quite a difference between an exploding compressed air bag, and an exploding nuclear reactor.

Vertical solar panels are even more dangerous, simply look at what happened with the Vdara hotel actually burning people due to the reflective surface. If you place solar towers near populated areas, what will happen. Even more, what will happen to everything from insects to airplanes? Most airports are south to north oriented to minimize effects of sunlight on pilots, but if a giant solar tower starts reflecting sunlight into pilots eyes during landing or takeoff, what will happen? Every energy option has it's issues, some more obvious than others. People like to point out the ones they know about, but often forget that everything was engineered, taking advantages and disadvantages into account.

Solar panels are no more reflective than the millions of windows of skyscrapers. They don't even need to be reflective to generate power. New solar films are becoming available, which can be placed on those millions of skyscraper windows to generate power. If large buildings and large companies generated 15% to 30% of its own power, there would be less need for large power plants. Many of the Fortune 500 companies are starting to do just that even though they have no power shortage. The new huge DATA centers, some which use more power than a small city, could also be used to generate power.

We already have thousands of vertical buildings almost 100% reflective glass. But I think the idea of off shore floating solar islands is also a possible idea.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

We need to move to the point were every person can generate all the power and energy they need, without any more monthly energy bills or even huge power companies. Remember H.G. Wells once said, man would land on the moon.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Zichi wrote:

The 3/11 disaster destroyed both the Fukushima plants with a total of 10 reactors.

Saying that it "destroyed" the Daini plant is a bit of an exaggeration, although there's been little news coverage of the extent of the damage. The Daini plant was hit by a smaller wave which caused less damage, but from what little information I can easily find, the reactors overheated, just not as badly as at the Daiichi plant. From the pictures in the link below, it looks like Tepco is keen to get the Daini plant operational again.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/images/handouts_110906_01-e.pdf

The photos show extensive flooding with seawater, and if the wikipedia article is to be believed, there's extensive damage to infrastructure through corrosion. Apparently TEPCO also had to use seawater to cool the Daini plant?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

response to zichiJun. 17, 2012 - 02:42PM JST , zichiJun. 17, 2012 - 03:26PM JST : I have yet to see how this is not off topic. Perhaps the mods are asleep and have yet to resume duty.

Lets just fancy your airbags then: A fairly reasonable maximum energy concentration would be 20MPa, which gives you about 300kJ in isothermal process (not really possible, but whatever) per cubic meter. 300kJ is about 83WHr. For KEPCO off peak, they are using about 14GWe, and assuming 12 hours off-peak (non-daylight), we have about 170GWHr. That means about 2 billion cubic meters of air must be compressed for 100% generation, so lets just use 3GWe (Oi plant) for 430 million cubic meters of air. While nowhere near the 130 billion cubic meter upthrust that lead to the Tohoku tsunami, it is more than enough to cause localized damage if just a tenth of the air is leaked in a short time, especially since it will be very close to shore.

As for datacenter power, how so? Most of them are very dense, so even filling up the entire building with panels only offsets 5-10%. Maybe you mean using the heat generated? If so, the laws of thermodynamics say no.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Zichi wrote:

The future of renewable energy isn't just about solar energy, but about all forms of clean and available energy. Solar, wind, biomass, biofuel, tidal and wave. Small local hydro's. Cell fuel energy servers.

I agree absolutely Zichi - although the thing which people still don't seem to get is that solar panels can be very effective at reducing peak load because they're producing the most energy at the same time as peak load. If you put enough panels on the roof of each house to take the daytime load of the house (refrigerators and the like) off the grid, the cumulative effect would be to greatly reduce the peak load. It's the peak loads and instantaneous loads which power companies operate for. If you can reduce the peak loads, you can reduce the number of power generators running 24x7.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

the_harper

the structure and systems of the second Fukushima plant were damaged by the earthquake and a smaller tsunami but even after about 15 months, they have been unable to restore mains power to at least one reactor. Its very close to the other Fukushima plant and if the radiation contamination is high, like stated by the government, its unlikely TEPCO will ever get permission to start the second power plant again.

There would also be the massive oppsition from the people and governor of Fukushima. I think the days of nuclear energy in Fukushima are clearly over with the permanent loss of all 10 reactors.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Zichi wrote:

The 2 Oi reactors can generate 3GW of power. To generate 3GW of power from solar energy would require enough solar panels to cover 18 sq miles

Hi Zichi, I'm not sure what the basis of your calculation is. I just ran a calculation based on an off-the-shelf 200W panel which is 1.58x0.81 metres in area. If I assume that the panels are laid out with no loss of area, 18 square miles would be 46.6 square kilometres and would provide enough space for panels to generate 7.282 GW. Of course there's a lot of assumptions like connecting them together and assuming that they are all operating at peak efficiency (which in the case of the panel I randomly picked is only 16%). While it's also true that solar panels don't work at night, the peak load isn't at night either, and it's the peak load which the Japanese government says the reactors need to be restarted to handle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Generating electrical power from compressed air.

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind-reserve.htm

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This info is only about 2 weeks old, look here.... (hi, zichi thanks for all the hard work you post)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/28/solar-power-world-record-germany

German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity,

equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity, through the midday hours of

Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank has said.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

WilliB wrote:

There was no death by radiation. And you should answer the qeustion: are you ready to go back to a life with candles? It is all good and well to promote research into energy alternatives. But this hysterical demand to shut down a large part of Japans power supply right now is beyond childish.

So you're moving to live in Fukushima are you? Isn't that the real test of faith in the Nuclear power industry? The majority of deaths due to radiation from Chernobyl were not instantaneous. They were long, slow and in many cases agonising deaths by cancers such as leukemia. Japan will be counting the real cost of Fukushima Daiichi for decades not months. It appears that the reactors at the Daiini plant also came close to meltdown. The situation at the Daiichi plant is years from being resolved and could still become far worse if another quake causes one of the spent fuel pools to fail. It's not hysterical or childish to want to avoid the risk of another accident like Fukushima Daiichi. No information has been made public to reassure the public that all of the factors which caused the Daiichi plant to fail have been addressed at any of the other plants which are to be restarted. All that we know is that "stress tests" were passed by some plants, but we don't have the details of what that means.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the_harper

actually I was reading an article which stated to generate 1GW of power from solar energy would need 6 sq mile of solar panels, which I assume meant in their normal operating position. So 3GW would need 18 sq miles. Solar energy can only be generated on average for about 5 hours per day when available.

But if you want to really work it out, then solar power generates about 70 milliwatts per sq inch.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I wonder when they will discover that nuclear disasters are really good for you? Don't stress yourself worrying about having stress, because that could be much worse for you. They also say that stress is beneficial because it keeps you alert. You can't blame elected officials..... because you elected them. They know most people believe without question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zizhi wrote:

There would also be the massive oppsition from the people and governor of Fukushima. I think the days of nuclear energy in Fukushima are clearly over with the permanent loss of all 10 reactors

I agree with you. I was simply pointing out that it's an exaggeration to say that the reactors at the Daini plant were "destroyed". :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Compressed air tools are used extensively on production lines. If the compressed air was produced using energy from solar, wind or even cell energy servers, it could help reduce the power demand during peak periods.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Zichi wrote:

actually I was reading an article which stated to generate 1GW of power from solar energy would need 6 sq mile of solar panels, which I assume meant in their normal operating position. So 3GW would need 18 sq miles. Solar energy can only be generated on average for about 5 hours per day when available.

OK, I don't know what article you read, so I don't know how the figures were calculated. I'm also disappointed that you ignored my point about the correlation between solar peak and peak daytime demand. I'd love to know how much land area Germany used to provide 50% of peak load from solar. The article below relates to my comment about using rooftop panels. http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/08/la-5-gw-of-solar-power-using-virtually-no-additional-land-minimal-backup/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

basroil

I have never stated that compressed air could replace the power from a nuclear reactor, or for that matter a coal or gas fired plant. But one problem with both solar and wind is that you don't always get the power when you need it. Batteries are still very expensive so compressed air could be one idea which various companies are trying to develop. The waste of over night power could be better used by storing the energy in compressed air. Even if it was only 30% efficient, that's 30% more than zero.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

basroil

I have never stated that compressed air could replace the power from a nuclear reactor, or for that matter a coal or gas fired plant. But one problem with both solar and wind is that you don't always get the power when you need it. Batteries are still very expensive so compressed air could be one idea which various companies are trying to develop. The waste of over night power could be better used by storing the energy in compressed air. Even if it was only 30% efficient, that's 30% more than zero.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So you're moving to live in Fukushima are you? Isn't that the real test of faith in the Nuclear power industry? The majority of deaths due to radiation from Chernobyl were not instantaneous. They were long, slow and in many cases agonising deaths by cancers such as leukemia. Japan will be counting the real cost of Fukushima Daiichi for decades not months.

Not according to the WHO, UNESCAR reports or the other recent data. 99.3% of Fukushima citizens received radiation at levels within those internationally accepted limits. The remaining 0.7% received doses that were less than is acceptable for nuclear workers. According to UNESCAR 164 workers at Dai Ichi have a slightly elevated risk of getting cancer. "If there’s a health risk, it’s with the highly exposed workers,” says Wolfgang Weiss, the chair of UNSCEAR

1 ( +2 / -1 )

All readers, back on topic please. The topic is Japan, not Germany or other countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Basroil, I know. We're now using more coal and fossil fuels to make up for the shortfall. Known and proven killers. People on this board are advocating an even greater reliance in these substitute products despite the unquestionable impact that they have had on the environment. There's a link that JT moderators delete every time i post it but it's irrefutable that fossil fuels cause deaths on a scale that is far, far greater than has been seen in Chernobyl, never mind what happened in Fukushima.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

the_harper

the second Fukushima plant was destroyed enough by both the earthquake and tsunami that it can't be started again without extensive rebuilding and replacement of major systems, like the electrical systems and pumps which provide cooling for the reactors and spent fuel pools. It didn't have any nuclear core meltdowns but at least one reactor, probably No1, was filled with sea water, so that reactor can never be used again.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

As as the NIMBY argument there are a lot of question marks over how environmentally friendly wind farms as well as questions over the long term/renewable aspects. Wind is a useful tool but it' often as controversial as nuclear.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Some of the large companies have made a request to the government to be allowed to rent roof top space around their factories, so that they can install solar panels. I don't know any of the details. One problem with roof tops here, is that sometimes the way homes and apartment blocks are build, not every roof is suitable for solar power, especially in the big inner cities.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Heda_Madness wrote:

Not according to the WHO, UNESCAR reports or the other recent data. 99.3% of Fukushima citizens received radiation at levels within those internationally accepted limits. The remaining 0.7% received doses that were less than is acceptable for nuclear workers. According to UNESCAR 164 workers at Dai Ichi have a slightly elevated risk of getting cancer. "If there’s a health risk, it’s with the highly exposed workers,” says Wolfgang Weiss, the chair of UNSCEAR

I wasn't talking about the radiation exposure during the worst of the accident or even to date. I was talking about the accumulated exposure for those living in the areas which have been contaminated and will remain contaminated for decades. We should discuss this again in ten years' time (or twenty, or thirty), assuming that the data is ever collected to show the variation in the frequency of all types of cancer as a longitudinal study comparing pre and post the accident. I haven't seen anyone amongst the defenders of nuclear energy say that they are prepared to go and live anywhere close to the Fukushima Daiichi plant. If the radiation risk is so low, there shouldn't be any hesitation?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I've been to the edge of the exclusion zone on a number of occasions. In all conditions and eaten food from there and drank water. So what's your point?

Are you also suggesting that even though 99.3% of people of Fukushima have been exposed to well below the acceptable annual radiation limits that their exposure which actually increase over time? Because that's not what any of the experts are saying. Read that quote again. IF...nuclear workers... Are you assuming that they were just talking about now?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

almxxJun. 17, 2012 - 04:45PM JST : I doubt they will find it's good for you, but they have shown it's no worse than the alternatives, and probably not harmful to anyone. Stress on the other hand, leads to heart problems, stomach problems, and more. It also doesn't take years to have symptoms, it can happen almost overnight. I'm sure more people have become sick by stress already than ever will from radiation due to daiichi

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Zichi wrote:

Some of the large companies have made a request to the government to be allowed to rent roof top space around their factories, so that they can install solar panels. I don't know any of the details.

Well, that's something! Hope it progresses. Hopefully some of the factories will also use their own rooftops as well.

One problem with roof tops here, is that sometimes the way homes and apartment blocks are build, not every roof is suitable for solar power, especially in the big inner cities.

Sure, that's inevitable. As you've said yourself, the solution will be a combination of things, and every bit counts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heda_Madness,

what are you saying? It's now safe for all the nuclear refugee's to return to their homes and communities because they didn't receive high doses of radiation but a very large area of land mass did. I haven't read any comments on here about people saying to use more coal, gas and oil.

Most people who are concerned about using nuclear energy are equally concerned about coal, oil and gas too. The nuclear disaster might not have given people high levels of radiation which could develop cancers 20 and 30 years down the road, but it did kill a number of people, especially the old and sick during the evacuation. It has also caused high stress levels in people living in Fukushima, leading to some even committing suicide. The stress levels for the nuclear refugee's has been very high and without doubt will affect their long term health and even shorten their life span.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No, i'm not saying it's safe to return to the highly contaminated areas and I'd say that with current laws it's highly unlikely that they ever will. I would say that those who are living in less contaminated areas are not going to develop cancer in 50 years time. At least that's the conclusion that was presented a couple of weeks ago by UNSCEAR.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Zichi, I accept that people died in the evacuation but would you care to guess how many people will die in a Japanese summer with no electricity. My guess is it would be substantially higher.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

basroil,

The Dream That Failed.

http://www.economist.com/node/21549098

Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama of Tokyo University, thinks the cost of the nuclear disaster will be as much as ¥50 trillion, or $623 billion. Equal only to the prime mortgage meltdown in America.

According to a government panel, nuclear energy costs will increase by ¥1.6/kWh for every ¥1 trillion cost of the nuclear disaster. If Professor Kodama is correct, the cost of nuclear energy will rise by ¥80/kWh? That does not includes the cost of increasing the safety levels at the NPP's which according to KEPCO will cost the company ¥200 billion.

By 2015, America will run out of its storage space for spent nuclear fuel. Japan does not have a plan for long term storage but putting it back in uranium mines is not the answer. When the uranium is mined it's not highly irradiated like it is after being used in a nuclear reactor. There is also the problem of terrorists getting hold of it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Heda_Madness

Last year Kanto and Tohoku suffered its worse power cuts in decades but I didn't read anything about thousands dying from the heat like they did in France a few years ago.

This year TEPCO have stated there will be no power shortages even without their nuclear reactors. In Kansai, according to KEPCO even with the Oi reactots there will still be power shortages.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Extreme stress over a long period can cause cancer and organ failure.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Zichi, that's because the power cuts didn't happen in the summer - they were late March/April.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Zichi: The first source does NOT explain WHY those numbers exist, simply that they do. Considering your previous listings of 13 billion yen for cleanup in the exclusion zone, the actual cost of the POWER PLANT issues will be less than 50 billion yen. The rest is probably non-plant related expenses, such as lost earnings, house relocation, infrastructure decay, etc. Those are entirely the government's fault, and unrelated to the health health issues. Your second article (which I read three years ago), does not actually tackle any health issues, nor does it actually talk about the assumed radioactivity vs ore. It is entirely safe to put it back in the ground, and in fact it is a political issue, not environmental or medical one, that stops us from just drilling really deep and stuffing a cork ontop.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Last year Kanto and Tohoku suffered its worse power cuts in decades but I didn't read anything about thousands dying from the heat like they did in France a few years ago.

According to Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, death toll from heatstroke

2011 (5/30~9/11): 72

2010: 1,718

2009: 213

http://www.fdma.go.jp/neuter/topics/heatstroke/pdf/230913_sokuhouti.pdf

Last year's death toll was the lowest in the past three years even if we were imposed to setsuden in Kanto and Tohoku.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

reply to Blair HerronJun. 17, 2012 - 07:05PM JST

According to Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, death toll from heatstroke 2011 (5/30~9/11): 72 2010: 1,718 2009: 213 http://www.fdma.go.jp/neuter/topics/heatstroke/pdf/230913_sokuhouti.pdf Last year's death toll was the lowest in the past three years even if we were imposed to setsuden in Kanto and Tohoku.

Japan was also lucky, since there were a wave of storms and cloud cover during the hottest days. The power outages were also rotated around in such a way as to minimize power loss where people were concentrated during the day. Should there be unexpectedly hot weather, combined with clear skies, the death toll could be higher than even 2010. While it is unlikely, the health risk is much higher than any perceived risk from radiation.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

basroil,

the cost of the decontamination work inside the current no-go zone, but not including the NPP will be ¥13 billion. The cost of the compensation claims will be more than ¥5 trillion. The cost of the work at the Fukushima NPP will probably be about ¥2 trillion per year, and since it will take more than 30 years, will be in excess of ¥30 trillion.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/3707

3 ( +3 / -0 )

basroil,

the main question of this time is, if nuclear energy will only generate 15% of total power in the near future, how will the other 85% be genereated? Answers on a post card to PM Noda.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tue/Wed, mainland Japan will be hit by a Super Typhoon with 150 mph winds, so I hope they are taking notice at the Fukushima NPP. This week TEPCO placed a heavy steel cover over the No4 spent fuel pool to prevent further debris getting into it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In response to basroil and Blair Herron's apologist redirection, please check the following two links.

First there is Edano's statement to the nation that there was no meltdown, as late as April 19th. Yet he was aware of the melt down shortly (within several days) after 3.11. We can therefore say this is a lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V2gCnaGotQ

Edano even admits he did not tell the truth. He just claims that when he misled the nation, it was not deliberate. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201205280005

I am just suggesting that a deeper independent investigation is necessary to prove or disprove whether his intention was deliberate or not.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichiJun. 17, 2012 - 08:02PM JST

basroil,

the cost of the decontamination work inside the current no-go zone, but not including the NPP will be ¥13 billion. The cost of the compensation claims will be more than ¥5 trillion. The cost of the work at the Fukushima NPP will probably be about ¥2 trillion per year, and since it will take more than 30 years, will be in excess of ¥30 trillion.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/3707

These numbers are unsubstantiated figures given by lawyers, not too different than when RIAA convinced courts around the world including Japan that a single song download is worth 15 million yen. These are not health related, nor are they even nuclear plant related numbers or issues. Independent international investigators have shown time and time again that the land is perfectly safe, and cultivated crops, while containing higher than Japanese law allows, contain lower radiation than could ever be considered an issue.

The exclusion zone is causing more health and economic problems than it "prevents".

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

basroil:

If it was not health related, why spending whatever zillions to decontaminate and decommissioned the NPP? Just leave it as is and rebuild a brand new NPP right beside the destroyed ones. Or build one in Roppongi Hills if this is so safe.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

basroil,

there are many links to non lawyers and certainly not unsubstantiated. I previously stated, a Tokyo University professor puts the figure at ¥50 trillion.

The private research institute, Japan Center for Economic Research put the bill over the next ten years at 5.7 trillion yen to 20 trillion yen or higher.29 But neither figure includes compensation to the farming and fisheries industries, though the latter does budget for the purchase of contaminated land inside the 20-km evacuation zone

You seem unable to accept anyone else's evidence or opinions except your own. The gov't have stated there are are areas inside the no-go zone with contamination levels greater than 20 millisieverts per year.

The Ministry of Science, last year stated that more than 10,000 sq km have been contaminated with more than 600 sq km in Fukushima contaminated above 20 millisieverts per year. That is above the legal limit.

The nuclear disaster, the cost, the health problems, whether its because of stress or fears of cancer, have nothing in common with your off topic reference to the RIAA, unless you mean the well song,

"The urban myth of nuclear energy being clean, safe and cheap" is busted. Try learning the words?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Actually to a point made earlier that solar doesn't generate power 24/7 has been overcome by using molten salt at 500 C as the means of making steam to create electricity. This makes it a solar thermal station not a solar panel one. Takes a lot of space to be sure but it would be clean and lasts 8 months of the year based on the working full scale design in Spain.

Japan could figure out how to make many smaller versions as well. Possible by focusing rooftop panels to a highrise or lower panels on a slope to a higher collector up a mountain side. It would be fun to give it a try. Many smaller towns might find it more practical.

Also solar thermal is used on a lot of housing for emergency planning in Japan (saw a lot in Hiroshima-ken countryside and I'm sure there are others) so the overall concept isn't new in Japan either, nor the investments made, more just one of scaling.

No one solution is going to bring change but a mix of different things. This builds resilience into the energy mix and also tends to make energy generation more local by design. This is an excellent bonus for Japan, as in the case of an earthquake the whole region would not then be out of power, especially industry and hospitals. That's an important design consideration and can be met with mixed uses including solar thermal molten salt power.

Lots of fun designs out there if you look for them. Cheers

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I should note that collecting light to a single point is safe. Thinking of a medical equivalent example in the use of gallstones where sound waves are used. A sound wave strong enough to break up a gallstone is also too strong for the body and surrounding tissue, so the direct approach isn't possible. However by having multiple transmitters around the patient each only emit a lower power and pass through the body without injuring the patient. They are focused to a single point, the gallstone. The concentration of all the transmissions then equals a much larger emission and successfully breaks up the stone and the patient can pass it normally.

So this is the same with a solar thermal collector, The light on each panel is not that strong individually, but collected to a single point can be many hundreds of degrees. The molten salt in this use case is a great thermal storage system for all this heat and is then used to make electricity.

I certainly believe any nation given enough land could make such a collector system as Spain has done, but big huge scale isn't going to be desirable or it may not be possible in Japan. I don't think this detracts from the design but merely makes it more practicable for smaller towns or light industries. It will require a bit of creativity but that doesn't detract from the positive outcome potential.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Fadamor/SushiSake: "Oh, you mean the nuclear WEAPONS dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yeah, but see that's what those WEAPONS were designed to do. WEAPONS kill large numbers of people."

Hey, can you put WEAPONS in all caps a few more times for me? :) Either way, you miss the point. Japan is the only nation to have suffered nuclear attacks, and yet they are a nation pushing for more NPPs than even France -- or at least were. In other words, while Japan stood the chance of being the biggest leader in the world on knowing how lethal radiation can be they chose instead to embrace it as an easy means of making money. Now it's lethal again, by accident (not weaponized), and yet they're going to start it up all over again.

I never said the NPPs in Japan were tantamount to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- I said Japan clearly did not learn anything from those events. That is actually the ONLY thing I agree with Tokyo's Ishihara on (although he said it a lot more poorly).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Surely these critics realise by now that the Japanese government doesn't care about the health of the people? That's why the reactors are being restarted before rigourous safety checks are in place and before essential modifications and improvements are finished. That's why the government knowingly allows contaminated food to be sold and given to schoolchildren in their lunches.

All the politicians care about is getting their bribes from the electricity companies.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Are nuclear weapons the same as nuclear power plants? Because according to the anti nuclear brigade as a result of the Fukushima event we'll have serious cancer problems in 20/30/40 years time and if, IF they are the same then I'd be interested to know why we haven't already had that in Nagasaki in Fukushima. Is it because a) they aren't the same or b), well no-one on here is able to contemplate b so let's just stick with a then shall we?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Heda_Madness, the nuclear disaster is about much more than the fact that few or no deaths can be related to it, but we must include those killed by the emrgency evacuations. The number of cancer deaths further down the road will be much less than some of the extremists have quoted but actually 40% of the population will develop some kind of cancer anyway. It's almost impossible to know if cancer was from radiation exposure except maybe for nuclear plant workers. There will be a higher cancer rate with the likes of the Fukushima 50.

But the disaster deatroyed whole communities turning them into nuclear refugee's. People lost almost everything and so many are struggling to just deal with the daily life. Family, job, debts, children. The disaster contaminated a very large land mass and the food chain. At least a small number of young children received internal doses of radiation.

Starting the reactors before the new atomic safety agency is in place is just the wrong thing to do and the gov't is sending the wrong message to the people. They will pay dearly, come the next general election.

Last year. the Fukushima government requested, demanded, people stop collecting data about the radiation because they fear the bad name Fukushima now means to most people.

I can accept that in the near future and until alternative energies are in place, will be a need to start a number of the reactors but the safety of those really needs to be confirmed and not just by a computer model. I believe the nuclear disaster has put the fear into all the power companies and now they'll spend the money to improve safety but much of the real improvements will take more than 5 years. The emergency center for the Oi plant isn't even earthquake proof. Its just an old school or office building or something.

The majority of people don't seem to be sure of the safety of the atomic plants.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Zichy,

As I've said on more than one occasion... I'd love to have a beer with you to discuss all of this in detail as you've clearly done a lot of research on the subject. As you know, as part of my environmental university degree I studied a lot on pollution. I know that nuclear power is NOT clean, I also know that it's NOT the monster which many of the contributors on here have tried to portray. The sooner that Japan is 100% clean the better, but we shouldn't just get rid of nuclear to get there. But all the recent findings support what I was suggesting last year. You should also know by now that I have been to the region enough to understand how the people have been affected there. I have first hand experience and have wasted enough time arguing with people who say that the whole area is affected, despite what my geiger counter has told me.

However, I will not stand by and allow people to post totally unsubstantiated rumours/misinformation and not respond. As I posted early last year, we have nothing to fear but fear itself and inaccurate posts on JT. I do believe that if the government had been more open at the start it would have reduced the stress level of people up there but I don't think ti would have made a blind bit of difference here. I think the vast majority of posters haven't researched anything on the subject and they will automatically vote against anything away from their stand point. No matter how inaccurate their claims are.

I do not believe that you are someone like that and I think that you realise that we need nuclear until we have a better option. It's not great, because there are risks but as I said the other day (possibly deleted) it's basic risk assessment. And having nuclear power, now, is better than the alternative.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

But the disaster deatroyed whole communities turning them into nuclear refugee's. People lost almost everything and so many are struggling to just deal with the daily life. Family, job, debts, children.

And don’t forget those moo cows. They didn’t have to die like this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kNVWIdWpG0&feature=player_embedded

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Last year. the Fukushima government requested, demanded, people stop collecting data about the radiation because they fear the bad name Fukushima now means to most people.

This is actually a good point. You know which areas were most effected yet on here we regularly have posters who a) link all of Tohoku to Fukushima and all of Fukushima to the disaster. Fukushima will forever be linked with radiation despite the vast majority of it being unaffected. I posted before that I'd been to Fukushima and eaten and drank there. I'm not unique. Many people have.

And I get negative ratings because it doesn't fit with what people want to read.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Heda_Madness,

there are extremists on both sides of the nuclear divide. There are the wild conspiracy children who predict the end of the world with millions of radiation cancers. But they are easy to spot and I think mostly ignore. At day's end this is only a forum, an opinion forum and nothing here will have any influence or change anything.

On the other side of the nuclear divide, there are those who believe, ot at least state they believe, that the nuclear disaster is just some over rated event and really there isn't that much radiation and the contamination of the land mass isn't true or lower enough for people to return to their homes.

I know you are a caring person and only want the best for people and I wouldn't take much notice of the minus votes, don't matter, really.

But Heda_Madness, the nuclear disaster is in very early days and this story is going to be very long with many chapters. It would be wrong thinking to even think iits over, or the worse is over. The NPP is still in a very fragile state and will remain at some danger level for many more decades.

This week, we will be hit by a super typhoon, Tue/Wed with 150 mph winds so I hope they are prepared at the Fukushima NPP. The structure of the No4 spent fuel pool is better than what it was but remains fragile.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Heda_Madness, I've given you a bunch of +votes, enjoy!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

at this moment the path of the Super Typhoon will pass directly over both the Oi NPP and then the Fukushima NPP on Tue/Wed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The article is just blinders against the fact that Japan is heading rapidly towards becoming 100% powered by solar power by 2041.

It makes no sense to have 100% solar when there is wave power and if properly designed, wind. What is the point of decommissioning hydrothermal if they are still usable...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The critics are correct.

It is a calculated risk, but a real risk nevertheless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

REMzzzJun. 18, 2012 - 05:50AM JST : Wave power has a cost index of about 600, compared to 250 for solar and 120 for gen3+ nuclear (including triple insurance). Not to mention that incorrect mapping and tether failures or seabed detachment can kill fishermen. As for geothermal, you will be poisoning the water table with heavy metals linked to everything from headaches to retardation to death. Pipes rust, and when they do, they burst and seep metals into higher areas.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

zichiJun. 17, 2012 - 09:37PM JST :

You seem unable to accept anyone else's evidence or opinions except your own. The gov't have stated there are are areas inside the no-go zone with contamination levels greater than 20 millisieverts per year. The Ministry of Science, last year stated that more than 10,000 sq km have been contaminated with more than 600 sq km in Fukushima contaminated above 20 millisieverts per year. That is above the legal limit.

Perhaps you are referring to the granite sections of Fukushima that can be easily seen by superimposing geological maps onto the government issued radiation readings. These are naturally occurring sources of radiation that can exceed the overly stringent government limits. We cannot considering to be contaminated though, and as people have been living with the large granite deposits for a long time, we can assume that there is no net change in health issues. While I can see people over-reacting when they see numbers compared to other places in Japan (most inhabited parts are not on granite deposits), I have yet to see numbers from before the accident at all sites considered above average radiation. Perhaps health risks can properly be calculated once the historic rates are known for all parts.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

basroil,

Perhaps you are referring to the granite sections of Fukushima that can be easily seen by superimposing geological maps onto the government issued radiation readings. These are naturally occurring sources of radiation that can exceed the overly stringent government limits. We cannot considering to be contaminated though, and as people have been living with the large granite deposits for a long time, we can assume that there is no net change in health issues. While I can see people over-reacting when they see numbers compared to other places in Japan (most inhabited parts are not on granite deposits), I have yet to see numbers from before the accident at all sites considered above average radiation. Perhaps health risks can properly be calculated once the historic rates are known for all parts.

You seem to have a habit of trying to send people's comments off on tangents when you don't agree with them? I was not referring to granite sections in Fukushima and stated what the government has stated. They have stated, that within the current no-go zone, there are areas contaminated by radiation with levels above 50 millisieverts/year, and no one will be allowed to live there again. The government have also stated that there are areas in the current no-go zone with radiation contamination above 20 miilisieverts/year and people will be advised not to return there. But for areas below 20 millisieverts/year people will be allowed to return once the gov't has finished the decontamination work.

According to you, there is no radiation contamination other than background stuff. Even outside of the no-go zone there are some areas with hotspots of 9 microsieverts/hr.

You have to see numbers before the disaster, well probably there are none because there wasn't much need to measure radiation? The current law is no one can live in a place with radiation higher than 1 millisievert/year unless in Fukushima which is now 20 millisieverts/year.

Perhaps you should check out the radiation maps made by Professor Yukio Hayakama of Gunma University. He made accurate maps for the initial release of the radiation from the Fukushima atomic plant following the meltdowns in reactors 1-3, and the hydrogen explosions in reactors 1,3 & 4, and the steam explosions in reactor 3.

http://kipuka.blog70.fc2.com/blog-entry-473.html

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Zichi: I haven't read any comments on here about people saying to use more coal, gas and oil.

Zichi, you must have missed them because I have read the posts of several people on this forum who advocate the use of fosil fuel as an alternative which is safer than N-power. Which basically, is an indirect call for using those types of fuel more often and in greater quantites.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Heda _Madness: I posted before that I'd been to Fukushima and eaten and drank there. I'm not unique. Many people have.

I have been there and done the same but just the same, people do not like to hear that not all Fukushima is "a dangerous" place. Those who give you "-" will probably never go there and see for themselves that most of the prefecture is actually OK.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

zichiJun. 18, 2012 - 12:07PM JST :

You have to see numbers before the disaster, well probably there are none because there wasn't much need to measure radiation? The current law is no one can live in a place with radiation higher than 1 millisievert/year unless in Fukushima which is now 20 millisieverts/year.

Really? According to [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan "Radiation in environment" 2010], The average background radiation in Japan before Daiichi was 1.5mSv, and yearly dose by medical use radiation alone was 2.3mSv yearly. According to your assumptions, practically everywhere in Japan is illegal to live in, especially if including radiation from medical sources.

Current numbers show a decrease of five times (to normal background levels ) in Iwaki from that map you provided, and Fukushima (city, shown to have >4microSv/hr in the map) shows more than an six times decrease . While fukushima is rated at 5mSv/year, it is fairly normal for a place with that much granite (some isolated areas exist with 13mSv/year rates, but oddly enough they are in parks and other areas where exposed rock is expected).

These numbers are hardly apocalyptic values, and in fact, they aren't even that rare to see in mountainous regions. There isn't much of a health threat, and likely already coincides with preexisting conditions.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

basroil

Really? According to [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan "Radiation in environment" 2010], The average background radiation in Japan before Daiichi was 1.5mSv, and yearly dose by medical use radiation alone was 2.3mSv yearly. According to your assumptions, practically everywhere in Japan is illegal to live in, especially if including radiation from medical sources.

I didn't offer or give assumptions, I just stated the current position of the law regarding radiation levels.

The pre-Fukushima legal exposure limit for the public in Japan was 10 mSv/y and 50 mSv/y for occupational exposure.

The occupational legal limits were soon scrapped after the accident. At the end of April 2011, the Japanese government released a map based on air surveys done by MEXT (Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), which revealed that people living in areas not being evacuated will receive radiation doses up to 23.5 times their annual legal limit over the course of the next year.

http://peakoil.com/enviroment/truth-about-fukushima/

Radiation readings by MEXT

http://www.mext.go.jp/english/

On Jun.18,2012 the highest reading I see at a sampling point outside of the no-go zone was 35.59 microsieverts/hr. For the same day, the highest reading I see inside the no-go zone was 50.2 microsieverts/hr.

The limit in Fukushima is 2.2 microsieverts/hr.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

zichiJun. 18, 2012 - 03:46PM JST :

The current law is no one can live in a place with radiation higher than 1 millisievert/year unless in Fukushima

1mSv/yr is very different than 10mSv/yr.

The limit in Fukushima is 2.2 microsieverts/hr.

No, that is the highest recorded sample, not a limit, as a limit implies either a threshold that should not be crossed or a physical barrier.

The occupational legal limits were soon scrapped after the accident. At the end of April 2011, the Japanese government released a map based on air surveys done by MEXT (Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology), which revealed that people living in areas not being evacuated will receive radiation doses up to 23.5 times their annual legal limit over the course of the next year.

Your links actually state otherwise, with only two stations outside 20km ring being above 10mSv last year (which means radiation linked to fast decay products like iodine are included, but are not insignificant). 23.5 times the annual legal limit would be ~240mSv, which is cause for concern no matter where they are... but it is also likely an instrument error if the few stations using IC are much higher than everywhere else.

Interestingly, soil readings are finding no traces of any of the short lived (~100 or less half-life) radio-isotopes, so cultivation in the area should not be a problem, and the land itself should pose no health risks from fallout.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Government ignored U.S. radiation monitoring data in days after 3/11 http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201206180048

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Add to zichi’s post,

gogogo @Blair Herron: Actually the SPEEDI information sat on a fax machine it wasn't delivered to anyone important and if I remember correctly no one even knew SPEEDI existed.

METI conducts Nuclear Disaster Drill once a year.

On October 20 and 21, 2010, METI and the former PM Kan did the drill.

http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/kan/actions/201010/21kunren_genshiryoku.html

No one even knew SPEEDI existed? I don’t think so because “How to provide SPEEDI data” was one of the drills which is written on the agenda.

http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/201108/29/84/d0044584_359778.jpg

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In late March, engineers for TEPCO discovered readings of airborne radiation inside the containment vessel of Reactor 2 showed nearly 73 sieverts per hour, the highest since the start of the nuclear disaster on 3/11. Exposure to radiation at that level would be deadly within minutes. After one year, the radiation level inside the reactor should have decreased but instead has increased. TEPCO also discovered the water level in the containment vessel was only 60 cms instead of the 2 meters it had been expecting.

This casts doubts that TEPCO have the reactors under control.

Last week, TEPCO engineers also discovered the radiation level on the 5th floor of the No2 reactor was 888 millisieverts per hour. This is were last year, a Quince robot stopped working. Radiation kills robots as well as carbon based creatures. the 5th floor is were the spend fuel pool is but TEPCO are unable to explain the high radiation level. TEPCO have previously stated there was no explosion inside No2 reactor building.

On Jun.18,2012 the highest reading I see at a sampling point outside of the no-go zone was 35.59 microsieverts/hr. For the same day, the highest reading I see inside the no-go zone was 50.2 microsieverts/hr.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/contents/5000/4749/24/20120618_1denji.pdf

TEPCO revealed that the damaged containment vessel of the No2 reactor was the main source of radiation contamination in Iitate and neighboring areas in Fukushima Prefecture.

The damaged No2 reactor's containment vessel released an estimated 160,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances on March 15, 2011, causing the soil in Iitate and surrounding areas to become heavily contaminated.

TEPCO needs to find and repair the damaged parts of the No2 reactor to recover melted nuclear fuel before starting to decommission the reactor. But it says high radiation often stops workers from entering the building.

Fukushima prefecture has asked Hirosaki University to stop testing people for radiation exposure levels. The researchers said Fukushima's Local Medical Care Division told them, "It's all right to measure environmental levels, but testing people stirs uneasiness, so we would like you to stop it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

On Jun.18,2012 the highest reading I see at a sampling point outside of the no-go zone was 35.59 microsieverts/hr. For the same day, the highest reading I see inside the no-go zone was 50.2 microsieverts/hr.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/contents/5000/4749/24/20120618_1denji.pdf

Your link indicates cumulative radiation from measuring points expressed in mSV.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In late March, engineers for TEPCO discovered readings of airborne radiation inside the containment vessel of Reactor 2 showed nearly 73 sieverts per hour, the highest since the start of the nuclear disaster on 3/11.

Methinks, perhaps it's because it's the first time TEPCO was able to measure the radiation levels INSIDE the containment vessel.

東京電力は27日、福島第一原発2号機の格納容器内で毎時72.9シーベルトの放射線を観測したと発表した。炉心溶融事故

を起こした1~3号機の格納容器内で、放射線を直接測定したのは初めて

So yeah. It should be the "HIGHEST".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Junichi Matsumoto, spokesman for TEPCO,said the figure of 73 sieverts far exceeds the highest level previously detected, of 10 sieverts an hour.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes I should have stated that the MEXT reading for June 18, should have been 35.59 and 50.2 millisieverts. But these accumulated reading are still high showing radiation is still a problem.

If the radiation level inside No2 reactor is 73 sieverts/hr, it will take many decades before trying to remove the melted nuclear fuel. Currently there's no technology to do it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The MEXT radiation readings for Jun.15, in mircosieverts/hr shows that in some areas there are still high levels of radiation, like in Iitate Village and Namie Town, 26 microsieverts/hr

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/contents/5000/4751/24/264_0618.pdf

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Junichi Matsumoto, spokesman for TEPCO,said the figure of 73 sieverts far exceeds the highest level previously detected, of 10 sieverts an hour.

The 10 seiverts per hour was taken from the exhaust duct shared by Reactor 1 & 2. The figure of 73 sieverts/hr was measured INSIDE the containment vessel which TEPCO was able to install in March.

Yes I should have stated that the MEXT reading for June 18, should have been 35.59 and 50.2 millisieverts. But these accumulated reading are still high showing radiation is still a problem.

Wrong again. 35.59 Milli sieverts represents a cumulative radiation in Sample point #46 outside the 20km zone. The figure is from 3/22/11 to 5/15/12 which represents nearly 14 months. The 50.2 Microsieverrts/hr is a radiation level within 3km of the plant.

http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/contents/5000/4748/24/197_1_20120618.pdf

The said location had almost 100 micro sieverts/hr on May 26, 2011 but have shown steady decrease as indicated on the graph in the above link.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Headline: "Critics say reactor restart decision risks health of people, economy"

I can see only five instances of the word economy on this page.

without getting carried away...can some one explain the "risk to the economy" (...by reactor restart...surely its less of a risk short term...medium, long term invest in more alternatives sure...but as a headline it has no backing or discussion or seemed to based on presented facts so far. )

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@warispeace

In response to basroil and Blair Herron's apologist redirection, please check the following two links. First there is Edano's statement to the nation that there was no meltdown, as late as April 19th. Yet he was aware of the melt down shortly (within several days) after 3.11. We can therefore say this is a lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V2gCnaGotQ

Because you said “shortly after 3.11”, I thought 3.14 is more like shortly after than April 19.

He didn’t say he was aware of the melt down. What he said was “possibility”

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters that officials still do not know if there have been meltdowns in the No. 1 and No. 3 reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi's nuclear facility in northeast Japan. But as they attempt to cool down radioactive material and release pressure inside the reactors, he said authorities were working under the presumption that such meltdowns have taken place. "We do believe that there is a possibility that meltdown has occurred. It is inside the reactor. We can't see. However, we are assuming that a meltdown has occurred," he said of the No. 1 reactor. "And with reactor No. 3, we are also assuming that the possibility of a meltdown as we carry out measures."

btw, I hate Edano.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

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