national

Gov't eyes nuclear power for 20-22% of electricity supply

88 Comments

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

© 2015 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

88 Comments
Login to comment

Gov't eyes nuclear power for 20-22% of electricity supply

While the people eye 0%.........guess who will win.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I didnt notice any mention about reducing the price to consumers. It's all about the money, never about the safety to the general public.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Are the politicians in Japan blind,deaf and dumb? Are they unable to remember Fukushima,Kobe or the recent devastation in Nepal? When there is a solution to the constant radioactive discharge from Fukushima can we pleases have a memorandum on nuclear power in Japan?!?!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Why don't they put this much emphasis and energy on other cleaner renewable energy? I understand the need to cut off the import of fuel and still maintain energy supply but still Japan needs to think really long term especially after Fukushima disaster.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yet another article purportedly on Japan's energy mix where the writer doesn't think it's worth bothering to mention the dozens of new coal power plants now either under construction or on the drawing board in Japan. Plants that will be located in and close to highly populated urban areas all across the country, and that will be pumping out deadly, toxic pollution and carcinogens for decades to come. No, no news in that, much more important to hear the thoroughly objective viewpoint of the dude, oh sorry "nuclear specialist", from Greenpeace Germany.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

While the people eye 0%.......

Interesting. The last poll I saw, which was by NHK a year ago, said 45% of people were against restarting the power plants. Did I miss a poll that showed 100% were against it?

Are they unable to remember Fukushima,Kobe or the recent devastation in Nepal?

First of all I think you're confusing Fukushima with the whole of Tohoku. At least I think you're trying to say that 18,000 people died from the tsunami there. Just as over 8000 died in Kobe and over 4500 have tragically died in Nepal.

Not sure how that's relevant to nuclear though. Given the fatalities from Dai Ichi are pretty much non existant. It's also worth remembering that both Dai Ichi and the much closer Onagawa survived a 9.1 earthquake.

It's also worth remembering that tens of thousands will die unnecessary deaths as a result of the decision to use more fossil fuels.

These results are a little old and so nuclear will have fallen but:

Coal - 170,000 deaths per trillionkw/hr Oil - 36,000 Gas - 15,000 Natural gas - 4000

Nuclear - 90

So yeah, let's remember what happened in Fukushima and stop panicking about nuclear when there are far, far greater concerns.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

"Interesting. The last poll I saw, which was by NHK a year ago, said 45% of people were against restarting the power plants. Did I miss a poll that showed 100% were against it?"

Suggest you check the recent polls in more details, the breakdown usually indicates people who are strongly opposed, somewhat opposed, somewhat supportive and strongly supportive . The strongly opposed are consistently under the 50% mark, but when when combining the strongly opposed with somewhat opposed the polls consistently run at 70-80% against restarts. The government propaganda mouthpiece that NHK has become needless to say spins the numbers as much as possible to try and support govt. position.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Care to provide a link to the poll that says 100% of the people are against nuclear power?

Or even a link to a poll that says over 50% are strongly opposed and 20-30% are somewhat opposed?

All those people adamantly opposed to nuclear power. And the government manages to get back in with ease.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The way I see it is that Japan has no choice. Being a poor resource country, nuclear power is one of the few viable choices available.

I would like to here from people that are against nuclear power what Japan can do in this case. Thermoeletric forever?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Heda_MadnessAPR. 29, 2015 - 12:58PM JST While the people eye 0%.......

Interesting. The last poll I saw, which was by NHK a year ago, said 45% of people were against restarting the power plants. Did I miss a poll that showed 100% were against it?

What I find interesting is for a person who doesn't even live in Japan, (such as yourself) who consistently only follows nuclear related stories about Japan. For years, you've only promoted or defended the use of Nuclear power in Japan. You've even out lived Zichi, the counter ballace. Just curious of your true motives?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

True motives?

What? When people are constantly posting utter rubbish which is clearly not true - such as 0% of the population are in favour of nuclear?

I'm interested because despite the fact I no longer live in Japan (though I'm not entirely sure why people bring that argument up - there are plenty of anti-nuclear who don't live in Japan and no-one seems to pay attention to them) I still care about Japan. And I want Japan to make wise decisions. I still have friends in Japan. My partner has family in Japan. And I care about them. I don't want them to develop health problems as a direct result of an unscientific energy policy that many on here seem to promote.

I studied Chernobyl. I lived in Japan in March 2011. I made numerous trips to Fukushima after 3/11. I don't see why you need to question motives?

And yes, for years I have only promoted or defended the use of nuclear power in Japan. And that's because it's absolutely the right thing for the country to do.

It's a hell of a lot better than the guaranteed deaths that the alternative is. Always has been. And the more time that passes from Fukushima. The more it's proven to be correct.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Despite the nuclear plant mishaps of recent years in various parts of the world including Japan, in a world-wide scenario of ever-increasing demand for energy, there is no alternative to clean energy and nuclear energy is and will remain an inevitable part of that process for an infinite period of time!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Why don't they put this much emphasis and energy on other cleaner renewable energy?"

Because renewable energy ( solar, wind ) can provide just a small fraction of the energy nuclear can produce?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nteresting. The last poll I saw, which was by NHK a year ago, said 45% of people were against restarting the power plants. Did I miss a poll that showed 100% were against it?

Right, I suppose you missed the anti-nuke rallies in from the the PM residence, oh and it could never be 100% seeing as how Abe and his clan are for it.

Ever hear of sarcasm?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sarcasm? I just thought it was yet another gross exaggeration that the anti-nuclear supporters throw out ad nausea.

And no, I didn't miss the anti nuclear rallies that four years ago had large attendances. And then I noticed the other rallies which had fewer and fewer attendances. I also noticed that in 2011/2012 there were polls that showed a significant majority of people against nuclear. I also noticed the more recent polls which have shown a dramatic change. And the fact that the staunchly anti nuclear public voted in the staunchly pro nuclear (TM media) Abe in a landslide is further proof that it's not anywhere close to 100% nor 70-80% for that matter.

But still, facts have never got in the way of the anti nuclear argument.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Zichi: My apologies, I'm happy to hear you're still around and just have been taking a break from the comment board. Heda_Madnes: Utter rubbish? Yes, you often post it. Related to the percentage of Japanese against nuclear power, I guess it just depends on where you get your information. Everyone here knows NHK tendencies to have bias support of government actions.

I could show the other end of the spectrum with this: Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have hardened attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government information on radiation".

One of the reasons I find it odd that you only post pro nuclear comments while you're not even living in Japan, is just that. If you truly cared about your friends here, why is the nuclear issue the only thing you are concerned with? There are plenty of other important issues as well. Secondly, even when Japan decides to make more new coal burning plants here, and now even in India, you're silent. Anything related to nuclear and you will always bring up the dangers of coal.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Actually you'll find over the past few months I've also talked about topics from football to post natal depression. Maybe I just discuss the things that are important to me?

The reasons why I bring up coal and other fossil fuels should be.obvious. The options for japan currently are nuclear or to maintain an increase in fossil fuels. The facts remain that that policy, the one supported by many on here simply because it's not nuclear is guaranteed to cause more deaths and more health problems than anything from Fukushima.

Indeed in June 2011 80%of Japanese were against nuclear. But that was four years ago and was immediately after the disaster where there was so much unnecesary fear but is about as relevant as saying that Spain are the best football team in the world because they won the last world cup. Things change over time. And it's apparent that the Japanese stance on nuclear has changed. Largely because the doom and gloom that was predicted hasn't actually happened.

Yes parts of Fukushima have suffered horrendous environmental damage but the damage to the population is minimal. More problems have been caused by fear and misinformation than radiation. And that was always going to be the case.

So where are the recent polls - post late 2014 that show that 70-80% of the public are against nuclear (not undecided or unsure But actually against).

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The Japanese industry ministry favors nuclear power>

still not a good idea... Helen Caldicott explain it better: "Nuclear Power, Radiation, and Disease" - http://www.helencaldicott.com/chapter3.pdf

They perhaps should look into Phytoremediation, clean ( as much as that could be possible), around Fukushima who is still leaking at this day, ( cumulative effect is not a myth...), and then maybe reconsider the matter.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So where are the recent polls - post late 2014 that show that 70-80% of the public are against nuclear (not undecided or unsure But actually against)."

More to the point - where are the polls showing majority support for restarts or even anywhere near it ? There are none. every single poll NHK, Kyodo.. etc..that comes up on Google shows a majority against restarts ( roughly by 2 to 1 margin). You refer to an NHK poll indicating only 45% opposed to restarts so you are saying majority supports it? A bit hard to believe. Please post a link to that poll ( as I'm unable to find it and would like to see the breakdown). Unless of course it's a selective sample taken in a municipality that host a N-plant and not a nationwide survey.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Heda_MadnessAPR. 29, 2015 - 07:03PM JST Actually you'll find over the past few months I've also talked about topics from football to post natal depression. Maybe I just discuss the things that are important to me?

< I stand corrected, out of your last 20 comments 3 were not related to radiation or nuclear, though you turned one of those topics into a pro nuclear comment anyway.>

The options for japan currently are nuclear or to maintain an increase in fossil fuels.

The facts remain that that policy, the one supported by many on here simply because it's not nuclear is guaranteed to cause more deaths and more health problems than anything from Fukushima.

< That's only true if you are wearing blinders, that allow you to see fossil fuels as being the only alternative to nuclear.> <I'm sure the number of deaths and health problems (caused by radiation) would be much higher if all the population that used to live within the off limits zone still living there.>

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No. 0%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Marcelito...so what you're saying is there are no recent polls that show 50% are completely against and 20-30% are somewhat against? At least I presume you're saying that because you're not providing the evidence.

Stuart. I'm sorry. I hadn't realized that Japan had all of this renewable energy that they can start using now to make up the shortfall of the nuclear plants. So yes let's start using all of this renewable energy today. Of course if it's not a viable option today then the only alternatives are fossil fuels and nuclear. As so many on here are adamantly against nuclear. That leaves only one option. perhaps you can remove my blinkers and show me where this 25% can be found today (not 10-15 years down the line) in a manner that's not fossil fuels.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

I'm sure the number of deaths and health problems (caused by radiation) would be much higher if all the population that used to live within the off limits zone still living there.

Conveniently ignoring the hundreds of deaths and thousands of ruined lives caused by declaring an evacuation zone of a 20 km radius. A number pulled out of a hat with zero scientific basis behind it. If there had been no evacuation the number of deaths and health problems due to radiation exposure would have been the same as it is now - zero. But stating that, or pointing out that nuclear is in fact being replaced with coal and not wonderful, magical renewable energy sources is of course heresy, because the narrative must never be questioned. If you ask questions, you won't like the answers, so don't ask them.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Heda_Madness: Over 30% of my electricity is off grid and that's just from one small, clean energy generator. If the technologies were promoted instead of suppressed, we could easily lower the demand to the power grid by 20%.

Guy_Jean: A number pulled out of a hat with no scientific basis behind it?? What number? I didn't give any number. I'm NOT claiming that deaths and health issues would be higher than what was caused by the evacuation itself. There is no way to prove that. . But I can say, if people were still living within 5k of the reactors, there WOULD be increase numbers of health issues and likely increase number of deaths. I guess because I used the word "higher" you assumed I said something that I did not.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

So, Stuart. Can we roll that out today? Or tomorrow. that sounds awesome. Will it work with industry who use the most energy.

Abe stop turning on the nuclear power plants. Reduce the fossil fuels by 25%. Stuart has the solution that will solve all of our problems and it can be up and ready by the weekend.

Remind me again who has the blinkers? Your plan is not immediate. Which leaves two viable power options. By its very nature if you are anti nuclear you are pro fossil fuels. Even if you see it as a short term fix.

Thousands of unnecessary deaths. What a plan.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Heda

"Marcelito...so what you're saying is there are no recent polls that show 50% are completely against and 20-30% are somewhat against? At least I presume you're saying that because you're not providing the evidence."

No, that`s not what I,m saying - I said every poll in the last couple of years that I,m able to Google sourced from NHK and Kyodo shows roughly 2 to 1 opposition to restarts. I,m sure you will find the same if you search it. What I,m saying is however that I can not find the NHK poll that you are referring to that shows only 45 % of people against restarts. Since by that you are implying that there is no majority opposition to restarts I asked you to direct me to that poll. As you are not doing that I can only assume you either pulled that number out of thin air or are intentionally twisting the number.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

No. What you said was that RECENT polls showed

The strongly opposed are consistently under the 50% mark, but when when combining the strongly opposed with somewhat opposed the polls consistently run at 70-80% against restarts.

Recent polls has now changed to the last few years (coincidentally including 2011) and 70-80% has changed to a 2:1 against.

I've never said it wasn't 2:1 against. What I have said is that it's not 100% and it's not 70-80%.

Even if there were no 'I don't knows' (of which there are a very high percentage) you've now backtracked to 66% as a maximum.

The NHK poll had 45% against, 32% undecided and 19% in favour.

I've also never said that the majority are in favour of nuclear.

However it is clear that the anti-nuclear supporters clearly make up numbers or use data which is years out of date.

I'm still waiting for recent polls, over the past 6 months, to indicate that the NHK poll is wrong in any way. So, speaking of thin air. Where is the recent poll that shows: The strongly opposed are consistently under the 50% mark, but when when combining the strongly opposed with somewhat opposed the polls consistently run at 70-80% against restarts.

You can't show it. Because it simply doesn't exist.

And therefore you have pulled it out of thin air.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Heda_MadnessAPR. 30, 2015 - 07:57AM JST So, Stuart. Can we roll that out today? <Yes, we could reverse engineer this generator easily if we didn't have governments and media suppressing the technology.> Or tomorrow. that sounds awesome. Will it work with industry who use the most energy.<It's design is for households but every little but counts, there is no silver bullet, not even nuclear is a "solution"

Abe stop turning on the nuclear power plants. Reduce the fossil fuels by 25%. Stuart has the solution that will solve all of our problems and it can be up and ready by the weekend. <Again, I never said I have the solution, only something that WILL create less power demand on the grid. It's just ONE device and It has reduced my electricity use by 30%. Combined this technology with other clean energies and we CAN make a difference.>

Remind me again who has the blinkers? <Blinkers? Who said blinkers besides you?> Your plan is not immediate. <it's been working for me for more than five years now, it could be mass produced and on the market within a year if it didn't threaten big business & national security fears> Which leaves two viable power options. < blinders, Yes, you are wearing them> By its very nature if you are anti nuclear you are pro fossil fuels. <Lol, wow, that's some twisted logic.> Even if you see it as a short term fix.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Yes, we could reverse engineer this generator easily if we didn't have governments and media suppressing the technology.

So, the answer is no. If you can find an engineer who can reverse engineer something, design it and then produce it within 24 hours then well done. Personally I think it would be a bit of a struggle.

It's design is for households but every little but counts, there is no silver bullet, not even nuclear is a "solution"

So it’s designed for households not industry? So where did your 20% come from? Thin air?

Blinkers? Who said blinkers besides you? Blinkers are blinders. I’d never heard of blinders before today, but I didn’t arrogantly pick you up on it. I just assumed it was a typo on your behalf

Again, I never said I have the solution, only something that WILL create less power demand on the grid. It's just ONE device and It has reduced my electricity use by 30%. Combined this technology with other clean energies and we CAN make a difference. it's been working for me for more than five years now, it could be mass produced and on the market within a year if it didn't threaten big business & national security fears. Lol, wow, that's some twisted logic

So can you please explain that once you’ve turned off the fossil fuels. Where are you going to get the 25% power from? Your solution is not going to be available tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. Or next year?

So what are the viable options that will make up for the immediate shortfall. All I can see is nuclear and fossil fuels. Turn off the 25% extra fossil fuels at Midnight on Friday night, what is going to replace them?

And if you can’t answer that, and you still maintain that nuclear is a non-option then you are supporting the use of fossil fuels.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Heda_MadnessAPR. 30, 2015 -

So, the answer is no. If you can find an engineer who can reverse engineer something, design it and then produce it within 24 hours then well done.

So it’s designed for households not industry? So where did your 20% come from? Thin air? < I'm an electrician, I simply ran a sub panel of my main, put all the lighting circuits and most general plug circuits directly to the generator, no need for a converter. The percentage of off grid electricty is actually higher, especially if I'm not using the AC or heater.>

I just assumed it was a typo on your behalf.

So can you please explain that once you’ve turned off the fossil fuels. Where are you going to get the 25% power from?Your solution is not going to be available tomorrow. Or next week. Or next month. Or next year?

All I can see is nuclear and fossil fuels. Turn off the 25% extra fossil fuels at Midnight on Friday night, what is going to replace them? <I've already described just one of many options! it doesn't matter what time of day, I use this 24/7.>

And if you can’t answer that, and you still maintain that nuclear is a non-option then you are supporting the use of fossil fuels. <I've answered that, so your twisted logic doesn't apply.>

4 ( +4 / -0 )

You have told me how it would work for house. You haven't given an answer for how it would solve the 25% increase in fossil fuels. You're against nuclear. how can you solve the 25% problem immediately? And as you can't answer that then there are two viable options. One of which you are wholly against.

And just to clarify my question as you seem to struggle with it. If we shut down the extra 25% what is your IMMEDIATE solution which can be invoked immediately at the very same time.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Heda_MadnessAPR. 30, 2015 - 03:40PM JST You have told me how it would work for house. You haven't given an answer for how it would solve the 25% increase in fossil fuels. Your against nuclear. how can you solve the 25% problem immediately? <I've repeatedly asked why this HAS to happen immediately, which you refuse to answer.> And as you can't answer that then there are two viable options. One of which you are wholly against. <No, I'm against the the way nuclear power is generated, and even more against the way it is being generated in a country that is so prone to earthquakes & volcanic activity.>

And just to clarify my question as you seem to struggle with it. If we shut down the extra 25% what is your IMMEDIATE solution which can be invoked immediately at the very same time. There is NO immediate solution, not even any form of nuclear power would be an IMMEDIATE solution. Are you saying that every nuclear power plant in Japan will be turned on within the next 24 hours? I just used your own timeline, since that's the analogy you gave me.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Okay..so make it a few weeks. What is your amazing solution that will reduce the demand on the grid by 20%.

How can you remove the 25% extra fossil fuels without nuclear?

As ever we see statements from the anti nuclear supporters. We see claims that 80% of Japanese are against nuclear. we see claims that we can easily reduce power requirements by 20%. But purely from residential and not industrial. we see claims that we do not need fossil fuels nor nuclear.

But we don't actually see are actual facts. Actual proof. Anything other than supposition. I get accused of twisted logic yet all I have are hard facts.

If you are against nuclear you are therefore supporting am energy policy that is fossil fuels. Because there are no viable alternatives. One persons house proves nothing. It doesn't make a difference to the more building. Nor does it make a difference to Toyota factories.

In fact it has about as much impact as someone leaving a light on for a month.

So.come on then...what are the viable options that can be rolled out efficiently and effectively that will EASILY reduce need by 20%

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Heda_MadnessAPR. 30, 2015 - 05:37PM JST Okay..so make it a few weeks. What is your amazing solution that will reduce the demand on the grid by 20%. <I've repetitively told you I know of NO solution, only progress in reducing electrical demand of the grid. I'm sorry but it seems you have a learning disorder or just an extremly selective memory.

How can you remove the 25% extra fossil fuels without nuclear?

As ever we see statements from the anti nuclear supporters. We see claims that 80% of Japanese are against nuclear. we see claims that we can easily reduce power requirements by 20%. But purely from residential and not industrial. we see claims that we do not need fossil fuels nor nuclear.

But we don't actually see are actual facts. Actual proof. Anything other than supposition. I get accused of twisted logic yet all I have are hard facts. < If you like I can arrange to video Skype and show you this fuel cell generator in operation, I'll supply you with what ever info you like.>

If you are against nuclear you are therefore supporting am energy policy that is fossil fuels.

In fact it has about as much impact as someone leaving a lightbulb on for a month < BS, clearly you don't know your facts>

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Not knowing my stuff would be to pluck a number like 20% out of thin air and assume you could get away with it.

Now I have no doubt that your fuel cell generator works for your abode I do have serious doubts about the scalability of it. You have said that it is suitable for residential. Residential covers around 29% of the energy used in Japan. For you to reduce the total energy that would purely from residential you would need that to drop to 9%. Or for every single dwelling to reduce their energy by 67%. And that's not feasible over night. Nor by next week. Nor even by next year.

So your policy is not going unscalable and simply not going to reduce anywhere near the energy used that you have suggested. Which takes us back to the two viable options.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"Recent polls has now changed to the last few years (coincidentally including 2011"** No, I said couple of years which would mean 2, as in 2013 -14, but of course you can conveniently move your goal posts on what " recent " constitutes , can"t you.

"you've now backtracked to 66% as a maximum. " Ok , I"ll grant you the extra 4% if it makes you feel better, doesn'"t change at all the fact that 2:1 ratio in every poll still indicates strong majority opposition to restarts. According to your NHK poll for which you still haven't provided a link only 19% supports restarts so the case is clear.

"staunchly pro nuclear Abe was re elected " - Abe can claim a mandate on many things , N-restarts is definitely not on the list however as the polls consistently indicate majority opposition , a fact even you agree with.

"You're against nuclear. how can you solve the 25% problem immediately" - you enjoy grilling people on hypotheticals... there is no immediate solution just as there is no possibility of immediate 25% shutdown. Reduce demand through conservation and gradually move towards renewables at a much faster rate than now. LDP govt has been dragging their feet for the last couple of years because of their inbred connection with the N-village.

Hey, here is a hypothetical for you , btw - In light of the reports indicating anywhere between 50 -70% ( University of Tokyo Earthquake Research centre ) chance of a major quake striking Kanto, when the next big one happens ( as it will since Japan sits on the ring of fire, the fact pro nuke fans try to avoid as much as possible in their arguments until its brought up ) and if /when there is another N -accident will N-village use the " nobody could have predicted it, it was a one off event " excuse again?

At any rate it is self evident that people supporting N-restarts are the ones in one way or another connected to the power companies or living a comfortable distance away from N-plants ( in some case both ). Too bad the 110,000 Fukushima residents who remain misplaced don" t have the same advantage. ( but hey , there were no "direct" casualties, so its all nice and dandy ).

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Zichi - indeed those company's are. However that's not a viable option, today or even this year for Japanese companies. As you know, I've stated many times in the past we should be looking at an improved reusable energy to support new nuclear power plants. The more companies that bring in their own greener policy the better.

However that doesn't change the facts that we need to make up for the shortfall now - which leaves us with two options.

Marcelito - in order to dispute the NHK poll at 45% you need to have something more recent. Public opinion changes. Opinion polls go up and down. A poll from 2013 has no relevance to 2015. So where's the recent poll that shows 80% are against. It's obvious the reason why you can't provide it. Because it simply doesn't exist.

In response to your hypothetical... Yes there is a risk that an earthquake could happen again that causes a nuclear incident. What you, and many others fail to do is to assess that risk. Thousands have died unnecessarily from a switch to fossil fuels. Few will die from the second worst nuclear disaster in history. Basic risk assessment. Guaranteed death versus exceptionally unlikely.

And yes, I no longer live in Japan. But my stance on nuclear hasn't changed from the days of me driving to Fukushima, through deserted villages, with my geiger counter to deliver aid. I've been to Fukushima on numerous occasions. I've seen the hardship that the displaced residents go through. I've also seen them mourn their loved ones from the tsunami. I've not seen them mourn their loved ones from the nuclear incident because they haven't needed to. And it's interesting that people assume that you can only be pro-nuclear if you have a connection to a power company.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

But as you know Zichi, most of that isn't available now and it's not available on a large scale. Japan should absolutely be moving towards greener technology. It should absolutely be moving towards the modern nuclear plants.

However in the interim I'm yet to hear any viable alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear. which means a continuation of the thousand dying unnecessary deaths and the tens of thousands developing unnecessary health problems.

Small fixes are good. But that's all they are. Small. It needs large scale energy. I'm personally not comfortable with thousands of unnecessary deaths. Others, it seems, are.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

"in order to dispute the NHK poll at 45% you need to have something more recent. Public opinion changes. Opinion polls go up and down. "

Agreed, opinion does change, however the figures are still more than 2:1 against restarts ( consistently,) even according to the NHK poll you refer too ( and still haven't provided a link to show that the numbers are indeed true ).

"Thousands have died unnecessarily from a switch to a fossil fuel" -

Since N-power went down in Japan? You have any proof for such a wild claim? Deaths from fossil fuel generation in Japan since March 2011? Perhaps you are referring to decades old statistics from the developed world or are you talking about third world standard power stations without any substantial environmental protection measures in place? Either one irrelevant to Japan in 2015.

"my stance on nuclear hasn't changed from the days of me driving to Fukushima, through deserted villages, with my geiger counter to deliver aid" I honestly applaud you for doing that, lots of us foreigners as well as Japanese living here in northern Kanto have done the same as you after 3/11 and our stance on nuclear has definitely changed.

I've not seen them mourn their loved ones from the nuclear incident because they haven't needed to.*" But we have seen them mourn the fact many of them are /will be unable to ever return to their homes due to the fallout from Dai ichi. Communities, families and lives destroyed forever.

it's interesting that people assume that you can only be pro-nuclear if you have a connection to a power company"* Because that assumption is usually correct , especially for people who have been through 3/11 aftermath here, evacuations and all.
2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's pretty easy to find the NHK poll. All you need to do is Google Fukushima NHK poll 45%

http://enformable.com/2013/10/japanese-government-unable-persuade-citizens-necessity-nuclear-energy-says-former-prime-minister/

So where's the 80% polls? 50% staunchly against, 30% relatively against. 80% of the Japanese public are AGAINST nuclear, not 45%.

You've accused me of changing goal posts yet you're now spouting on about 2:1. 2:1 would be a maximum of 66%, not 80 and when you add the significant unsure group you end up with something of.. well, 45% seems to be a reasonable number doesn't it?

Since N-power went down in Japan? You have any proof for such a wild claim? Deaths from fossil fuel generation in Japan since March 2011? Perhaps you are referring to decades old statistics from the developed world or are you talking about third world standard power stations without any substantial environmental protection measures in place? Either one irrelevant to Japan in 2015.

Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to. There's a plethora of information available that states how many people die world wide because of fossil fuels. So unless the Japanese have a different genetic makeup than the rest of the human population then it's easy to understand why, an increase of 25% fossil fuels has led to an increase of thousands of deaths. To question that thousands will die because of the extra fossil fuels is actually surreal.

7 million people die a year from fossil fuels, of which 3.7 million die from outdoor air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels (WHO)

There's evidence to suggest that nuclear has saved millions of lives that would have been lost to fossil fuels.

I have not worked in the nuclear industry. I have a degree in environmental science and what was apparent in 2011 has been proven correct now. Fukushima has not nor will not cause the fatalities or health problems that many claimed. It has proven that when a major disaster happens at a nuclear power plant the dramatically lower than many claimed. And a switch to fossil fuels causes thousands of unnecessary deaths.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Heda - the link to the ( easy to find ) NHK poll you keep harping about is from October 2013 , not last year as you have claimed. // http: enformable.com2013/10 Here are results from a poll taken half a year later. The numbers speak for themselves but feel free to spin them your way and argue about percentages.

The most recent Japanese opinion poll on nuclear restarts is the March 18 survey by the Asahi Shimbun. It indicates that 59% of the Japanese public oppose restarts of any nuclear capacity, whereas only 28% support restarts. The poll’s results not only confirm that the opposition to nuclear is holding; it also shows a great sensitivity to risk. According to the poll, a mere 12% of the Japanese public have either no or only minimal concern regarding the risk of further nuclear accidents at facilities other than the infamous Fukushima Daiichi. By contrast, 50% have a fair degree of concern, and 36% have a very high degree of concern.

Btw, you posted " there is plethora of information available that states how many people die worldwide due to the fossil fuels " That's not what I asked. I asked you to provide proof for your claim that 25% increase in Japan,s fossil fuel energy generation since 2011 " has lead to an increase of thousands of deaths ". This discussion is about Japan ,s situation since 3/11 not " worldwide " situation caused by rusty plants located all over the globe belching out pollution over a number of decades. Once again -where is the proof Japan,s 25% increase ( in the last 4 years since 3/11 ) has resulted in thousands of deaths? You don't have it , because your statement is a blatant attempt at misinformation. The newer power stations and the ones being built now have capacity to capture much higher percentage of pollutants than old plants built decades ago ( as Zichi mentioned above ) and if this situation highlights anything it is the need for improved energy conservation / efficiency and much faster and larger scale move towards renewables. That of course is something the LDP govt. is reluctant to do with the vigor it deserves due to its inbred, corrupt relationship with the N - village.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I'm sorry so 80% against restarting nuclear has now dropped to 59%?

Btw, you posted " there is plethora of information available that states how many people die worldwide due to the fossil fuels " That's not what I asked. I asked you to provide proof for your claim that 25% increase in Japan,s fossil fuel energy generation since 2011 " has lead to an increase of thousands of deaths ". This discussion is about Japan ,s situation since 3/11 not " worldwide " situation caused by rusty plants located all over the globe belching out pollution over a number of decades. Once again -where is the proof Japan,s 25% increase ( in the last 4 years since 3/11 ) has resulted in thousands of deaths? You don't have it , because your statement is a blatant attempt at misinformation

Well it would seem that you do think that the Japanese have some kind of miraculous internal system that prevents dedaths from air pollution. 3.7 million deaths around the world couldn't possibly include the Japanese could it?

Coal - 170,000 deaths per trillionkw/hr Oil - 36,000 Gas - 15,000 Natural gas - 4000 - again, couldn't possibly include Japan could it?

It's basic common sense that an increase in fossil fuels will lead to an increase illnesses. To say otherwise is misinformation.

According to the World Data Bank, Japan's coal generation increased by 57 TWh, natural gas 58 TWh, and oil 9 TWh through 2011. It is reasonable to assume this remained the same through 2012.

Deaths/TWh/yr from coal, gas, oil, and nuclear-based generation are 24, 3, 19.2, and 0.052, respectively.

EXTRA fossil deaths and serious ailments over 2 years:

Coal = 24 people x 57 TWh x 2 years = 2,736 deaths, plus 25,000 serious ailments

Gas = 3 x 58 x 2 = 348 deaths, plus 3,400 serious ailments

Oil = 19.2 x 9 x 2 = 342 deaths, plus 2,900 serious ailments

Total EXTRA fossil deaths = 2,736 + 348 + 342 = 3,426, plus 31,300 serious ailments

Nuclear = 0.052 x (57 + 58 + 9) x 2 = 13 deaths, plus 54 serious ailments

Misinformation is not posting facts that should be obvious to anyone. It's a fact that thousands have died unnecessary deaths by an energy policy.

Misinformation IS saying that

polls consistently run at 70-80% against restarts.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

You are advocating the use of nuclear energy without any concerns for the very serious issues and problems associated with it.

No Zichi. EVERYTHING I post is based on Risk Assessment. There is a risk, that's without doubt. What is without doubt is that Fukushima has proven that in a disaster. It is not anywhere near as bad as it has been predicted by those with no knowledge on the subject.

I also agree that it would be difficult to bring in the power policy that I believe is correct. It does not believe that I should accept a policy that is both environmentally and health destroying.

I post the quote from Willem Post which covers the deaths and illnesses from fossil fuels. This is not 'to support my argument' but because of the previous post where I was accused of having no evidence and spreading 'misinformation'. It is clear there is evidence. And I'm not spreading misinformation.

You obviously didn't understand Willem Post's point. He was highlighting the difference between Fukushima and other deaths. In fact it comes under the title: FUKUSHIMA COMPARED WITH OTHER CAUSES OF DEATH

I would challenge that the mortality rate; Deaths/yr/TWh, for this country, Japan is lower than the USA because less coal is burnt to generate power and many of the coal fired plants are using new technologies which collect more of the pollutants.

But the US not only has a larger population, it has a substantially larger surface area. Air pollution in the US will be dilluted far greater than that in Japan. Not least because of the proximities to larger cities. it's not just coal that causes deaths from air pollution. It also includes Oil and Gas. Both at levels substantially greater than nuclear.

Also higher, but not as substantial include Hydro, solar and wind. Again these are global figures but they're based on definitive facts.

Something that is very interesting from Post's post is:

Pilots are more likely to get colon, rectal, prostate and brain cancers; female crew members are twice as likely to suffer breast cancer, and, if pregnant, increase the risk of Down's syndrome and leukemia for their unborn children;

So...flying is substantially more dangerous than the effects of Fukushima. Perhaps it's time we banned flying?

And no, I don't blind with figures. I use facts. Facts that are easily supported. I was taught that, amongst other things, whilst studying environmental science at universty. Produce a figure and be able to support it with references. All of my posts are based on researchable facts and when I give a figure, there is at least one quotable source associated to it.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

it is useful to look at the present and predicted future loss of life of the Fukushima events and compare it to other causes of loss of life to place matters in perspective, and to reduce opportunities for some people to take advantage for self-serving purposes.

Not a personal insult. Just a fact that had you read the above you would have understood why he was talking about cigarettes And car accidents etc. It should be clear to anyone who read it.

Sorry. I didn't notice any questions. I saw inaccuracies and assumptions that were as always not based on anything scientific. You say that the Japanese plants are more advanced ...yet I haven't seen evidence that any of them, never mind all of them are.

I am constantly accused of lying, trolling, working for the nuclear industry...personal insults etc yet all of my facts can be verified.

Yes, perhaps I should include links but when I am accused by someone of spreading misinformation when they themselves have failed to provide proof I've asked them for I prefer to keep the links to myself. Till they've embarrassed themselves further (not a referral to you btw)

We've had numerous claims on this thread which haven't been substantiated. Like most on the subject. People randomly state facts such as we can reduce demand by 15% without a shred of evidence to support it.

I also find it interesting how so many think they know better than thone who spend their life in the subject. I think it's a fair assumption that Post looked at an overview of Japanese fossil fuels industry before penning his post. It would be somewhat arrogant to assume you know better without facts to support it.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Heda I,m so sorry that your hyped NHK poll from 2013 ( which you falsely tried to pass on as last years poll ) was followed half a year later by another that show that the strong majority opposition to N-restarts is holding. its not diminishing and the tide is not turning as you tried to imply.

Also the info from the same poll -" **a mere 12% of the Japanese public have either no or only minimal concern regarding the risk of further nuclear accidents at facilities other than the infamous Fukushima Daiichi. By contrast, 50% have a fair degree of concern, and 36% have a very high degree of concern"

*Fair to assume that the 86 % that have a very high or fair degree of concern about further N-accidents are more likely to oppose the restarts than support them in the next poll ( remains to be seen obviously ) than to join the miniscule 12%( to which you belong ) that have minimal concern .

As to the "World Data Bank " figures you have provided , seems Zichi above called you out on the fact that you "selectively quoted" from a particular article only choosing the info that suits your argument while conveniently failing to mention it. And once again you are unable to prove in any way your claim that 25% increase in fossil generation in Japan since 2011 "has lead to thousands of deaths ". Because it is a lie , pure and simple. Instead you resort to once again putting up "worldwide " figures that do not distinguish between decades old rusting plants belching out pollution around the world and new generation plants built recently that capture much higher % of pollutants.

And finally when you do not have anything convincing to put on the table you resort to trying to trivialize others opinions by lame attempts at sarcasm with such gems as

" *So.....flying is substantially more dangerous than the effects of Fukushima. Perhaps it's time we banned flying? or "Well it would seem that you do think that the Japanese have some kind of miraculous internal system that prevents deaths from air pollution"

So, in summary, you started this whole discussion by hyping up a " last year NHK poll" that shows 45% opposed to restarts which turned out to be not last year at all but from mid 2013. That poll was followed by another poll half a year later that shows 59% against restarts and 86 % with high or fair concern about future N accidents ( which you conveniently fail to mention - I guess your Google couldn't find it? ). Then you claim that 25% increase in Japan,s fossil energy generation since 2011 " has led to thousands of deaths " which is blatantly untrue and when asked for proof you divert and present selectively chosen "worldwide " figures that present no differentiation between countries and age / status of power plants putting out the emissions and claim that Japan replacing its Npower in the last 4 years has killed killing thousands Lastly, when unable to prove any of your "facts" you try to deflect with sarcastic remarks aimed at people who called you out on it. I get the gist of it. I think I,m gonna enjoy my Golden week from now. Zichi, have a great weekend!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Zichi

Good to see you back on this site. You add plenty very informed and logical posts.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@bruinfan

Yep. Zichi is definitely my go-to man when it comes to anything nuclear...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

" I prefer to keep the links to myself, till they have embarrassed themselves further " You no doubt refer to the NHK poll link from 2013 that you tried to pass off initially as a last year poll and started this whole discussion? The one followed by an Asahi poll half a year later that showed 86% of respondents either highly or fairly concerned about the risk of another nuclear accident ? Indeed, I,d say thats a pretty good reason to keep the link to yourself for as long as possible. Perhaps before dispensing advice to others that they shouldn't post anything they can' t back up, it might be good to check the timeline accuracy of your own info ( as you said that's what you have been taught ?)

Time to enjoy Golden week holiday everyone.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No, I was referring to the evidence that thousands have died unnecessary deaths from fossil fuels since the nuclear disaster.

And yes, the NHK poll was October 2013, not in 2014. My mistake.

A poll that shows people have concerns of a nuclear accident is not in any way the same as one that shows:

The strongly opposed are consistently under the 50% mark, but when when combining the strongly opposed with somewhat opposed the polls consistently run at 70-80% against restarts.

And I'm STILL waiting to see that link. A recent link that proves that 70-80% of the public are against restarts. But it seems you expect others to provide evidence yet you are incapable of providing any yourself.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@Zichi,

Keep on commenting!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Just as a matter of interest, what percentage of American plants are using the new technology? You know, if you're going to compare the Japanese as using the modern technology it's probably worth showing the comparisons

Indeed the government is aiming for 20-22% and as I've said from pretty much April 2011, they should be bringing NEW nuclear plants with new technologies. They should also be bringing in more renewables. And as has been discussed ad nauseum previously.. a number of the leading environmental scientists advocate that for the world.

And no, it's not a step backwards to want to use nuclear. A step backwards is to use coal, gas, oil etc. Guaranteed deaths is a step back. Whichever way you look at it.

The majority of the people, too, want a non-nuclear dependent society

But again, there have been no recent polls that show that more than 50% want that. Yes. many want no nuclear but a large percentage want reduced capability (which will be 22%).

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

And what's the uranium usage on 3rd generation and 4th generation? Your link from 2009 does seem to be a little dated given the progress that's been made.

There is an urgent need to end the burning of fossil fuels but the answer in this country is not a nuclear one. Until then, coal burning plants must be updated using the latest technology to remove most of the pollutants and gases.

Which brings us back to guaranteed deaths compared to potential. For four years we've argued about Fukushima. And every year that passes it shows the environmental impact is substantially less than predicted. At the same time, it's without question the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels.

I've been asking for a link that proves this for four years

According to the Fukushima government 600+ died from the nuclear evacuations

Even if that was true.. that would still be substantially lower than the annual deaths from switching to fossil fuels. Guaranteed deaths vs worst case of nuclear... and nuclear wins hands down.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Interesting. You write a huge piece which ignores my previous post. I then ask questions about your post which you ignore and then accuse me of failing to address your post.

Let me pick on one of your points. ...a large part of the country became contaminated for the next hundreds of years. ..

Actually it's a small part. A tiny fraction of Japan.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Natural gas because that's a safe option isn't it? Nobody ever does from natural gas..?

Yes renewables should be increased but only someone comfortable with guaranteed deaths associated with fossil fuels would say that it should be at the expense of f nuclear.

130 potential deaths vs thousands...

still when you consider a large part of Japan has been contaminated for hundreds of years it's hardly surprising you struggle with basic facts

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Personal?

You're actually having a laugh. You accused me of being selective with what I posted because you either didn't read it or misread it. That's not personal. That's a fact.

You say 10% of the land was contaminated. But you also say it was contaminated for hundreds of years. HUNDREDS of years... really? Despite the fact that produce from Fukushima is now back to pre-March 11 levels you claim that the land is contaminated for hundreds of years.

I stand by my claim that it's thousands of people that have died from fossil fuels. Science backs this up. You say that it's 1000... over 4 years... 250 a year... so the evidence I presented above would be wrong by 85% and yet you don't produce a single fact to support that. I said that 'It's also worth remembering that tens of thousands will die unnecessary deaths as a result of the decision to use more fossil fuels. ' Based on the figures above (which are on the low side given the increase in fossil fuel import) we're at about 7,000 deaths. Given that there won't be a switch back to the level of nuclear required any time soon, that number will keep going up. In two years it will be 10,000. In eight years it will be 20,000.

You CLAIM that Japan uses cleaner coal plants than the US yet provide no evidence. You claim over 600 died in the evacuation but provide no evidence. You claim that the majority of people are against nuclear but provide no recent evidence. You constantly waffle on without substance but accuse others of ignoring your points when doing the same yourself or blinding with figures. Also known as facts.

you say that Japan can reduce it's power by x% but again, provide absolutely no evidence to support it.

It's an absolute tragedy that over a thousand people have died in temporary homes since the tsunami in Fukushima. It's also an absolute tragedy that hundreds have died in both Miyagi and Iwate. But easy to forget them. It's also an absolute tragedy that due to fear and a complete lack of science many of those in Fukushima have felt like pariahs. Takyubin... the post office... not delivering packages to them because of unsubstantiated fear.

And what is also a tragedy is that people continue to promote the use of fossil fuels when the impact of Fukushima is dramatically lower than they have previously claimed. And continue to do so despite all evidence to the contrary.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Deaths from the radiation is going to be very low. Deaths from premature deaths from stress and depression is dreadful. No less so in Iwate and Miyagi where the displaced have also suffered. It's also dreadful to forget them and suggest that it has only happened in Fukushima.

1000 a year.. based on what? And EVEN if it is ONLY 1000... still it's substantially more than have died from the radiation.

Awesome. Flick the switch and lets get it all up and running by the weekend. Oh wait...

Hundreds of years Zichi.... contaminated for 100s of years...

Ohhh awesome. People die from air pollution from other causes. Not just the additional burning of fossil fuels. SO why worry about the extra few thousand annual deaths. It's pointless. Some people are going to die so why care about others.

Yeah... coal is awful. As is natural gas. Can you remember how many die each year from gas - shall I find the link for you again.. just to confirm it's SUBSTANTIALLY more than nuclear...

Oh and nobody has ever died of anything other than Pulmonary disease for air pollution. Have they? Heart disease? As if../

Yes - by keeping natural gas... which KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN NUCLEAR... WOO and HOO

Again. Personal? it's laughable you say it will be contaminated for 100s of years.

Wow... a discussion on nuclear power and you wonder why I'm talking about deaths from fossil fuels? Yeah. It's complicated isn't it.

I don't remember advocating life without electricity did I? Electricity saves lives. Nuclear electricity saves the most lives. Go figure.

I know... I think it's stupid. It's stupid to say that NZ is a green country when it spews out fossil fuels.

Not sure of the point. The UK has no car industry either. Still, seems to survive with Japanese, European and American models.

Woo hoo. More deaths.

So what's the point? Let's kill off a few thousand extra annually, and make tens of thousands sick. Doesn't make a difference except to the families but what do they matter.

New technologies always start in the richer countries.

I actually stated 8-10%, which are the figures from the government.

HUNDREDS

Hundreds of years to get parts of Fukushima? Or for the 8-10% you said.

A large area of the country became contaminated for the next hundreds of years

I stand by my claim that it's thousands of people that have died from fossil fuels. Science backs this up. You say that it's 1000... over 4 years... 250 a year

I never stated that and said nuclear energy would have reduced the possible premature deaths by 1,000 in a year.

Fair point. Thanks for the correction. But where did you get that number from?

You CLAIM that Japan uses cleaner coal plants than the US yet provide no evidence. You claim over 600 died in the evacuation but provide no evidence. –

I provided you with a link and there are many on Google. The 600 victims of the nuclear evacuations is also the number used on the site you “lifted info” from making it appear to be your own when in fact it was the work of Willem Post.

No. You provided a link to say Japan is using newer technology. You know the Nissan March is faster than a Ferrari. I can prove this by sending you a link that shows the nissan march has a top speed of 175 km/h.

Failure to prove what American plants use does not prove that Japanese are cleaner.

I did not make it appear it was my own work. One poster constantly accused me of having no evidence. I was going to post the link when I wanted to do.

You seldom provide links for the information I ask for. But then you seem to be baffled by figures.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"But again, there have been no recent polls that show that more than 50% want that. Yes. many want no nuclear but a large percentage want reduced capability (which will be 22%).

Plain incorrect. Once again it doesn't get any clearer than the Asahi poll that came more than half a year after the poll you NHK refer to - The most recent Japanese opinion poll on nuclear restarts is the March 18 survey by the Asahi Shimbun. It indicates that 59% of the Japanese public oppose restarts of any nuclear capacity, whereas only 28% support restarts*.

59% in most people's book is plainly more than 50% , but obviously you have some unique standards. But just keep reminding everyone how you only deal in ( selective ) facts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The death of over a thousand in temporary homes was the result of the nuclear disaster, along with the 600+ that died from the evacuations.

WOW. Just wow. So hundreds have died in Iwate and Fukushima temporary houses and that was down to the tsunami but in Fukushima that was SOLELY down to nuclear. I just cannot believe that sentence.

If that was the case maybe you might care to explain why the governor of Fukushima and the majority of its residents are not only opposed to any further use of nuclear energy within its borders, including restarting the second NPP at Daini, are some of the strongest opposition to use of nuclear energy anywhere in the country. You have provided statement but no links backing your claims.

Links to provide that Fukushima has been massively over played? Wow that's tricky isn't it.

Here's one from Nature which shows the impact on food:http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-data-show-rise-and-fall-in-food-radioactivity-1.17016 Here's one with a world leading thyroid expert:http://ias.unu.edu/en/news/news/gerry-thomas-highlights-misconceptions-over-health-impacts-of-nuclear-accidents.html#info

There are still people on here who look at Fukushima and compare it to Chernobyl. Yet all evidence points to the contrary. ]

The highest radiation level in Fukushima today, is, 96,000 nSv/h (96 microsieverts/hour). In Namie, 5,319 nSv/h (53 microsieverts per hour). In Iitata, 2,206 nSv/h (22 microsieverts per hour). Minamisoma 1,343 nSv/h (13.43 microsieverts per hour).

Indeed it is. This does not remotely prove your previous point :

A large area of the country became contaminated for the next hundreds of years

Parts of Fukushima have been contaminated very heavily. Not a large area of the country. Not even a large area of Fukushima.

Nuclear energy does not save the most lives

Sorry I misspoke. I should have said the generation of nuclear power kills fewer people than the generation of any other form of energy. Including Solar, Wind and Hydro.

“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,

ANd in that case it's unique isn't it... oh wait a second...

Hi Marcelito - I thought you would be popping up at some point with your link to prove the 70-80%.. but anyway.,,

The Asahi poll is a year old. And only 50% answered it. It could be said in March 2014 only 29.5% of people were against nuclear power. But old polls mean nothing... two days ago Labour were polled as being ahead of the tories.

Still, keep looking for that 80%...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You frequently quote these numbers without any indications they are global figures.

Indeed they are global figures. It seems that they aren't the same in Japan because the Japanese DNA is different to the rest of the planet... And that Japan IS THE ONLY COUNTRY who has ever used the modern coal filters. EVER.

You also fail to change that the global nuclear industry have been unable to construct the tens of thousands

Indeed I do. Because I have no idea what the global nuclear industry has to do with the Japanese government wanting to get back to 20% nuclear.

But you haven't made a single word about PM Abe wanting to increase the use of coal by about one third even with using nuclear.

Wow. After ALL of my posts since March 11 you feel the need to ask this question. Have I given any indication whatsoever that I am a fan of Abe? Have I said anything that could cause you not to understand what I think about coal as a fuel?

That's correct. The government have mapped the contaminated areas which includes areas where people will never be able to return. Even some of the areas decontaminated by removing the top soils have not always reduced the radiations to lower levels.

A large area of the country became contaminated for the next hundreds of years

Yes parts of Fukushima have suffered horrendous environmental but the damage to the population is minimal.

That was a huge typo on my part. The damage to the population who have been displaced is terrible. The damage to the environment is, compared to what you have claimed (8-10% of the country contaminated for 100s of years) - minimal.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I posted willem posts view on them. I'm still waiting to hear how you're qualified to dismiss them?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I posted them when I was accused of having no evidence...of lying... you said they were willem posts. I said they were.

You posted the link to willem posts figures. He said they were based on Japan.

Fossil fuels save more lives than they cost sounds a fair swap until you accept that there are alternatives that cost far fewer lives. Japan is fortunate in that it is rich enough to use nuclear. that people say it shouldn't is a.mistake. people in Mali, for example have no choice (though using charcoal is better than coal) however in Japan nuclear the facts remain that nuclear is a cleaner and safer alternative to coal.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

"I should have said the generation of nuclear power kills fewer people than the generation of any other form of energy. Including Solar, Wind and Hydro."

Heda, you are hilarious champion -). I,ll agree with you that fossil fuel generation has indeed killed a lot of people "globally" over the decades but I,d love to see the figures for how many died as a result of electricity generated by solar and wind.

The Asahi poll is a year old indeed, yet it was still taken half a year later than your NHK poll and the trend in numbers is clear for everyone to see. Except you of course 59% oppose , 28% support restarts. -) You can try to spin the figures any way you like , ie. in 2014 29.5% were against nuclear just as you can say only14% were pro nuclear... doesn't change a thing. Btw, the 86% ( over the 70-80% range ) concerned about the potential for another N accident are much more likely to be anti than pro nuclear but I,m sure you finding that one hard to swallow as well -). In any case, no worries, a new poll that will confirm the continuing opposition to restarts will no doubt pop up soon, if not I,ll happily buy you a beer. Btw, well played to the Tories but afraid no such comeback for nuclear in J opinion polls is forthcoming-)

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Heda, you are hilarious champion -). I,ll agree with you that fossil fuel generation has indeed killed a lot of people "globally" over the decades but I,d love to see the figures for how many died as a result of electricity generated by solar and wind.

All you need to do is Google it - how deadly is your kilowatt.... solar and wind and OF COURSE hydro are substantially worse than nuclear.

Zichi - seems you're struggling with the numbers, First of all I said tens of thousands will die. Assuming those figures are correct and given that coal imports have increased but still... the longer the plants are off line the more will 2000 ish a year will lead to tens of thousands in a minimum of ten years.

But as for your other point.. you've missed a very key part

he current number of premature deaths from using fossil fuels, gas, oil and coal for power generations causes an annual rate of 7,920 cases. Gas 1,080. Oil 1152. Coal 5,688. Fossil fuels generate 657TWh of electricity.

These are EXTRA deaths on top of those from pre-nuclear days. An increase of 20% wont reduce deaths by 600 but actually take us back to what it was pre-March 11.

Japan's fossil fuel production plants are on the coast. Good job the cities are all based in land.. oh wait a second...

The pro-nuclear supports point out the dangers of air borne pollutants from burning fossil fuels while rejecting that Fukushima is contaminated at dangerous levels in places or state that only a small area of land mass is contaminated.

Indeed. I ABSOLUTELY reject that the WHOLE of Fukushima has been contaminated to dangerous levels. And maintain it is only PART of it. Can you perhaps provide a link that shows that either 8-10% of the country has been contaminated for 100s years?

The anti-nuclear supporters like to point out that Fukushima has been contaminated while rejecting evidence.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

I have never stated on this post or any other that dangerous levels of radiation have contaminated the whole of Fukushima. That's just a fantasy and a twisting of words on your part.

A large area of the country became contaminated for the next hundreds of years

Fantasy? No, you didn't say that the whole of Fukushima had been contaminated to dangerous levels. You said a large part of Japan... for hundreds of years. When questioned you said 8-10%.

8-10% of Japan has been contminated for hundreds of years. Now THAT is fantasy.

But none of the figures are the *tens of thousands of deaths so often quoted by you.

For someone whose maths are as good as yours I struggle to understand how you can't comprehend that when you add a few thousand a year you WILL end up with tens of thousands. As explained numerous times on this thread.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

By the year 2030, 28 reactors in the current fleet will be 40 years or older. Its unrealistic that Japan could generate even 14% of total power from nuclear energy in 2030. There's little possibility of reaching the current government target of 22%. It could only achieve the targets if the life cycle of the reactors are increased or new ones constructed costing ¥10 trillion each.

Great. So lets build these new ones. Safer. Cleaner. less waste. Awesome. And cheaper to operate than any of the alternatives.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Looks like Japan squandered their opportunity to build new Nuke plants during their boom years, with only 5 being built after 1985.

I'm imagining the 2015 Kentucky Derby with Japan way behind kicking and slapping the 1973 winner Secretariat to catch up and bring back the glory of the old days

Can they really be trusted?

Accident

14-16 April 1997: A tritium leakage was announced to the responsible authorities 30 hours after the event. During the following investigation it was shown that it already had 11 similar incidents. Five managers of the operator at that time (at the time Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation) resigned. 8 April 2002: About 200 cubic meters of steam escaped from a defective pipe. The reactor was switched off. During dismantling operations it was found that walls with controls did not have the necessary strength at 25 of 34 points.

wiki

2 ( +2 / -0 )

zichi and Heda_Madness, please do not address each other any further on this thread, since both of you are just bickering.

0 ( +0 / -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