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

©2019 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 )

Stuart hayward

You've even out lived Zichi, the counter ballace. Just curious of your true motives?

No, I'm still here and still reading posts/comments

8 ( +9 / -1 )

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 )

In its proposal, which will be debated by the government by the end of next month, the industry ministry said about 20-22% of the country’s electricity should come from nuclear power by 2030.

This contradicts the statement made last year by the chairman of the NRA who said that nuclear energy will not be able to generate more than about 15% of total power demand from about 20 reactors which meet all the requirements of the new regulations and guidelines.

Prior to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, nuclear power generated about 27% of total power demand from about 54 reactors.

The 10 reactors owned by TEPCO and based in Fukushima have been crippled by the nuclear disaster or lost to future use, like the 4 based at the 2nd Fukushima plant. TEPCO own another 7 reactors in Niigata but the company have been unable to achieve permissions to restart any of them.

About 20+ reactors are coming to the end of their life cycles or its too expensive to retro fit them to meet the new standards. The cost of decommissioning reactors is included when calculating the power charges. According to law, the power companies are supposed to set aside the funds for the decommissioning. Although, I suspect that they will try to get the funds from the central government.

Since the nuclear disaster the kilowatt cost of power from nuclear energy has more than doubled with the cost of fossil fuels decreasing. Coal remains a major fuel for power generation because its available at a price which nuclear energy can't match. The cost of building a nuclear power plant compared to a coal fired one, are astronomical and in fact the costs are so high that no power company can afford to build them, and no company will insure them without direct intervention of funds from the governments.

It will be very difficult for the power companies to build new nuclear power plants because of the local opposition from the communities. The Aomori nuclear reprocessing plant is still very limited with its capacity and the government have been unable to locate a site for the very long term safe storage of the high grade nuclear waste.

While the burning of all fossil fuels causes major pollution problems, and I always find it strange that the "pro nuclear-anti fossil fuel lobby" are also burning fossil fuels in their cars, the experiment of the nuclear energy is very much a failed one.

More than 5 decades ago, the nuclear industry promised "safe, clean and cheap" electricity for the people. It never delivered on any of those, and today there are about 450 reactors in the world providing less than 15% of total power demand. Enormous amounts of public funds have been burnt in the reactors. While fossil fuels are not the long term answer because like nuclear energy it uses non renewable fuels and the majority of the world countries cannot afford to build nuclear power plants.

There always seems to be a certain amount of madness in some of these comments.

In Japan, the 9 presidents of the mainland power companies are some of the most powerful men in the country, somewhat just like previous Edo Lords. They want to burn coal for power generation because its cheap and the plants to burn it are also cheap. The government can introduce new technology, which is happening, making the removal of 90% of the pollution possible, but the government is powerless to ban outright use of the coal.

The total power demand can be reduced by at least 15% from the level prior to the nuclear disaster with more efficient use of electricity and when its used. 20% of total power demand can be generated from all the renewable energy sources and these can also be increased with new technologies coming on line. Solar panels can now generate more power than what is used to manufacture them. The combined total of 35% is greater than the 27% of total power generated by nuclear energy. The problem of generating enough base load power supply remains a problem but not one which can't be solved, and solved without using nuclear energy.

In my community, many households have install the solar panels on the roof and many are now installing gas units which generate power from mains gas, bottled gas or even biogas. They also provide all the hot water needed. The people say they are now generating more power than they are using and selling the surplus back to the power companies.

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 )

Apple corp in America, among quite few other companies Including Microsoft, are generating 100% of power used in some of its major data centers from fuel cells. Those data centers use more power than many towns and cities. Installing the fuel cells which run on gas helps to reduce the demand of power from coal.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

"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 )

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.

Some major Japanese companies have installed fuel cells and solar panels for power generation. Even if it only leads to a small reduction in total power demand from centralized power plants, coupled with less demand and more efficient use and an increase use of renewable energies is a road this country should be taking.

Other than the construction of new nuclear plants which had permission prior to the nuclear disaster this country is unlikely to see any further constructions because even before new regulations the costs of building them were astromical but now are beyond the reach of any of the power companies. There is also the problem that the majority of the local communities would be opposed to having any new nuclear plants in their backyards. The use of nuclear energy in this country is terminal by default.

With or without nuclear energy, fossil fuels will continue to provide the largest part of total power generation. There are many power generation problems the country needs to fix including using smart power grids and opening the supply market to companies other than the power ones. On a world level, China, India and America all burn the largest quantities of coal for their power generation.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

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_Madness

You will have accept that nuclear energy in this country is terminal by default and there will no no new nuclear power being built because the people don't wish to have them plus the astromical costs in building and insuring them. Nuclear energy is down but not quite out. The main reason the power companies want to restart their reactors is to extract the potential trillions of yen still in them.

There's no future for nuclear energy in this country. New technology can increase the power from renewable energy, more efficient use can reduce the total power demand and new technologies can increase the amount of power generated by households and business again deceasing the power demand from centralized plants. Smart grids can also reduce power demand.

Globally, about 46% of total power demand is generated from coal and that will not be changing any time in the near future. What can be improved is the technology used for coal burning plants with 90% of the pollutants being recovered.

Nuclear energy generates about 13% of total power in the world with renewables generating about 18% and it's more cost effective to increase the amount of renewable energy than nuclear power plants.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

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 )

Heda_Madness

You are advocating the use of nuclear energy without any concerns for the very serious issues and problems associated with it. For instance, where would the country build new nuclear power plants since the majority of the local communities no longer want them.

Who will pay the astronomical costs of building the new nuclear plants and which company will insure them against future nuclear accidents and other major events.

Where will the plant workers come from to operate these new plants since the university courses associated with nuclear energy have seen a large drop in student enrolment numbers since the nuclear disaster with some courses being cancelled. With over 20 of the current reactors needing decommissioning who will eventually pay for that and where will all the high grade nuclear waste be stored for many hundreds, and even thousands of years.

Since at best, at least according to the NRA chairman, future use of nuclear energy will only produce about 15% of total power, you offer no real solution about how the country can best generate the other required 85% with reductions of fossil fuels and especially coal, or at least how technology can be improved to make the burning of coal cleaner since all the power companies would resist any government moves to ban coal outright.

The country needs to find a way to reduce the level of base load power which is about 25% of total power down to about 15%. Coal is the main fuel used for generating the base load along with hydro. The domestic installations of solar panels, fuel cells and new types of batteries which can not only reduce the base load demand but also smooth out the demand peaks. Thus type of technology is also being tested in other countries like the UK. Domestic users are very near to being able to disconnect from the power grids.

You always like to blind us with figures and the quote in your comment starting from;

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.........

This appears to be taken from a 2013 post by Willem Post without making any reference to him or his post.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes?page=1

Willem Post in turn is quoting from a blogger "billofthewisp" and an article published by the Lancet. Billofthewisp in turns quotes from one of your favourites, Dr Jim Hansen, in a paper "Environment Science and Technology" published by Hansen and Kheracha.

You only quote the part from the Willem Post article which suits your argument against the use of fossil fuels and favour the use of nuclear energy. All human activities produce their effects which includes the number of deaths associated with them. The use of fossil fuels cause deaths, which would include about 1.23 million global deaths from traffic accidents or about 10 million per year from cancers. Tobacco causes about 5 million deaths and about 1 in every 5 deaths in America. The figures are on the post by Willem Post.

I don't disagree that burning fossil fuels causes air pollution which in turn leads to people having premature death and other problems and coal is the most dirty of those fuels but it is used to generate about 46% of total world power demand. Firstly, more people die from air borne pollution because they don't have any form of electrical power and need to cook on smokey open fires.

You state in your comment;

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...

I don't disagree totally with those figures but they are averaged out ones across the globe and do not account for individual country conditions like the types of power plants used to burn the coal, or even local conditions. Even Willem Post states the mortality rate; Deaths/yr/TWh, world average 161, while in China its 278 but in the USA is 15.

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.

I would like to see the end of coal, used globally but realistically it won't be happening any time soon.

According to the Japanese Federation of Power Companies, total power demand since 2011, has dropped about 15%.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

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 )

Heda_Madness

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

What because I challenged your use of his figures? So when you can't refute you insult!

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.

Except many of the coal fired plants are located in one region and the size of the population is not related but as I pointed out in my previous comment what is related is the technology used in the coal fired power plants with Japan now using more advanced than what is in use in the USA. They are mostly in the NW and Eastern regions and concentrated. http://cdn.powermag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/520004db2bfcb-100109_IndTrends_map.jpg

there is at least one quotable source associated to it.

and so when you quote you should at least state where you are taking it from and even provide a link that other readers can review.

You actually failed to answer any of the real questions in my comment but then that's to be expected. Have a good day but I'm done.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

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 )

@Heda_Madness

You say that the Japanese (coal) plants are more advanced ...yet I haven't seen evidence that any of them, never mind all of them are.

I never said all of them? Clean coal technology http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100580308.pdf

Probably as many as two-thirds of the reactor fleet will never return to operations unless the government decides otherwise. The government statement that by the year 2030, nuclear power will provide 20-22% of total power is a step backwards and a sign of returning to the bad old days of the nuke village prior to nuclear disaster.

Last year the Cabinet decision stated the "introduction of renewable energy sources will be sped up to the greatest degree possible. Furthermore, by adopting renewables and energy-saving systems, as well as by increasing the efficiency of thermal power generation, we will reduce dependence on nuclear power to the greatest possible extent."

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

The number of reactors considered to be safe will reduce the total power output to about 15% to increase that to 20-22% by 2030 means extending the life cycles of those reactors, or alternatively building new nuclear plants which is even less likely to happen.

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 )

@Heda_Madness

Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen published a paper in 2013 on the number of deaths prevented by the use of nuclear energy and the future projections for 2010-2050. The use of nuclear energy to generate electrical power started over five decades ago costing many trillions of dollars but to date as been unable to generate more than 5.7% of total global power demand while renewable energy is generating about 12.85%, more than the double.

In 2008, total global power used was 143,851 Terawatt-hours with 117,076 from fossil fuels, 8,283 from nuclear, 18,492 from renewables. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

The figures given by Kharecha and Hansen state the number of deaths prevented by the use of nuclear energy were 1.8 million, and in the period 2010-2050 a further 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths would be prevented. A wide error margin by any standards. What is not discussed by Kharecha and Hansen is how many lives were saved because of electricity, even though a large percentage of it was by the burning of fossil fuels, saved more lives than it killed.

There are not enough global resources in the world to build and use nuclear reactors to even generate 50% of total global power demand. Today, there are about 435 reactors (Mar 2013) generating 5.7%, therefore 50% of total power would need a further 4,000+ reactors. At the current use of the uranium deposits its estimated to run out in about 200 years or so and increasing the number of reactors would shorten the deposit cycles.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

My argument against the use of nuclear energy is that it does not use renewable energy, astronomical costs to construct the power plants making them unavailable to the majority of countries, the problem of the very long safe storage of the spent nuclear fuel, the material is used to built atomic weapons, the production of plutonium, which in the case of Japan is now at about 150 tons. To a large degree it also relies on the myth that base load power is needed, that is a minimum level of power needs to be generated, usually by nuclear energy or coal, or by both.

Kharecha and Hansen don't discuss the logistics of even building an additional 4,000+ reactors to increase electrical power from nuclear energy to a global demand level of at least 50%.

Not all agree with the theory of Kharecha and Hansen, for instance, in his paper Xavier Rabilloud, Comments on "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power". Published Nov. 12, 2013

http://www.academia.edu/5089676/Comments_on_Prevented_Mortality_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_from_Historical_and_Projected_Nuclear_Power_by_Pushker_Kharecha_and_James_Hansen

This document was accepted for publication in Environment Science and Technology, American Chemical Society after peer review.

Using a nuclear mortality factor based on ExternE-v5, Kharecha and Hansen (K&H) purportedly calculated the mortality prevented by using nuclear power rather than fossil fuels, for both the "historical" (1971-2009) nuclear capacity and future projections (2010-2050).

All pro-nuclear energy supporters say the Fukushima nuclear disaster did not kill a single person from radiation exposure. It's way too early to be making that sort of claim and most likely many of the workers at ground zero of the nuclear disaster will die from radiation cancers. Probably the number of thyroid cancers cases in Fukushima children as increased.

Putting aside the deaths from radiation, on the day of the disaster, 2 young engineers were killed at the nuclear power plant. According to the Fukushima government 600+ died from the nuclear evacuations. A number of people have died from suicide. Tens of thousands were left homeless and without any of their personal belongings causing a high level of mental stress and deep depressions. Many will never recover from the disaster.

A large area of the country became contaminated for the next hundreds of years, whole communities destroyed and torn apart. Even some families are now living separately. The costs of cleaning up the nuclear disaster are astronomical eventually likely to run into more than 50 trillion yen. Today, the costs are more than 10 trillion yen just after 4 years.

In this country Japan, after more than five decades the nuclear industry only achieved to build 54 reactors generating a maximum of about 25-27% of total power. Mostly because the costs of building a nuclear plant and the time taken for the construction, 8-10 years and the problem of locating communities which would have them. Those costs have increased since the introduction of the nuclear regulations by the NRA. No power company can now afford to build a new nuclear power plant without direct funding from the central government and locating communities to accept them have become less than previously.

Burning of fossil fuels, especially coal causes pollution which in turn cause premature deaths. According to the top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock (95) with his Gaia hypothesis has estimated over 6 billion will perish this century due to inadequately addressed global warming from greenhouse gas pollution. (80% of humans will perish by 2100AD. He has now backed own from those claims and admitted to being alarmist about climate change. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101

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.

Pope Francis, and therefore God I suppose, are coming down on the side of climate change. This summer the Pope will publish his paper examining man’s moral relationship with nature. Last month the Vatican held a summit co-hosted by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.

In 2013, the world spent $550 billion on direct subsidies for fossil fuels. “On average, the richest 20 percent of households in low- and middle-income countries capture 43 percent of fuel subsidies,” an International Monetary Fund report found.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121657/fossil-fuel-industry-responds-pope-francis-climate-encyclical

2 ( +3 / -1 )

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 )

Heda_Madness

Once agin you have failed to address any of the real points I raised in my comment? Have a nice day!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

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 )

According to a new study commissioned by the Ministry of Environment and compiled by the Mitsubishi Research Institute, Japan has the potential to triple the amount of electrical power from renewable energies.

By the year 2030, output could be increased to 350 terewatt hours from the level of 116 terawatt hours out of a total of about 1,000 terawatt hours. 10% of the total power is generated by private companies from their productions.

Renewable energy could replace the previous amount generated from using nuclear energy. Natural gas could also be increased to replace the use of coal. Domestic use of electricity accounts for about 30% of total power used. With the increase use of domestic solar panels, fuel cells and new technologies, and the more efficient use of power from cleaner more green appliances, the total power consumed domestically could be reduced.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

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 )

Given the fatalities from Dai Ichi are pretty much non existant.

Non to date from radiation but the jury is still out on that but more than 1,000 have died because of the nuclear disaster from evacuations, suicide, and premature deaths of stress and depression.

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

The increase in possible deaths from the increased use of fossil fuels instead of nuclear energy is probably about an additional 1,000 every year but not the "tens of thousands" you frequently claim.

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

The use of electrical power is quite even with Commercial/Public Services @36.4%, Industry @31.5% and Residential @29.8% Industrial size fuel cells have been available and in use for sometime.

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.

8-10% of the total mass was contaminated by the nuclear disaster, which contaminated parts of Fukushima, Gunma, Miyagi Nagano, and other areas. I would call 8-10% a large area, and if there were a second nuclear disaster?

In 2012, a little more than 10,000 people may have died from burning fossil fuels for power generation. Coal was by far the largest killer at about 5,784 victims. Coal generated about 25%/241TWh while LNG at 48%/462TWh would have made 1,386 victims. If nuclear energy or renewables had been used the figure for the premature deaths would have dropped by about 1,000 to 9,000.

We don't know the age range of these likely deaths nor do we know the personal occupations and habits of the likely victims. Did they smoke, did they have dangerous occupation hazards, did they drink, how many would have died regardless. The government would know the figures of people dying from lung diseases prior to the nuclear disaster and every year since. How many of those died because of pollution and particulates from China.

Pulmonary diseases death rates makes it the 9th highest figures of 16,371 in 2012 with the cause cited being tobacco smoking. The 1st group of 360,790 is ones who died from malignant neoplasm cancer. http://nbakki.hatenablog.com/entry/2013/09/24/000000

Worldwide, air borne pollution kills about 7 million people a year with more than 50% of the fatalities due to fumes from indoor stoves because they lack electrical power or modern facilities. WHO estimated in 2012, 4.3 million deaths were caused by indoor pollution.

Coal causes the greatest amount of pollution. the highest group of victims but even if Japan stopped the use of all coal in power generation its still needed for other industries like iron and steel and there would still be the problem of the pollution reaching the country from China.

If we increase renewable energy and improve energy efficiency we can completely eliminate the need for new coal-fired plants and close down the oldest, dirtiest plants without adverse effects to power supplies. We can also eliminate the use of nuclear energy.

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

You always must get personal when you can't provide your own facts and links or can't refute others, so sad really!

Why is it that your only concern is for the possible number of people who may have had premature deaths in this country from using fossil fuels for power generation but express no concerns about deaths from all airborne pollution nor express any concerns for any other country, like the one which you currently reside in, or the one you were born in.

You make no statement about how many lives are lost because of the lack of electrical power and how many are saved because of it. Even the medical professions recognize that electricity saved many lives and improved the lives of millions of others.

New Zealand generates 25% of its total power demand from fossil fuels, including coal. To your dismay, there are no nuclear power plants that could reduce their premature deaths from fossil fuels.

In 2010, the UK generated 74% of its total power demand of 363TWh from burning fossil fuels with gas at 40.4%, (up from 0.05% in 1990) and coal at 32.3% (down from 67% in 1990) and only 17.6% from nuclear energy. The UK have been unable to build new nuclear power plants because of costs and financing restrictions. They were hoping the French would build them but have pulled out and now hope the Chinese will do it.

In the USA with the highest number of nuclear reactors at 104, 68% of total power generation in 2010 was generated by fossil fuels.

Eliminating the use of fossil fuels from a single country like Japan, may decrease the number of premature deaths from airborne pollution but it won't do much on a global level unless a major advancement can be made to end the use of fossil fuels not only in power generation but in all uses too.

Given the history of the nuclear industry over the last 50 years it as been unable to make much of an inroad into providing electrical power at a global level except in a very limited way and mostly restricted to the more wealthy countries.

You say 10% of the land was contaminated. But you also say it was contaminated for hundreds of years. HUNDREDS of years... really?

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

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 have never stated that all of Fukushima Prefecture is contaminated since it's a large one but the produce on the market was not grown in contaminated areas. And areas it will take hundreds of years to reduce the radiation contaminations to the legal limits set by the government.

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.

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.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

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 )

It's an absolute tragedy that over a thousand people have died in temporary homes since the tsunami in Fukushima.

Fukushima and other areas in Tohoku were hit by a powerful earthquake and in part powerful tsunami but Fukushima also had the blunt end of the second most serious global nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl. Causing a hundred thousand and more to flee from their homes and communities and will most of them willnever be able to return. 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.

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.

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.

The radiation levels in parts of Fukushima and other places remain higher than those allowed under law. One of the Fukushima NPP problems, is the water rundown from the mountains and reaching the plants with radiation levels not allowed under law, which means it must be collected, cleaned and stored. Otherwise TEPCO must come up with a method to stop the water reaching the plant.

The soil surrounding the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant remains contaminated with radioactive cesium, with a high risk that those atoms could transfer to food crops, suggests a study conducted by researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University and published in the Journal of Environmental Quality.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049403_Fukushima_radioactive_waste_contaminated_soil.html#ixzz3ZMOypZ7w

Yauemon Sato, the ninth-generation chief of a sake brewery operating here (Fukushima) since 1790, likens the crippled reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to “caldrons of hell.”

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/opinion/AJ201505010047 http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukushimas-caldrons-of-hell-more-than-300-tons-of-highly-radioactive-water-generated-daily/5447161

You state you base your opinions on scientific facts without providing links for your statements, but then its also scientific medical fact there are an increase in the number of thyroid cancers in Fukushima children, but its too early to say if they are the cause of radiation from the nuclear disaster.

http://fukushimaupdate.com/video-background-radiation-cancer-in-children/

The experts based their findings on scientific facts when they stated that a nuclear disaster in Japan was not possible or likely to happen. Other experts also basing their findings on scientific fact reported that the Fukushima NPP was safe from earthquakes and tsunamis.

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).

http://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/roadmap/pdf/130507_assistance.pdf

You focus only on one aspect of the post and the intentions of PM Abe to restart the nuclear reactors and you actually completely miss the important part of the story, which is the prime minister intends to increase power for base load to 60% of the total generated, which is higher than prior to the nuclear disaster.

The base load power will be generated from using nuclear energy, hydro and coal. Hydro is limited by installed capacity and nuclear will be limited to those reactors which the NRA consider safe producing a decrease in the amount of nuclear energy prior to the disaster. The biggest increase will come from using coal, which according to you will cause even more premature deaths.

In 2009, hydro generated 69TWh or about 6.9% of total. The NRA says the number of safe nuclear reactors will generate 15%, PM Abe is saying 22%. Power demand dropped from 1,025TWh in 2008 to 899TWh in 2014. Base load will be increased to generate 60% of total or 540TWh. Hydro will generate 6.9% or 69TWh. Nuclear at maximum, 119TWh leaving coal to generate 65% or 352TWh. Coal currently generates 28% of total power or 250TWh. PM Abe intends to increase the use of coal by more than 30%.

Coal at 251TWh causes 5,657 cases of premature deaths. That figure could be reduced to 3,765 if only coal burning plants with new technology were used. The increase in coal by 100THw will cause 8,800 premature deaths, an increase of 3,143 on current figures. Again that figure would be reduced to 5,280 if only new plants were used.

PM Abe intends to restart the reactors and increase the use of coal.

Coal imports have increased year-on-year from 75,681 million short tons in 1980 to 203,469 million short tons in 2012. There was a small drop in 2010 at 182,089 short tons. With PM Abe's plan there would be an increase of coal imports. The coal import figures are for all coal which includes both coking and thermal coal. About 50% of the coal imports are for thermal.

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

Nuclear energy does not save the most lives, it would if it was used in any serious amount but globally it generates less than 10% of total power so the other 90% of electricity saves more lives than it kills. To even generate 50% of power demand more need more than 5,000 new reactors. How do you propose they could be built, say by 2050. If it was started this year it would require 142 reactors per year to be built. Those reactors at todays price would cost about $10 billion each. The cost of building 5,000 reactors to generate only 50% of power would be $50,000,000,000,000, or 50 million million dollars. Today, only about 34 countries have some form of nuclear energy.

Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons. The results suggest that we’re likely better off investing in other energy solutions that are truly scalable.

“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,”“The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.”

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html#jCp

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"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 )

@Heda_Madness

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. Coal - 170,000 deaths per trillionkw/hr Oil - 36,000 Gas - 15,000 Natural gas - 4000 Nuclear - 90

170,000 deaths/trillion KWh. One trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity is about one-fourth of the electricity produced annually in the United States. 170,000 trillion KWh is also same as 1000TWh or the total annual generated power here in Japan. You frequently quote these numbers without any indications they are global figures.

You also fail to change that the global nuclear industry have been unable to construct the tens of thousands of reactor it would have taken to significantly reduce the number of premature deaths from fossil fuel. The nuclear industry in over five decades have only succeeded to built 430 reactors. Even America, the richest country in the world, are not replacing their reactors when they reach the end of the life cycles. Out of its current fleet of about 100 reactors, 50 of them or 50% are coming to the end of the life cycles.

While many times on these posts you point out the number of premature deaths from fossil fuel used for power generation you never state how many lives electricity saves every year, even the power generated from fossil fuels saves more lives than causing premature deaths.

Currently in Japan, in 2012, fossil fuel generated, coal 241TWh while LNG 462TWh. With the figures you provide the most cases for premature deaths solely due to airborne contaminants from those fuels would be 12,955 cases. If the reactors were restated to generate 15% of power or 134TWh. The reduction from that would be from using gas but not coal, in which the cases from airborne contamination would be coal:6025 cases. LNG:4920 cases. Making 10,945 cases.

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

I would not call the lost of all personal belongings, homes and business, the loss of communities, having to pay mortgages on houses people no longer can live in or monthly car payments on cars which had to be abandoned, minimal.

At other times you have stated the environmental damage to Fukushima is also minimal?

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.

According to the Ministry of Environment, renewable energy could be increased to 356TWh by 2030 which would be more than from nuclear.

Of course if it's not a viable option today then the only alternatives are fossil fuels and nuclear.

The amount of power from renewables is increasing year-on-year.

Abe stop turning on the nuclear power plants. Reduce the fossil fuels by 25%.

PM Abe intend to increase the level of the base load power up to 60% of the total 899TWh which will be generated by limited nuclear energy, installed hydro and cranking up the use of coal from the current level of 241TWh to about 350TWh or about about one third increase. Since its unlikely over time, many new nuclear power plants will be constructed meaning more likely, the 40 year life cycles will be increased to 60 years.

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

PM Abe will increase the use of coal even when limited reactors are restarted. He intends to increase the use of coal by more than 30%.

Few will die from the second worst nuclear disaster in history.

The jury is still out and too early to call an absolute on that one with thyroid cancers and other cancers which can take more than 20 years to appear. But anyway, probably more than 1,000 people have died because of the nuclear disaster.

But as you know Zichi, most of that (renewables) isn't available now and it's not available on a large scale. Japan should absolutely be moving towards greener technology.

Just like nuclear energy is not available on a large scale. Some power companies saying they can't cope with the additional power from renewables.

“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,”“The dream of a utopia where the world is powered off fission or fusion reactors is simply unattainable. Even a supply of as little as 1 TW stretches resources considerably.” Learn more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html#jCp

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)

No wrong. 3.7 million die from airborne pollution, that is, all forms of pollution. The 3.5 million who die from indoor pollutions are not using fossil fuels. They could not afford those and use wood from trees. Most of the victims are females/mothers who have to do the cooking. Some NGO/NPO are working to change the story by providing stoves which burn more cleaner fuels. Those same 3.5 million are part of the people without running water or toilets and sewage or too often proper health care. http://globe-net.com/7-million-premature-deaths-annually-linked-air-pollution/

Ambient (outdoor air pollution) in both cities and rural areas was estimated to cause 3.7 million premature deaths worldwide in 2012.Some 88% of those premature deaths occurred in low- and middle-income countries, and the greatest number in the WHO Western Pacific and South-East Asia regions.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/

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

Even fossil fuels saved more lives than it caused premature deaths.

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.

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.

Last year the Cabinet decision stated the "introduction of renewable energy sources will be sped up to the greatest degree possible. Furthermore, by adopting renewables and energy-saving systems, as well as by increasing the efficiency of thermal power generation, we will reduce dependence on nuclear power to the greatest possible extent."

Hundreds of years Zichi.... contaminated for 100s of years...(Parts of Fukushima)

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.

http://josen.env.go.jp/en/

For Japan to seriously reduce the level of fossil fuels below the 40% levels, would require the building of more than 40 new reactors costing at about $10 billion each or $400 billion or put into yen about ¥47,741,200,000,000 and would need to be achieved over the next 15 years. 50 trillion yen which is also likely to be the cost of cleaning up the nuclear disaster. It took the country more than 50 years to build the current fleet of 48 reactors.

"Fukushima Impact http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/Nukes/Fukushima_Impact.pdf

3 ( +3 / -0 )

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 )

@Heda_Madness

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.

You quote the global premature deaths from coal of 170,000 cases to make it appear as if that were the case here in Japan, which we both know it isn't so why not just quote the figures for Japan then?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

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

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

@Heda_Madness

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

Actually you never even mentioned you had lifted those figures from a blog post by Willem Post, instead preferred to make them appear like they were your figures since you didn't even bother to use equation marks? On those figures which Post claimed from the World Data Bank, I searched for those but could not find them?

I don't dismiss the figures you quoted, I just pointed out that fossil fuels generating power save more lives than it causes premature deaths from air borne pollutions. But averaged out figures don't reveal the full story unless a full investigation is made. Nuclear energy overall saves less lives because its availability is more limiting.The figures from Post does not state whether the figures relate to an old coal burning plant which most were shut down or a modern plant using new technology.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

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 )

@Heda_Madness

Japan is fortunate in that it is rich enough to use nuclear.

Probably no longer since I have quoted the price of constructing 40 new reactors would be about ¥50,000,000,000,000, that's 50 million million yen and even if the costs were not a barrier added to the astronomical coats of the nuclear disaster, the costs of expanding the Aomori reprocessing plant and the costs of constructing and the thousands of years safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and the 150 tons of plutonium under the current climate it would be difficult to find even 10 communities willing to have any new nuclear plants.

in Japan nuclear the facts remain that nuclear is a cleaner and safer alternative to coal.

Problem again it would take the construction of 40 new reactors to replace the coal. From a capitalist point of view, the power companies pay less for the coal so until the government outlaws the use of coal, which it is powerless to do so, the power companies will go on importing coal and burning it. On that level I'm a realist to at least see the situation for what it is. There's more possibility to get have renewables replace coal because private companies are investing in them but the current government stance is not helping when PM Abe states he will increase base load power to 60%, which is not even required and it will come from nuclear, hydro and coal by increasing its use by more than 30%.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"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_Madness

Using the Willem Post figures you quoted, the 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.

If the reactors were restarted and generated 20%/120TWh of power, the reductions would be from gas and not coal. This would still cause 7,560. Small reduction of 360 premature deaths.

PM Abe's plan to increase base load power to 60% using hydro, nuclear and an increase in coals will increase the cases of premature deaths to 10,323, an increase of 2,203 on the current number of cases.

The number of premature deaths don't reach the "tens of thousands of deaths" you have stated. Burning of fossil fuels causes 7,920 cases of premature deaths compared with strokes causing 326,697 deaths, pneumonia and influenza causing 301,664 deaths, or from lung cancer which causes 165,756 deaths.

You have claimed less people die in the USA from fossil fuels because its a larger country than Japan but there are many aspects you don't seem to consider.

Japanese power plants whether gas, coal, oil or nuclear are located along the coast. The burning of fossil fuels produces pollutants causing premature deaths. The exact figure is difficult to ascertain because local conditions are not considered. Just like the situation at the nuclear disaster plant, much of the released radiation was carried out to sea by winds. This must also be true of some of the pollutants caused by burning fossil fuels, how much blows out to the sea.

Japan's use of coal is not limited to its own broader being a major promoter of coal fired power plants. The government is the largest public financier of coal plants globally amongst OECD countries, and the second largest in the world, behind China. From 2003 to 2015, the Japan Bank for International Co-operation (JBIC) provided US$8.49 billion in loans and guarantees for new coal plants around the world, amounting to 23,933 MW of new capacity.

http://www.kikonet.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Dirty-Coal-JBIC_EN.pdf

PM Abe is not only committed to using coal nationally but also internationally.

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. They reject that radiation is still problem. The shaky political consensus both in Japan, the U.S. and Western Europe is that the crisis at Fukushima has been contained. Large areas of the land remain contaminated at levels high enough that no one will be able to live there again and the nuclear disaster ground zero continues to leak or release contaminated water into the ocean.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

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 )

@Heda_Madness

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.

No I'm not struggling with the numbers since math’s was one of my good subjects and also being a control and measurement engineer, microscopist and electrical engineer, numbers have been a major part of my occupation. I take the current numbers for power generations by source in TWh's and times them by the Willem Post figures you posted. The death rate per fuel. Currently, that would create no more than about 13,000 premature deaths per year, which are small numbers when compared to the deaths from the major diseases which I've already quoted.

Even with the restart of the reactors, which the government plans to do at some point, the 15%-20% of power generated would not decrease the premature deaths by that much since it would cause a reduction in the LNG used but not coal. In fact, even with restarting the reactors, the government also intends to increase the amount of coal, which will lead to an increase in the premature deaths. But none of the figures are the *tens of thousands of deaths so often quoted by you. You often quote the possible premature death rate from power generation but never once quoted the number of live saved by electricity.

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

To repeat your own quote "But as for your other point. you've missed a very key part". Some part of the pollutants from the coastal fossil power plants are carried out to the sea just like the radiation was from the nuclear disaster. So currently, coal is producing 338TWh of power so according to your Willem Post figures that would lead to about 8,112 premature deaths if the pollution went inland but if for instance the wind carries 50% of the pollutants out to sea then the level of premature deaths would also drop 50%. The figures for the premature deaths caused from power generation do not consider the personal conditions of the likely victims or the local environment conditions. Even risk management must consider those local points.

You stated that fossil fuels caused less premature deaths in America because of the greater land mass but most of the plants are located inland.

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.

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. The government stated that 8-10% of the country was contaminated by radiation from the nuclear disaster which also included the release of plutonium. The government also drew up a plan for decontamination costing many billions of yen and in many areas did not reduce the radiation levels by much. The work did not involve any of the mountainous areas and probably never will. The government also produced and published a map which I have already linked to showing areas were people could return, areas were people could visit but not stay overnight and areas which people could not visit nor probably ever return to live. I have provided you with so many links but only one or two from your direction.

The problem common to all the evacuated areas with the nuclear exclusion zone besides the radiation levels are the destruction of properties from the earthquake and tsunami and the destruction from not being lived in for the last four years with an increase in mold and vermin like rats and snakes taking over houses. An increase in ferrel pigs and other wild animals, which have also invaded homes in search of food. The destruction of the infrastructures needed by every community. For people wanting to return to their former communities, the problem of the radiation levels which just one aspect of the greater problems.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

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 )

A government panel of experts headed by Masahiro Sakane, an adviser at Komatsu Ltd., has decided what the cost of power generation by source will be in 2030. It priced nuclear energy at the lowest of all energies, at ¥10.1/kilowatt hour compared with ¥8.9/kWh in 2011. The price includes the cost of the nuclear disaster at ¥9 trillion and the cost of decommissioning a reactor at ¥60 billion each one required. The price does not reflect the cost of updating the reactors which has topped ¥2 trillion, more than 1.5x from one year ago. Its not the final cost figure.

The nuclear disaster in just four years has cost more than ¥10 trillion and most likely, eventually will cost more than ¥50 trillion. It does not include the cost of the Aomori reprocessing plant or the cost of safely storing 20,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and 150 tons of plutonium. Nor does it include the costs of decontamination in Fukushima, probably more than ¥20 billion. Also not included will be the compensations paid to the local communities, which will have decommissioned reactors.

The cost of ¥10.1 for nuclear energy compares with •¥11 for hydro. •¥12.7 for solar. •¥12.9 for coal. •¥13.4 for LNG. •¥13.9 for onshore wind. •¥14.4 for Gas cogeneration •¥19.2 for geothermal. •¥28.7 for offshore wind. •¥29.7 for biomass.

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.

http://www.greenpeace.org/japan/Global/japan/pdf/20150428-briefing-energy-mix.pdf

The government is seeking to raise base load to 60% provided by nuclear 20%, hydro 20% coal 20%.

The government wants the total power generation to be provided by •Nuclear 20%, •Coal 26%, •LNG 27% •Renews 22-24%.

These figures do not add up or work out. Power is generated at about 1,000TWh per year so if base load were to be 60% then the base load would have to be 600TWh provided by nuclear, hydro and coal.

The possibility of using nuclear for 20% of the total will only be possible if the life cycles of the reactors are increased, since by 2030 at least 25-30 will be reaching the end of their cycles or already reached it, making it difficult to achieve more than 15% unless the life cycles are increased or a high number of new reactors costing ¥12 trillion each, are built before 2030, another unlikely scenario. The power from hydro is limited by installed capacity and is running at a max.

•Nuclear 15% =150TWh •Hydro 14% = 85TWh •Coal 61% =365TWh

The remaining 40% of peak demand 400TWh will come from LNG and renews. Probably, LNG at 300TWh and renews at 100TWh.

So the figures would be: given that the base load will be 60% provided by nuclear, hydro and coal,

Total power 1,000TWh

•Nuclear 150TWh 15.0% •Hydro 85TWh 8.5% •Coal 365TWh 36.5% this would include about 40TWh from biomass/waste •LNG 300TWh 30.0% •Renews 100TWh 10.0%

Power Generation Costs •Nuclear 150 TWh ¥1.515 trillion •Hydro 85 TWh ¥ 935 billion •Coal 365 TWh ¥4.708 trillion •LNG 300 TWh ¥4.020 trillion •Renews 100 TWh ¥1.500 trillion

TOTAL ¥12.678 trillion

Power Charges per kWh •Domestic 300TWh x¥24, =¥7.200 trillion •Business 350TWh x¥18, =¥6.300 trillion •Services 350TWh x¥18, =¥6.300 trillion

TOTAL:¥19.800 trillion minus costs ¥12.678 trillion equals profits ¥ 7.122 trillion

***Replace the nuclear energy with another higher cost one and the overall costs would not increase by much still leaving the power utilities with yearly profits of around ¥7 trillion.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

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 )

Residents of the Fukushima Tsushima district of Namie Town designated as a "difficult-to-return zone" due to high levels of radiation from the ongoing disaster at the nuclear plant are set to file a class-action lawsuit against the government and plant operator TEPCO. The radiation levels are greater than 50 millisieverts per year when legally the limit for Fukushima is limited to 20 millisieverts per year. The lawsuit is being filed by about 100 former residents. The Ministry of the Environment still has not announced a plan for decontamination in difficult-to-return zones.

This follows another lawsuit filed by 340 residents of the Miyakoji district of Tamura.

..........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.

Certainly a cheap comment from you since you won't be contributing a single yen to any costs and you won't be building anything here.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

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

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