national

Gov't unveils draft energy policy with nuclear power as key source

102 Comments
By MARI YAMAGUCHI

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

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

102 Comments
Login to comment

What could go wrong? As long as tests (supported no doubt by pro-nuclear power entities) "prove" the plant is "safe", let's fire 'em up. All will be well. Until the next accident. I'm sorry, but Fukushima/TEPCO has proved to me that it is not a matter of "safe". Aside from this being an earthquake-ridden, tsunami-riding country, the people involved, the politicians, local government, banks, utilities, mobsters, etc., all make more money riding that nuclear bandwagon than not. Cover-ups, shortcuts, and "saving" money by taking cheaper routes of inspections and behavior will trump any non-profitable, short-term "safety concerns". Nuclear power is not safe, not cheap, and not sustainable.

One more Fukushima blow-up and this country's economy is complete toast.

As usual, these articles have no mention of Japan reducing the need for electricity, or establishing a smart grid (whoever heard of a country with two different electrical systems?), or anything else but the stupid way to go.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

please I beg you people of Japan, I love your country, it is my home, but you have to do something about your politicians.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

http://enenews.com/eu-funded-study-56000-square-km-japan-potentially-contaminated-fukushima-releases-home-43-million-people

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1425/2013/acp-13-1425-2013.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/310na3.pdf

You guys need to read these links before making any sensible posts here on JT. I do not live in Japan, but I am very concerned.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Nuclear contamination is not discussed nor recognized as a cause of illness in Japan-personally I'd rather not get sick without the cause of my illness being a state secret.....

7 ( +9 / -2 )

You need to read an enenews link before making any sensible post.

Is that the biggest contradiction ever?

And as ever the rhetoric on enenews doesn't match the findings.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Now there is an opportunity lost

2 ( +3 / -1 )

please I beg you people of Japan, I love your country, it is my home, but you have to do something about your politicians.

Do something which will provide a 100% safe energy for reasonable price then you can start talking like you have the answers.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

To test the potential of a larger source than 150 PBq 131I, we performed a sensitivity test by applying 5 times higher emissions, based on the emissions estimate uncertainty by Chino et al. (2011). [...] an area of 56,000 km², inhabited by 43 million people, would be contaminated by more than 40 kBqm², including the Tokyo metropolitan area. Although this large 131I source is speculative, it seems more realistic than the low estimate of 150 PBq

So yes. Let's just make up data to prove our point. We don't believe the findings so we'll multiply it by a matter of 5 to say it's really bad. Ludicrous.

And where are the results on the ground to support this? The ones from the geiger counters where every man and his dog has? The ones that prove that 43 million people were affected. Oh yeah, they don't exist... because

You know what the top temperature was last year? It was 195 degrees centigrade. Someone said it was 39 degrees but I didn't believe that so I multiplied it by a factor of five...

It's made up nonsense.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Nuclear power, how much has 1 accident cost? Continues to cost, it's not over and won't be for a generation or two or three. Now the caring government want to unleash 48 more potential accidents without proper safety checks...good luck with that.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@Heda_Madness

A well respected nuclear engineer Mr A Gunderson, on a trip to Tokyo collected soil and dust samples from the vicinity of his hotel in central Tokyo . The radioactivity in the sample was sufficient to be classified as 'nuclear waste'! Also, Dr Busby has done analysis on car filters from Kanto Even NHK reported contaminated drinking water in Yokyo after 3/11

As you are aware radioactivity builds in the environment.

I suggest you buy a Geiger counter and do some measurements yourself

3 ( +6 / -3 )

respected nuclear engineer Mr A Gunderson

Now THAT is the funniest sentence I've ever read on the subject. Actually ANY subject... well respected... Arnie Gunerson...

Brilliant

And yes there was contaminated drinking water in Tokyo... by Japanese standards. Not by American or European or by anywhere else on the planet. But by Japanese standards. And I know that it's Japan we're talking about but do you really think that it's a concern?

And as for a Geiger counter... happily used them in Minami Soma and other parts of Fukushima. Never had a cause for concern but afterall I'm not a well respected nuclear engineer...

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

@ Heda_Madness

The ones from the geiger counters where every man and his dog has?

My dog didn't have a Geiger counter - which is probably why he died of cancer last year...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Obviously, to nobody's surprise, righty media, thus the majority public opinion, is controlled by associates of LDP. Japanese Democrats did nothing particularly wrong, except for the erratic Hatoyama, yet the media was furiously attacking them for no apparent reasons and ousted them in the end. Democrats stopped the reactors and cut the government funding in general including the nuclear power development. That must have infuriated some group.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japan clearly doesn't need so many nuclear plants, it's utter madness.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Heda_Madness, madness really madness

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Where else is sufficient power going to come from?

That's my question. Nuclear always was going to be a big part of Japan's energy mix.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

60 years and not a single major accident or meltdown until Fukushima.

Shut down the entire industry because of 1 accident in 6 decades? 

While we're at it, why not shut down the auto industry for being dangerous, too?

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Heda_Madness, madness really madness

So come on then Cricky...

What's Madness? That Arnie isn't a well renowned Nuclear Engineer - he's not

That when water was banned in Tokyo for infants it was at levels substantially lower than the rest of the world - it was

Or that my Geiger Counter didn't show any reason for concern in Minami Soma?

What's madness is the reaction to nuclear on here. Despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

3/11 was one big earthquake, however there will be others, and fairly soon too.

This is a seismic prediction map, which shows the areas most at risk from a huge quake in the next 30 years. http://www.j-shis.bosai.go.jp/map/?lang=en

If no nuclear sites are anywhere those great big red zones, then Im all good. However the thing is, they are. There could be another big quake any time, and another fukushima soon after. Lets not take that risk.

Solar wind and wave energy, please.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

They have no choice. Oil/Gas will destroy economy, coal the environment, alternatives are not economic yet. Nuclear is the only way.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

I know for a fact that the Japanese government has never released the exact levels of contamination from Fukushima.

I know for a fact that Fukushima produce was sent to markets all over Japan without being tested in the spring and summer of 2011

I know for a fact that radiation penetrates our cells and alters our genetic makeup at ANY level

Mr Gundrrson is a consultant and makes his living being knowledgable on matters relating to the nuclear industry-I guess people pay him for this right?

Heda _Madness is not a nuclear engineer, doctor etc and is no way qualified to make judgements about how much radioactive exposure is safe when the opposite has been proven to be true

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think the new energy policy should focus more on energy consumption reduction. It seems as though the Japanese have learned nothing from recent events. The lights on the platform at my station are still on at 8:00 am (an hour longer than needed as they have zero effect at that time of day) and the lights at my return station are already on at 5:20 pm (much earlier than needed as they have zero effect at that time of day). And JR has decided to inform us of their energy saving campaigns by installing 65 inch tv monitors to inform us that they are saving energy! Hmm. Doors are still left wide open on shops and stations (letting out heat in the winter and cool air in the summer). Seems at times that this is a nation of madmen.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Kimuzukashii - "Solar wind and wave energy, please."

Solar wind and wave energy aren't ready at the moment to take up any major slack in Japan's energy requirements.

Maybe - hopefully - in the future they will be.

But we don't live in the future.

This is now and we need energy now.  Nuclear can provide energy now.

That's the bottom line, IMO.  

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

never learn their lesson. lightning will strike twice.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

First fix Fukushima wrecked plants with entombment.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

AS with all things Japanese; look away, close your eyes, plug your ears and everything will be as real as you want to believe. Reality is never a part of Japanese psychology. This insularity is the death knell of the Japanese as a race. Inward looking living in their world of make believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

60 years and not a single major accident or meltdown until Fukushima.

Surely 48 years since Japan's first plant opened?

Thank you for not classifying the two deaths at Tokaimura in 1999 as a major accident. The families will be relieved their loved ones didn't cause too much inconvenience in failing their employers.

And let's not pretend that seismically-prone Japan is mutually exclusive from the rest of our nuclear accident-prone planet.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

sushisake but if we always have that safety net of nuclear to fall back on, It is too easy to not have to develop these other forms of energy. if you know anything about Japan you know the politicians will lie and say "well just do this temporarily..." but they will do it forever.

At the very least, they should shut down every single nuclear plant anywhere near a fault line or ocean. And make the public survive off the very few safe plants. That would get people investing in their own energy (ie solar) and learning to use less (which is ultimately the most important thing.) In the meantime more money should be given to wind and wave farm developments. I would hope for at least a plan to phase nuclear out, not just " We need nuclear."

I read that by 2018, all new houses will have to have solar panels installed. I think the next target should be that all companies should have to have solar panels installed. Im looking at you in particular, pachinko parlours.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Zichi - "Nuclear energy can't solve the energy problems of the country, and even uranium is expected at its current use to run out in about 85 years. Renewable energies will be around, well forever."

But renewable energies aren't ready at the moment to take up any major slack in Japan's energy requirements.

Don't get me wrong - I am 1000% supportive of introducing renewable energies.

But the reality is as I stated above.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Zichi - "Reactor restarts should be limited to those with updated safety standards and not in areas likely to experience powerful earthquakes or active volcano's."

Agreed 100%.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

and even uranium is expected at its current use to run out in about 85 years

I don't know who expects that. Even without reprocessing there is more than an 85 year supply. But when you add reprocessing, MOX fuel and CANDU style reactors there is enough uranium for at least centuries. Add thorium reactors into the mix and there is no fuel problem for even longer.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Actually, you guys all got it wrong. Restarting Japan's nuclear power plants and building new plants has a little to do with maintaining stable energy without fossil fuels - but as shown in Iran's case, are also used (subversively or covertly), to generate fissile materials for nuclear bombs.

China has become increasingly assertive over territorial claims and Japan refuses to acknowledge it's WW2 atrocities - and in a way, they're "legally" correct as an inordinately large proportion of Japan's Class A war criminals were essentially absolved by the USA internationally, during the Nuremberg war rials, so the USA could go about its new priority of neutralizing a communist China and Soviet Union.

As Japan has constitutionally stated it will not create nor harbor nuclear weapons - it can only create its nuclear weapons covertly - hence the heavy support for nuclear reactor - ostensibly for peaceful energy production purposes - but it doesn't take a great leap of intelligence to join the dots.

And if you don't believe that - then you probably also believe that the USA of today continues to stand for liberty and justice for all - despite our much maligned "global rendition program" and other historical anomalies.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Lovely. Our politicians , here, bought and paid for by the nuclear village, i.e. the yakuza. Pray for Japan.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

some groups think it will even be sooner?

And some people don't believe the global temperature is increasing, so what?

"Experts" where saying the same thing about oil 40 years ago. And yet with increased prices and new technology 'peak oil' keeps getting put further into the future.

it can only create its nuclear weapons covertly - hence the heavy support for nuclear reactor

Except for the fact that commercial nuclear reactors are useless in producing material for nuclear weapons. But nice FUD.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

We have the same power plants here . Here in Orlando, Orlando, Florida , OUC, has coal plant, still using but has system with it that has solar hooked up to it ,so the coal is used for so many hours daily.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Osaka_DougFeb. 26, 2014 - 10:26AM JST

Conference recordings in Japanese and English at< http://jref.or.jp/en/activities/events_20140225.php>

Thank you for the web link that is very resourceful.

Looks like there are some brilliant ideas and insights and the Japanese heads are in the right place. You guys need to work on politicians to go along with these.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Wipeout

I found it equally ludicrous that after asking you again and again who pays for the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, and who will pay for any future disasters, you simply ignored the question

Sorry. I thought I'd answered that question when I said 'who pays for any of it'?

Of course it's the tax payer. It's the same tax payer that's been paying for the costs of other fuels both in terms of finances and lives and also the same tax payer that's benefitted from nuclear both in terms of finances and lives over the past 50 years.

It's always the tax payer that pays for it. Just ask the tens of thousands of families of people who have died over the past 50 years from previous energy issues.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

TEPCO aims to cut airborne radiation from Fukushima plant to one-eighth

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201402150047

TEPCO aims to cut airborne radiation from Fukushima plant to one-eighth

Previous ArticleRecord cesium level found in groundwater beneath Fukushima levee Next ArticleTroubled Monju prototype reactor may be headed for research role

February 15, 2014

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has set a goal of reducing airborne radiation levels outside its crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant to one-eighth the current levels by the end of March 2016.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Reactor restarts should be limited to those with updated safety standards and not in areas likely to experience powerful earthquakes or active volcano's."

Unfortunately nuclear reactors are inherently extremely dangerous and produce highly toxic waste that will stay highly toxic for generations, and there aren't any areas in mainland Japan not likely to experience powerful earthquakes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Where else is sufficient power going to come from?

In Japan, the obvious answer is geothermal. Even without state of the art techniques estimates indicate over 100% of the current energy of the country could be supplied. With modern techniques this would go up by an order of magnitude (10X). However, it is worth noting that the modern techniques involve a kind of 'fracking' (similar in kind to that used in oil and gas extraction) and so merit more care. And there is some greenhouse gases emission - though in the range of 1/10 fossil fuel generators. So even here you don't get something for absolutely nothing.

use to run out in about 85 years. Renewable energies will be around, well forever.

That's what breeder technology is all about. With it various calculations show you would have an inexhaustible supply of energy under most scenarios. Of course, there are all sorts of issues confronting this.

Renewable energy is not able to generate the level of power, 45GW made by nuclear

Actually, as noted above, geothermal (which is effectively renewable - and ironically largely nuclear in origin(!!)), can definitely generate all of that and much more. This is, in my opinion, the craziest and most maddening thing about the whole energy situation in Japan. Here you are sitting on an ocean of energy (literally) which with current known technology can supply all your energy needs without spending anything externally and absolutely nothing happens with it. Estimates show that the yearly nuclear govt. subsidy could pay for a multi-hundred MW plant per year.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nuclear power using generation II,III, IV reactors will never be failsafe inside of 2200.

Stuck on the old paradigm conservatives to frightened to admit they made a mistake. Even though it is clear allowing the US Nuclear Military Government Weapons and Energy industry to to sell nuclear energy plants postwar was wrong. Nuclear waste, failure and actual metrics of power production all pay forward their costs into our future. That is not good business unless you are dead.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It's not classic evasion unless of course you hold one form of power at a different standard to another?

It's fine for a tax payer to pay the costs of one form but not the other?

It's a simple fact that the tax payer will always pay the costs.

Secondly.. no single coal plant can cause the scale of damage that fukushima has. And no single coal plant is capable of producing the power either, hence the need for so many.. and hence the issues with pollution. But no nuclear power plant has increased the effects of global warming either. Just look at the winter in the UK and the US - not down to nuclear. Statistically it's been proven that tens of thousands of lives have been saved by nuclear - can't say that about coal can you? And who pays for the cost of that medical treatment? Or the other severe adverse effects caused by the fossil fuels you promote?

But to say that no industry is capable is disingenuous at best. 1975 - 171,000 people died due to a dam failing. You know the location of the San Andreas damn don't you. If that goes, the economic damage will dwarf the impact of Fukushima.

You seem to believe that nuclear is unique because you don't agree with it. But science. Facts. Figures. All prove that the impact of other fuels is significantly worse than nuclear.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Unfortunately nuclear reactors are inherently extremely dangerous and produce highly toxic waste that will stay highly toxic for generations, and there aren't any areas in mainland Japan not likely to experience powerful earthquakes.

Fortunately nuclear reactors are not inherently extremely dangerous.

Unfortunately fossil fuel power plants are inherentlty dangerous and routinely kill people and they produce toxic waste that will stay highly toxic FOREVER. They also are more susceptible to damage from powerful earthquakes.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Yes it is, when the costs of one (nuclear) are wildly out of proportion with the others. No coal-fired power station has presented the public with a bill that would come close to comparing with Fukushima Daiichi, and it will never happen. They cannot run out of control the way Fukushima did.

Nope, no single coal fired power station has presented the public with a bill that comes close to Daiichi. The entire industry has though. One that just keeps on giving as well. Deaths/Storms/Floods. Thanks coal but hey at least you're not nuclear. You know that one industry that has been proven that it's saved tens of thousands of lives since it's inception.

Japan should be looking at adding the modern nuclear power plants, with the 21 st century technology to go hand in hand with renewable fuel. I've been saying that since March 2011. The leading scientists say the same.

It has the potential for a runaway disaster - so let's compare the two major incidents with say the potential for a disaster with Hydro... say the extreme smog incidents in the UK in the 50s or more recently in Asia. Let's compare those deaths and see where nuclear fits into the grand scheme of things... one major disaster with relatively few deaths ever 25 years compared to the constant issues created by fossil fuels. And who pays for those issues? Pretty ridiculous that I need to ask you that again.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

As ive posted numerous times before

The leading climate scientists have begged the worlds leaders to adopt a strategy of nuclear a md renewable for the sake of the planet.

Can you disagree with that? Check back on my previous I have not only named them but linked t on them. You have also acknowledged that.

Coal. Gas. Oil

Are not only guaranteed to kill but they are also guaranteed to destroy the planet

Can you respond to who.pays the cost of the fossil fuels policy.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

No... they advised all of the world's leaders in 2013... so after March 2011 that the world should adopt a policy of modern nuclear and renewable

Still waiting for you to explain who pays for the cost of all the other fuels... you previously said it was ludicrous to ask me numerous times (it was twice) though I answered after one.

Who pays the cost of an energy policy based primarily on fossil fuels?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The world's leading climate scientist have reuqested that those in charge of power policies go with nuclear and renewales.

I think I'm now up to 7 times I've requested who pays for fossil fuels? Still waiting for that answer...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

More than 300 groups are rejecting calls from top climate scientists to embrace nuclear power to fight climate change

So from your own link it is scientists, plural. Not just one, not just Dr James Hanson. But scientistS, plural. Just as the comment you quoted says.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

My point was that your comment was contradicted by the webpage you linked to. And that thus the comment of Heda_Madness that you were replying to is correct.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

TEPCO are a disgrace, I've never denied that. Your prescription for power in Japan is more fossil fuels. Great - let's kill more people. Let the tax payer pay for that because it's not nuclear. Because nuclear is bad m'kay. Of course you realise that more people have died in the past 3 years from coal than nuclear don't you... But hey at least it's not nuclear

Zichi, interesting link - thanks.

I don't see any scientist there though - just anti nuclear organsiations. There's certainly no one with the expertise on climate change that can compare with the signatories of that letter. I mean you and Wipeout's No Nuclear in Japan group could sign that and it' wouldn't give it any more credibility.

I've googled the first few of the signatories. All anti nuclear. None of them are climate scientists.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Zichi, did you look at the signtories on that document? Most aren't scientists and only two have PhDs.

I'd say that Drs James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley do know what they are talking about.

I find it remarkable that you dismiss them as having 'zero expertise in the field of nuclear energy' as though they would put the credibility on the line discussing they have zero knowledge of. Afterall they have released peer reviewed papers on the subject.

I don't understand why you're bringing my background or your background into this. Are you trying to infer that you know more on the subject than the aforementioned doctors?

I'd be interested to read your biography. I've read the doctors and it's pretty impressive. I've also read some of their papers. An interesting one concluding that 'On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, '

Which is one heck of a bold statement for someone with ZERO EXPERTISE on the subject. You must have one heck of a background to claim that.

But you've always accepted deaths from fossil fuels as being acceptable. Because it's not nuclear. You support an increase of fossil fuels. And the deaths it causes. And the catastrophic damage it's done to the planet. Because it's not nuclear.

And no I don't believe we should believe every expert... I do believe we should question.. but forgive me for not questioning a document that was signed by 300 groups including a Program Coordinator, residents for a safe environment. In fact the whole list of signatories reads as a whos who of nuclear is bad mkay.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

That is so true. The coal and gas that you promote is sunstantially safer and cleaner and anyone who says differently has zero expertise on the subject. You must be celebrating the pollution of this week

I really can't wait to read your bibliography... I would love to read some of the awesome papers you have with your expertise.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Zichi, I've defended climate change because it's something I've followed for over 20 years.

You say that the future use of nuclear should not happen - again you're advocating the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions... because you don't like nuclear.

Your second link has more credibility because it was written by scientists (interesting though that you now advocate the use of experts) Though again it's coming from a very anti-nuclear viewpoint. Still, a lot more credible than the previous link.

Wipeout - I've stated above that Japan should be building the new 21st century power plants and not relying on the old ones.

I do find it sad that you both are happy with the thousands of deaths a year caused by coal, gas and oil though. As long as it's not nuclear should not be an energy policy of any country.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Wow. I'm genuinely surprised that you've fallen so low to question someone's funding because you can't question his science. You said he had zero expertise in nuclear... you've posted an argument from others (only one scientist, none nuclear) and now you're trying to assasinate his character.

You said they have zero expertise on the subject. You haven't backed that up with anything.

So we are left to assume that it's because your knowledge and experience is greater.

So come on then professor - what is your expertise on this subject? I am genuinely interested to know how you feel you know so much as to call some of the world's leading scientists fakes.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

No bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichi,

I am not sure if I have ever said this to you before, but I really appreciate your informative posts on the many discussions about this subject. I have learned a lot more about the issue and I appreciate your passion for the safety in Japan.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Dr James Hansen may be a fine scientist but he still lacks direct experience of working in the nuclear industry

But I thought he had ZERO expertise in the field. That's what you said earlier. He had zero expertise and I'm still trying to understand why you feel qualified to claim that.

I'm pretty sure that you're embarrassed by your first link, after all none of the signatories carry any weight whatsoever. The second is interesting but can easily be questioned. Specifically the three major incidents it highlights. I mean one of them was major, the other two are miniscule when you consider the damage caused by the other forms of power.

I appreciate your passion for the safety in Japan.

Except when it comes to fossil fuels that is. Zichi's policy is no nuclear at any costs. And conveniently ignores the thousands of lives it's saved since it's inception in Japan.

Nuclear power saves lives. It's without question. What is also without question is that it has the potential to be catastrophic. That hasn't happened yet. Despite Chernobyl. And despite Fukushima. Zichi and Wipeiout believe that the guaranteed thousands of deaths from coal and gas is better than the possibility of nuclear issues. They believe that the possible catastrophic consequences of a hydro dam failing are worth the risk.

People die every day in Japan because of fossil fuels. But certain posters try and ignore that

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Go zichi !

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I'm not taking anything out of context. You've claimed that Dr Hansen and the others have zero expertise on the subject. You've repeated it. Your first link included someone from the turtle island restoration network, your second had researchers working on the studies and policy recommendations for the mitigation of climate change issues from economic and political perspectives. Economic and political. So not scientists then. But anyway, I'm certainly not going to criticise a PhD and an associate professor in an area I don't have qualifications.

So I ask you again why do you think you are qualified to clam that Hansen et al have ZERO EXPERTISE in this area.

Of course I understand that Japan has always burned coal. I'm not happy that has increased by 50% since March 2011. You are. And that's the difference. According to MIT 52,000 die per year from power generation, roughly one quarter. I don't have Japan's data but as you've already pointed out Japan's reliance on coal and gas has jumped by 50% to cover the shortfall by nuclear. Which means there's also an increase in fatalities caused by them. It could even be argued that this would be higher in Japan than in the US. According to the MIT report they said that one of the reasons for the relatively low figures for power was due to the fact the power plants were well away from residential areas. Given Japan's size and geography compared to the US that wouldn't be the case there.

Interesting that you haven't produced a link to the data above - is it because it came from choosenuclearfree.net ?

I know it says what you want it to say but in terms of impartiality I'm pretty sure that Forbes is fairer than choosenuclearfree.net

Here are some other reports:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/191326/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes (he puts an increase on fossil fuel deaths at over 3000 in Japan over the first two years - I guess by now it would be closer to 5000 extra deaths)

I have no idea whether those blogs are massively pro nuclear ( in the same way your data came from anti nuclear) but the point is that the vast majority of information proves that nuclear is substantially cleaner than coal.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

zichi

I made no claim for either side of the debate, I very plainly stated that there is no proof for the claim that humans are the cause of global warming. Here let me remind you of what I wrote and what you even quoted, with no comprehension I guess. Or where you just building a strawman?

The actual data proves no such thing.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I no longer live in Japan but I hadn't realised that was a requisite to have an opinion?

i'm intrigued to know how it's irrational to advocate a fuel policy that costs fewer lives. I'd argue that it's irrational to continue to promote the fear that nuclear energy is evil.

Ever since the 1950s, nuclear power has been a solution in search of a problem.

May I suggest you do some research before making such claims as this. In 1952 4,000 people died in London due to the smog - caused by the UKs reliance on coal as a power. It led to a change in government policy that not only saved lives but also increased the daylight in London by over an hour a day.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

It is very easy for me to make a conclusion. That conclusion is based on my degree at University where I spent a lot of time reading up on the subject. I came from a coal producing area, and it would have been very easy to have gone with the bias that coal is the best option. My readings led me to another conclusion.

The 1950s were a catalyst in the UK in forming the clean air acts. At the time the UK led the world when it came to clean air. The US took over later but also seem to have lapsed. To say that nuclear has always been looking for a reason to exist is ludicrous.

And no, I won't be paying the extra coast of nuclear but I will continue to pay the extra costs of the damage done by coal. It's worth noting that London will need to invest in a new barrier to prevent flooding. I dare say that the low lying areas of Japan will need to spend extraordinary amounts of money to prevent flooding there.

You can also add the costs of bronchitis, cancer and all other forms of health disease which is impacted from coal and gas.

You talk about the costs going forward, as does Zichi, but you ignore the savings in terms of finances and lives from the past. I struggle with people using the phrase 'safety concerns' whilst supporting an increase in fossil fuels though. And I 'deride' as you say their safety concerns as being unscientific because I've yet to be presented with any science to support it. And certainly the link to zichi's 300 groups and the claims by choosenuclearfree.net aren't.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So apparently Japan won't have any issues with raising sea levels. That's a relief.

Japan's energy issues are complex.

Though they aren't helped by people ignoring all of the safety issues associated with other energy. More people have died from fossil fuels than nuclear. More will do.

Tbe difficulty for Japan is for the politicians to convince the.public.

Though given the vast majority of Japanese public are agsinst nuclear power but still voted in the pro nuclear party it probably won't be that difficult to pull off.

And just to confirm, the world's leading climate scientists bare asking for an energy policy that combines renewable with modern nuclear.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Has anyone suggested they will?

The issues Japan has is with it's future energy needs. Going back to coal, gas and oil should not be regarded as a sensible energy policy. Unless of course it's a new radical way to get rid of the aging population.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I haven't tried to take your words out of context at all.

This is what you said ' he has zero expertise in the field of nuclear energy'. Even though part of his doctorate is in nuclear physics. You've produced a couple of links to people disputing his findings - yet none of them are what you could claim to be experts in the field of nuclear energy. The vast majority of them not even being scientists.

Point taken RE coal use. Oil and gas has increased and we know they are not remotely clean either

'We have seen irrefutable evidence of serious threats to human health from air pollutants emitted during oil and natural gas production, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including air toxics such as benzene and formaldehyde, as well as increasing levels of ozone and particulate matter.These pollutants can worsen asthma, cause heart attacks, and harm the circulatory, respiratory, nervous, and other essential and vital life systems'

Yes, it was caused in a large portion by people burning coal at home. That was banned due to clean air acts. Now how do people get energy to heat their houses? Well in no small part it comes from nuclear - a massive change from what it was.

Hadn't realised we were talking about cars? I thought we were only talking about energy policies... that MIT found the number of fatalities from car exhausts isn't relevant to Japan's future energy consumption.

For nuclear energy to make any kind of impact on global climate changes would mean at least 50% of total world power being generated by it

So why do any of us bother? Why have solar panels? Why set the air con to 24 or whatever? Why turn the lights out?

If nuclear energy is making no impact on global climate change then how can anyone say that anything that we do as individuals makes a difference. It's Earth day soon and instead of turning the lights off for an hour - let's all turn everything on - it clearly won't make any kind of difference will it?

According to James Hansen the world should be using generation iv reactors - and that differs from what I've said? 'Japan should be looking at adding the modern nuclear power plants, ' I've maintained that policy from the start.

I'd also say that he's somewhat better qualified than you to say what impacts global warming. Though I am still waiting to get your full bibliography and expertise.

Just like you've maintained we should increase the use of fossil fuels.

So far you've argued that an expert with part of his qualifications from nuclear energy has no expertise. That 300 randoms carry more weight. That cars create air pollution and kills people so fossil fuels don't matter. And the impact of nuclear on global warming is miniscule.

And I'm the one who is ducking and diving?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nice, a full-on zichi thread. Awesome read!

Japan has already won against nuclear and with so few nuclear reactors actually online could be nuclear free like last year or whenever it was. Don't have your gold medal bronzed.

So much of a mix of energy possible for Japan, basically all the thermals (geo, hydro, helio), combined heat and power, let alone better design and smart grids. I'm not even including photovoltaic but convert 1/3 of TV production to panels would be a step in the right direction.

Such a new direction would give Japanese hope and a sense of the future since it would take years for transition. Sadly Japan remains trapped by the brown envelope oyaji network.

I hope for a better future for Japan but it starts with voting and electing people who share renewable energy views. I hope it would be soon but given Abe's rise it is becoming a lost dream. I hope I'm wrong

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am not anti-nuclear, but on these shaky islands that are favorite tsunami targets, nothing short of fool proof is good enough. That would be use of thorium, as it will not go into meltdown when the power goes out. Did not read about thorium in the article, so I vote no.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites