Japan OKs ambitious nuclear energy target, plutonium reuse plan

https://www.quora.com/Is-capitalism-devouring-democracy/answer/Steven-Martin-2

The title of this article should read "LDP and cronies OK ambitious nuclear energy target..."

I don't think the nation as a whole really want this.

The total is enough to make 6,000 atomic bombs...

No. it isn't. Plutonium from commercial reactor spent fuel can't be used to make atomic bombs. It has to much of the wrong isotopes of plutonium.

The total is enough to make 6,000 atomic bombs, doesn’t mean much. You should have given the blast yield per bomb.

"Japan has nearly 47 tons of plutonium" and what do you do with it? its going to take XXX Hundred years before its safe to handle, I was just Googleing how much can be reprocessed, http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx I didn't realise how much the world actually had and processed, its staggering and then frightening to, we need to stop using nuclear fuel pretty soon, and as for relying on oil, well that pretty dumb to, because that is starting to run out to, so yes solar power is more expensive initially but in the long run its way cheaper and less toxic than nuclear power.

great post as always

I think 30% by 2030 is being very conservative. If Japan went all out, tried hard, they could double that. It's a guess on my part but I believe in innovation on the ground versus a blanket system for all

Deep water cooling around the edges of the nation. Only requires 1/10th energy to run so huge efficiencies for cities right there. Mountains for pumped storage hydroelectricity, combined heat and power thermal cycles, so many things to do in addition to solar panels and wind turbines. Molten salt heat storage and generation for intermittent energy sources.

Given the geothermal nature of Japan it's sitting on a gold mine as well. However even ground source heat pumps would work just fine as a temperature differential without needing the major heat sources.

Potential renewable Japan with plenty of engineers and a willing population is blessed with a lot, unfortunately it is cursed by brown envelope oyajis.

Enough material for 6,000 atomic bombs sounds much too dangerous . . . why not spend more effort on developing solar voltaic, wind mill, and other environmentally more friendly methods of producing energy . . . Japan suffered from 2 atomic bombs in WWII . . . . .

Lip service!!

Why 0% nuclear? Address Gen 4 reactors. What is the problem? Please be real in your answer.

From nuclear reactors in Japan, how many people have died? From mining coal and coal plants damage to the environment, how many people have died? Yes, solar and wind are renewables. Hydro-electric is not. Dams in Japan's steep rivers fill up in about 20 or so years. Tidal power can do significant environmental damage. Nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technical problem. No politician who wants to be re-elected will welcome a nuclear waste site in their back yard. Yes, Japan on the Pacific Fire Rim has problems with finding a good nuclear waste side, but there are other areas.

20% nuclear power and 20% alternative power, but 60% to remain fossil fuel. I think they can do a lot better than that. They are continuously complaining about the cost of fossil fuels, but don’t have a realistic target to reduce its use. Their target should be, 0% nuclear power, 70% renewables and 30% fossil fuel. They should also introduce strict guidelines on energy conserving. Over 60% of the electricity generated in Japan is consumed by industries, 25% domestic use, 25% in electricity generation and the remainder is listed as ‘miscellaneous’. Japan should be focusing on cutting down consumption of electricity.

Fukushima nuclear disaster? Let's be real! At the Fukushima Power plant and the surrounding area, the Nuclear disaster cause 2 deaths by tsunami, one death by earthquake, zero deaths by radiation poisoning and a realistic possible future deaths by cancer 100 or less. This is realistic possible future deaths by cancer, not a bloated number for a person trying to use biased data for litigation advantage. Was that a real disaster, yes for the people who have died, but that was earthquake and tsunami, nothing nuclear except that they happen to be working at a nuclear plant! The disaster was for the other 15,000 people who died from the earthquake and tsunami. The nuclear plant safety system worked as planned! The emergency auxiliary cooling water pumps with the emergency diesel generator worked for the eight hours as planned. No one expected a 50 foot tsunami to wipe out the local infrastructure and the emergency generator diesel fuel tanks could not be refueled. Steps were taken to make sure plant worker did not get a radiation dose above 25 rem. People outside the plant were significantly less! A dose of 25 rem gives you a 1% chance of getting cancer from the radiation. From Center for Disease Control, 1 out of 4 people will die of cancer (normal situation)! That is a 25% chance. So you are worried about someone who has 1% or less added chance of getting cancer sometime later in life when 15,000 people died! I think your priorities are way off.

Wester Japan? Aust, NZ government have to do cost/ benifit reports, Budget set publicly, if say a private company is involved they are fined if they fail to meet goals. Doesn't always work admitadly, but mostly. And there is accountability. At least a project as it evolves has the original guidelines to adhere to.

LDP and nukes are a recipe for disaster, and Fukushima is a prime example. Too many important questions remain unanswered to be going down this road prematurely.

"Oh God another plan with no time line no details. And without the imput and in the face of experts. Brilliant."

Just like the West

This does not fit the definition of a plan. Just a sellout to the brown envelopes

Oh God another plan with no time line no details. And without the imput and in the face of experts. Brilliant.