national

Japan set to return to nuclear power after two-year hiatus

20 Comments

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

© 2015 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

Here's what happens when the people can not get it together and force their leaders to do what they want, they get the short end of the stick, no matter how much they protest.

Nothing will change until Abe is out of office.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Highly highly disappointing, who wants this, I have yet to see anyone but a politician or the power company push this.

It seems once the government is in power they are untouchable and unswayed by public opinion, it is a little frightening. Im not sure there is a better option but I hope everyone looks very carefully next election.

This last few weeks with temperatures at around 36 most days Japan was still operating within its power generation capacity, do we really need them to be turned on at all, ever?

Sure, there is an issue with having to import fuels, costs and those fuels pollution but all this time and effort spent trying to convince a totally unconvinced population to turn on nuclear reactors and have big meaningless meetings could have been spent looking at other power generation options to augment and move away from fossil and nuclear power all together.

Im still convinced Japan missed a major opportunity to make the best of a tragedy and become a world leader in small scale local power generation after the earthquake when even nations normally actively for reasons to have an issue with Japan were supportive.

The previous government was talking of eventual decommissioning of all reactors and a move to renewable but all that has completely disappeared.. the current government seems more like a problem gambler that has put in so much money and is so deep into it they can't see anyway out but to keep betting even though standing up and walking away from the table at any point is still the better answer.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I fear for the Japanese people if those in power remain in thrall to the nuclear cheerleaders who seem determined to destroy their nation. If they start up these nuclear plants then I have no hope for them. They are simply choosing self-destruction for immediate financial gains. Are they insanely in denial about the dangers they are imposing on their nation and, frankly, the entire globe?

9 ( +12 / -3 )

I guess the "we wont start until we have your understanding" from Abe is a pile of lies. Just force big business down the throats of the consumers.

If I hear anything like a Tepco profit announcement after this I'm going to punch something.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

All shall kneel to the cashola of nuclear

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I notice not so many posts. I guess Japan today has been muzzled.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just flashed up on the TV screen. Sendai has been switched on.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nuclear power and Japan just don't go together. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, typhoons and other types of natural disasters hit Japan every year. The disaster risk in Japan, all things being equal, is even worse than Indonesia. If these nuclear reactors restart, I think Japan's people have been failed by their government. And do you know what's ironic? Nuclear power is supposed to be a "safe and cheap" source of energy, yet in Japan it's been dangerous and expensive. The Fukushima nuclear disaster, along with the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, has cost Japan and its taxpayers $250+ billion US dollars, and it's still an ongoing disaster. The Fukushima nuclear disaster will continue to have health impacts on the Japanese people and it has left a huge scar on Japan.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The way nuclear works in Japan is usually that enough local people are directly or indirectly bought off to get the plants built in the face of whatever opposition there is. It's the same with the US bases on Okinawa. The local people end up in a Faustian pact with the nuclear village. Most Japanese regions have had it tough in recent years, so it's not as if there are many options once nuclear money stops flowing in. Such options will also have been on the back burner in the preceding twenty to thirty years, because the money from the plant will have paid for everything. A decent number of people in the region will be completely dependent on the plant. The nuclear village has them by the balls.

It should go without saying, but once one plant restarts, they will successively push to restart the others. This one might be reasonably safe in terms of design, maintenance, position viz-a-viz active faults, tsunami risk, etc. but some of the others sound much more questionable.

(I'm not actually anti-nuclear the technology because the present real-world alternative is fossil fuels and they kill way more)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

“It is important for the country’s energy policy that the government go ahead with reactor restarts once they are confirmed as safe,”

Isn't that what caused the three meltdowns in the first place?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Great! At the flick of a switch, Japan's carbon emmissions will take a noticable drop.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

So much for the government's vow to "never do it without the consent of the local people", which went out the window pretty quick when they realized the local people don't want the reactors restarted. Oops! Another Japanese politicians' promise! Just like, dare I say it, "Something like Fukushima will not happen again! (although there's no guarantee of safety)".

Get ready for the "I told you sos" and the "We could never have seen this coming!" comments.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Once again! The govt shows UTTER CONTEMPT for its own people, you people DONT know what you want, you don't know what you need, we the J-govt will TELL you what you get now just shut up & go back to drinking your happoshu & sucking on your cheap smokes!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

It's utterly insane to restart the Sendai plant as it's right next to the supervolcano under Kagoshima city. If that blows, not only will it cover the hole of Japan in thick ash, but thanks to the Sendai plant that ash would be radioactive too! The Sendai plant should be dismantled ASAP.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nationally it may be opposed, but locally, it has been approved. so what's the beef? all this nuclear fearmongering based on a singular incident that will never happen again. hundreds of nuclear reactors operating around the world for the past 30-40 years and you can count the number of catastrophic incidents on one hand. start'em all up, i say.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

All this fear-mongering is based on a zero percent understanding of how business and nuclear power works. People think energy companies are out to destroy the world. They ignore coal and natural gas producing carbon emissions. Nuclear power has zero emissions. They cite renewable resources but those are cost ineffective right now and space ineffective. There's not enough space in japan for renewable to work. There's no room to put wind farms or enough space to put solar energy panels. You could put the on the roof s but solar energy only accounts for .04% of energy produced. Nuclear power is clean but you don't want to hear that. You want to hear the fear-mongering. You want to hear that nuclear energy makes bajillions of dollars for greedy executives that hate you and hate Japan. I say reject sensationalism! People want their energy at rock bottom prices but dont want them to use the most productive means. Enjoy drilling the seafloor for more oil Greenpeace. That's what powers your Greenpeace ships.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Nakanoguy. Its not just a local issue though, in-fact I would say its not just national but international one. Yes, the reported accidents and major accidents are not that many but you are discounting the potential severity of a major accident or more likely in the case of Japan, a major natural disaster followed by man made nuclear power plant problem.

btb235. I don't necessarily think the companies are out to destroy the world, but that have shown time after time that profit is more important than safety, the very event that started this was evidence of that. The risk had been identified but the appropriate measures were not put in place. Promises from politicians that these risks have been minimised aren't very persuasive to me.

They have nuclear power plants which are ready to "go" so rather than invest in other infrastructure they want to use those, of course that makes business sense, however is business needs and low cost electricity the ultimate goal... maybe for some but I think safety, accountability and forward looking technology is something that needs to be in the balance.

Yes, nuclear power has less carbon emissions but, it isn't waste free or totally clean, it creates some very difficult to deal with waste.

I don't think its simply fear mongering when there has been multiple meltdowns and large radiation releases.

I do agree that some plants being used as an interim measure is probably inevitable but where is the future looking planning, the old plants will only get older and had Fukushima not been able to operate because it was towards the end of its operating life and an older design we probably would be in a better station all together.

You say that other renewable energy such as solar provides very little percentage of the power needs.. but until the investment is made of course that will be the case. Lets not also forget that nuclear power was only supplying around a quarter of the needs anyway.

Im not sure where you are getting your numbers for the percentages of power source but I think this accident shows.. nuclear isn't cheap or clean at all.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nakanoguy. Its not just a local issue though, in-fact I would say its not just national but international one. Yes, the reported accidents and major accidents are not that many but you are discounting the potential severity of a major accident or more likely in the case of Japan, a major natural disaster followed by man made nuclear power plant problem.

"potential severity" is more fearmongering. there's potential danger from buring so much coal and using petroleum. what about increasing the pace of global warming? you don't hear that from the anti-nuclear tree huggers. even with the meltdown at fukushima, how many deaths have been reported as a direct result of the fall out? zero? even with massive amounts of radioactive material spewed from the reactors, no deaths resulted from it. so all this fear about nuclear energy and another nuclear catastrophe are completely overblown.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ nakanoguy01 There have been many deaths as a result of the Fukushima reactor falloutmainly due to the very real psychological stress of forced relocation (including suicide and murder) . However, I do agree that we do no hear enough regarding the dangers of fossil fuels, which are partly to blame for the turmoil in the Middle East, various forms of atmospheric pollution, vehicular transportation crashes, and presumably house fires. Oops...Electric stoves cause many more fires than paraffin heaters but, nonetheless, there is danger in fossil fuels which we seem to lose sight of.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Risk assessment: Japan is prone to quakes, tsunamis, cyclones and eruptions, generally most natural disasters. The price of a neuclear holocaust will be too high to pay. Common sense would dictate that instead of spending so much on sturdying the reactors (which still does not guarantee absolute prevention), Japan should go in for other energy sources, those where the consequences can be limited, as the probability remains same for either.

2 ( +2 / -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