Japan to be without nuclear power after May 5

54 reactors = 30% percent of the electricity , population approx 126 million. ????

They are not 'shutdown'. They are offline. You can't just turn off a reactor.

what is the alternative energy source to replace 30%?

All that money used to pay for the running of NPPs can be used for purchasing oil and gas, as well as developing geothermal and improving the Japan National Power Grid.

Should save on cash in brown envelopes too....

Leave them off line, and shut them all down, start building hydro stations , with all the rivers in japan surely they can lay a concrete block and install a water turbine here and there, then start on the geothermal, get the sun working for us and a bit of wind, who needs nuclear anyway?

If that isnt enough then make dept stores keep dooors closed so they dont leak the a/con out onto the street, and stop pachinko wasting denki with lights blazing, also reduce neon signs and general consumption, i cannot believe how much denki is wasted here it should be crimminal.

May 6, every able-bodied Japanese should come out on the streets, young and old, female and male to celebrate the the nuclear free day and a rebirth of nuclear free Japan. After all countries such as Australia , Newzealand, etc already declared their countries nuclear free and are doing better with even better quality of lives! Japan should now assume nuclear energy never existed, conserve energy and pave way for other energy options to replace the meagre 25% risky, dangerous and unsustainable nuclear energy gap. Long live nuclear free Japan!!!!

@ Rick Kisa: correction you meant a meagre 12%. Electricity does not run your transport truck, it doesn't fly your transport plane, it does not power your pack boat. Nuclear is not going to solve our energy problems. Whoever invented that myth should be shot.

This is a huge issue for the government.

They are desperate to have at least some reactors operating. If the alternative - no plants online - continues for any length of time without any major side effects, people are going to wonder what the heck Japan needed any nuclear plants for in the first place.

I agree that considering climate change and other dirtier alternative forms of energy production, nuclear plants are a necessary part of the energy mix for Japan, but 54? I doubt it. It makes me wonder where all the energy they generated was going if we can now survive on just one

It pays to note that even despite 3/11, every nuclear powered country except Germany is planning to maintain or ramp up their nuclear power generation - even Singapore and the UAE.

That's largely because rising populations demand more energy - that's a brutal economic reality.

@SushiSake3

That's largely because rising populations demand more energy - that's a brutal economic reality.

Note that Japan's population is declining faster every year...

Reineart - hopefully Japan won't need so many plants - if any - in the future. Renewable energy generation is ramping up seriously in Japan too.

Zichi - good! I'm all for renewables, albeit with an eye to economic realities.

It pays to note that even despite 3/11, every nuclear powered country except Germany is planning to maintain or ramp up their nuclear power generation - even Singapore and the UAE.

Singapore does not produce or use any nuclear power at the moment, and probably will not do so until 2030 at the earliest, if ever.

The latest news on nuclear power in Singapore was during 2010, when the Singaporean government explained that it is beginning a long-term study of the feasibility of using nuclear power in the future. It is, in the status quo, unfeasible in Singapore to use nuclear power due to space constraints, primarily.

I went on the tangent above because as a Singaporean, I would like to dispel false information, and also because I believe there is relevance to Japan's dilemma at the moment. I think by now everyone is aware of the risks of nuclear power, especially when the government is lax in ensuring safety standards. Yet I also believe it is economically and politically unfeasible for Japan's nuclear power plants to remain offline for the long term. I say this because even Singapore has a very valid reason for seeking nuclear power in the future - natural gas and oil are not unlimited. There will come a day when the easily accessible reservoirs of fuel are depleted, and the remaining resources come under fierce competition from up-and-coming manufacturing giants like India and China. The result is simple: prices will go up.

This is a trend everyone is familiar with. The strategic importance of fuel resources forms a large part of international politics today. Any hint of instability in the middle east, as is the case with Iran at the moment, drives prices up and makes superpowers nervous. Being reliant on such resources is going to have severe consequences, especially since even the middle east will run out of oil one day (though that's in the far future).

This is what drives Singapore's ambitions for nuclear energy, despite being an island country that is so small, a cordon zone of 30km currently in place around the fukushima reactor will render over half of the entire country out of bounds. The government simply cannot sit around, satisfied with natural gas and oil consumption for power production. No matter how dangerous or unfeasible, they must at least investigate the possibility of future technology that may allow them to be less reliant on fuel-energy.

The same reason makes renewable power generation out of the question. Singapore is simply too small to build any kind of wind power generation, and even if every single building in the country is outfitted with solar panels, the current technology of solar energy will not provide enough for the country's consumption. Not to mention a rainy day would probably shut down the country, and being an island, rainstorms are pretty much weekly experiences. Even then, the government has began building solar panels, and is investing funds into research.

Japan faces a similar situation. There is simply not enough space to build wind-generation power enough to support the entire country's consumption reliably. Japan may be much bigger than Singapore, but a lot of Japan are mountains. Perhaps one day there may be technology to build wind-power generators that require less space and can actually be planted on mountaintops, or maybe bulldozing mountains become a reality, but in the forseeable future, wind-power generation is simply not an option. Like Singapore, Japan has little (if any) natural gas and oil resources - shutting down all nuclear reactors permanently will hit the Japanese economy hard. Not only will rising costs threaten growth, having all the nuclear reactors already built be scrapped will mean decades of public funds effectively flushed down the drain. It will also take years, maybe decades and definitely much more funds to actually build the infrastructure to replace the power produced by nuclear energy with other renewable resources. In the meantime, rising oil and gas prices will hammer its economy that much more.

Japan cannot maintain its competitiveness between that and the rebuilding. Not to mention the fact that China and India's economy and industry is just now beginning to mature after a decade of rapid industrialisation and growth. The cards are pretty much set - Japan can give up nuclear power and let its already struggling economy slide further down, or it can put its citizens at risk and try to re-start nuclear power plants with improved safety standards. An ugly and difficult dilemma, especially since the government's track record in transparency, corruption and safety checks makes the safety improvements subject to reasonable doubts as well. But still, that's the choice Japan faces. With this status quo, I believe it is only a matter of time before the government pushes through the restarting of some nuclear plants. The longer they take to clear safety improvement checks, the harder the country will suffer in the long run.

According to a JapanToday article a couple of days agon, Japan sits on unexploited geothermal energy sources worth 80000MW corresponding to twice the installed capacity of Japans Nuclear power plants.

I feel this should perhaps be used for something more than just providing hot baths for people and monkeys?

Look around there is energy everywhere you look espcially in this country, there is no need for nuclear energy, if only those in charge had of opted for the better alternative in the beginning and developed it's natural energy supplys.

How much was poured into research and developing these NPP's ? Could have all been invested into this country's sustainable future.

We would already be getting our denki from the rivers (plentiful in Japan), the wind (blows everyday), the sea (surrounds this nation), the sun (shines most days) and the same source that the onsens get there hot water and steam (onsens open everyday), instead these clowns in the diet decided to go for the easiest one to skim corruption money off of, "construction" of nuclear plants and back handers from bent tepco officials. (Who by the way called me yestreday to say they will pay my claim for compansation, but looks like they only agreed to roughly 10% of what we claimed for, the other 90% will be agrued in court.)

I am no greenie and far from it i just see there are better alternatives to nuclear strife.

They will only be shut down if their core temperatures are in their dead zero

Solar power is a good but-capital expensive alternative to nuc. power. Though it is space consuming -if the panels can be laid on mountains I thik it can work. In India , 400 MW solar power plant will start working today in GUJARAT state (kind of prefacture)

Ist of all-we have to think to get out of the crunch of those western countries and multi national power(NUC) gients.-then only our own -Japan's own natural resources and brains will be useful.

Wasn't the country able to cut 25% last year during "setsuden" time? Perhaps they could... make the pachinko buildings turn off their lights, demand grocery stores use covered freezers, turn off the needless vending machines... Surely that right there is the other 5%. No problem! Add in that the population is decreasing which means less homes needing power.... Problem solved.

Excellent news. Stepping into a safer future. (Eventually!)

I am betting my money that we will survive without nuclear power.

I'm afraid the ruling elite in Japan is going to restart the reactors no matter what. There's too much money invested in them. Will the Japanese stand up against that or not?

if they were Thorium reactors turning them off.. and i mean OFF OFF would be no dramas at all. Sadly they are not.

What this article and people elsewhere do not address is that in order to make up for the lost power, traditional-fossil fuel power plants will have to make up the difference. Essentially a step backwards in the eventual running of natural resources this planet has.

The people who celebrate this are not thinking long-term or about the entire issue. In the long-run, it's not nuclear power, but fossil fuels which are going to damage the world and the environment. To compensate the shutdown of reactors, they will burn more coal and gas than ever before, which will increase respiratory problems because of air pollution, it will contribute to hasten climate change and bring a whole lot of air pollution issues.

Nuclear power is a good thing, as in it's much less bad than the realistic alternatives. It just needs to be regulated tightly for safety... what failed wasn't nuclear power, it was the system of collusion between the industry and the government which silenced safety organizations in Japan. France has a lot of nuclear reactors and it has had no major accident, because their nuclear safety organization is independent from government and industry and they act as a good watchdog, plus their operators are publicly owned, so they have less incentives to cut corners on safety to make more profits.

Long term, nuclear power is almost as dangerous as fossil fuels. It is hard to deal with spent fuel. That's why there are spent fuel tanks at every reactor site and they need to be constantly kept cool. U-238 has a 1/2 life of 4.4 billion years and P-238 has a 1/2 life of 88 years. So how do you dispose of it? Now that's a garbage problem. Going back to global warming, as the sea warms and the glaciers melt, sea level will rise 3-10 meters. This doesn't even take into account what happens when frozen methane in the permafrost melts and release to the atmosphere at a 10 fold increase in warming compared to CO2. Since most of Japans reactors are near the sea, what are they going to do with increase sea level rise? Tepco was still considering what to do about the findings 20 years ago about tsunami's reaching deep into the interior as did the March 11th one. 20 years of knowing that their sea wall was not going to protect the plant and doing nothing.

zichi, the fossil plants do not make up the difference. Last summer many people lost their jobs and or were prevented from getting to work. Japan has had to spend a lot more money on fossil fuel, almost all of it is imported. Solar and wind sound nice but solar is only good during sunlight and is subject to being diminished by cloudy weather. Wind is subject to the wind. The fossil plants need to be cut back for peoples health. Do you want Tokyo to have smog (again) like Beijing? Why can you not see the suffering caused by fossil fuels? So what would living in Tokyo be like with no air conditioning, limited electric train service, smog thick enough to cut, limited hot water and so on and so on. Just think how lung and heart disease will rise with the pollutants. How many people died from a direct result of Fukushima? How many people will die when a layer of thick smog descends on the major cities in Japan? There have been smog alerts already this year. How quick you forget the hardships of last year and promote an energy policy because it is trendy.

All I know is that I DO NOT like nuclear, power or anything else! I only wish Japan, and other countries too, could get totally off nuclear power.

Can somebody explain in simple terms a tad about making electricity - isn't the main need heat? Something to make heat, which in turn can power some kind of generator?

Farmboy, Japan has almost no energy resources, while a lot can be made up from other sources. It can not be done in time. My Yuri prediction is they will come back online but not before significant economic damage is done. Not being to use the AC will mean less units being sold. Not being to use electric heating will mean more pollution. If you take away the toilet seat there goes more jobs. With less jobs and tax collection the deficit grows larger and larger. If the Republicans get their chance they will install Social Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism. The old and sick will be thrown under the bus. If Japan loses its economic power the same will happen.

I am not celebrating yet.

And even if this will mean the death of the nuclear energy industry in Japan, I will not celebrate the death of this already corrupt and crumbling industry because I feel for the people involved.

I will however celebrate this great opportunity for Japan to break its shackles and go against a bright new sustainable future. If Japan grabs this opportunity and play their cards right, this can be the beginning of something great for Japan.

And

@Astro Turfers United, Please stop using your straw men to push us into corners where we have to defend fossil fuels. You know as well as every one else that if the Japan spent only a fraction of what it has spent on nuclear over the last 5-10 years then the 20-25% of electric power that was previously generated by nuclear could easily be generated by sustainable energy sources today.

zichi, I fly so much on UAL to get to know some of the flight crews. The power cuts were needed. It takes time to bring mothballed plants online. My cousins in Tokyo say health alerts have been issued in Tokyo and other cities. My own experience says the air has gotten worse. While the use of LNG has been expanded, where will the more come from? I suspect if Japan has to rely on Russia for LNG the price will double or more. Oh I watch NHK news every day, usually watch the morning show over a drink. With TIVO get to watch all of the soaps, almost as good as being in Japan :)

Oh soon the ozone alerts will start for Tulsa, the stay indoors warnings.

So even before any reactors are restarted the safety levels must be improved first, to ensure another nuclear disaster can't happen, ever again.

I doubt any kind of safety level or tests implemented by the government will be sufficient to give Japanese citizens a peace of mind. Unfortunately, the past 5 years and the fukushima crisis has pretty much eroded the credibility of the J-gov.

If the condition for re-starting nuclear plants is democratic approval from the people, those plants will certain stay shut down. However, my personal opinion is that such a move will also mean Japan may never regain the economic affluence it once held.

Japan certainly can build renewable resource power plants, but at the current level of technology, renewable resource plants just cannot compare to nuclear energy in terms of efficiency - that's assuming it is even feasible to build enough off-shore wind generators to generate what the nuclear plants provide.

This is not even considering the time needed to build said plants.

In the forseeable future, if Japan abandons all nuclear plants permanently at this stage, it will take on a huge economic burden as fuel needs rise. In the best case scenario, fuel prices will remain stable and Japan's economy will just slow down. In the worst case, increased demand will result in increased prices, hitting everything from the power industry to any manufacturing business that requires fuel, and a recession is not out of the question. If that is added to the mountain of economic woes Japan is already facing, I doubt they will be able to remain competitive in any sense of the word against India. Forget about China, there's pretty much zero chance to challenge them in that kind of situation.

Nuclear power plants are not safe, that much is pretty much undisputable fact at this point. I doubt anyone needs to read a nuclear expert's 300 page paper to get that gist - if they've been reading any news at all for the past year, they'd be pretty much already convinced. (Of course, reading that will put some proper perspective into those who remain doubtful) Despite that fact, however, my personal opinion is that the goverment will be doing its best to push through re-starting the nuclear power plants. There may be people who will be willing to give up the economic benefits and weather any slow down, but the government is probably not going to take that choice unless it faces overpowering censure internationally and domestically.

Japan certainly can build renewable resource power plants, but at the current level of technology, renewable resource plants just cannot compare to nuclear energy in terms of efficiency.

Can you please qualify this statement? Nuclear power plants use tons of Uranium fuel. Wind, Solar, Hydro, Tidal, Geothermal use zero fuel, hence their fuel efficiency is infinity. Yes?

If that is added to the mountain of economic woes Japan is already facing, I doubt they will be able to remain competitive in any sense of the word against India. Forget about China, there's pretty much zero chance to challenge them in that kind of situation.

If Japan worries about getting its own house in order instead of worrying about challenging its neighbors all the time, I think Japan will be much better off.

Can you please qualify this statement? Nuclear power plants use tons of Uranium fuel. Wind, Solar, Hydro, Tidal, Geothermal use zero fuel, hence their fuel efficiency is infinity. Yes?

In short, 1 nuclear reactor > 1 renewable-resource generator.

Wind, solar etc power generation requires zero fuel, but plenty of space. To generate enough power to compare to a conventional oil or gas power plant, you'll need far more than 1 or 2 wind generators. Certainly I'm no expert and I don't have hard numbers, of course. Nuclear energy uses nuclear fission processes to create a huge amount of heat to boil and turn turbines. It is this reason that makes other countries ambitious about developing their own nuclear programmes. To replace all 50+ nuclear power plants with renewable resource power generators will require a great deal more generators than reactors, incurring a far greater cost in both land area, building cost etc etc.

If Japan worries about getting its own house in order instead of worrying about challenging its neighbors all the time, I think Japan will be much better off.

No country can be an isolated island. Japan is currently the third largest economy in the world, and this has been what allows every Japanese to enjoy the quality of life they have at the moment (including the bad politicians, of course). Certainly, housekeeping is of utmost importance, but not at the cost of throwing away their international standing. If Japan was a country like China, which has huge labour resources, huge amounts of natural resources (like oil, gas, rare metals, mines etc etc) that would not be so much of a problem. But Japan is an island country dependant on trade and exports.

When the economy falters in relation to their international rivals, Japanese companies will see a tightening of their profits and funds because their buyers are going to their rivals - people get laid off, investment and research funds get reallocated, salaries rise slower, with the possibility of not keeping pace with inflation rates. As a result, spending power goes down, and companies see an even tighter profit. This is called a recession. Japan, like Singapore, cannot afford to be less competitive than their neighbours - doing so directly affects their domestic economic health.

@vinnyfav

In short, 1 nuclear reactor > 1 renewable-resource generator.

Im sorry, but that is just silly and you know it.

...

http://205.254.135.7/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=104&t=21

The US faq on their power. An "average" nuclear plant produces around 12.4 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) in a year.

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Much-Electricity-Does-a-Wind-Generator-Produce?&id=1535655

A home-made wind turbine generator generates about 10,000 kWh a year. Industrial strength wind generators would be far, far stronger, of course. Not sure if they would be up to 1 million times stronger, though. (I doubt that.)

I'm not sure how many reactors are in a single plant, of course, but I think it's pretty conclusive that a single nuclear reactor will almost certainly create more energy than a single wind turbine generator at this current technology level. Unless aliens come and give Japan the sudden means to create a renewable resource generator on par with nuclear reactors, efficiency wise, nuclear reactors hold the advantage.

I've also said countless times before, I acknowledge that nuclear power is pretty much a time bomb. Economically, however, I don't see how Japan has much choice other than to re-start their NPPs.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1535655, US EIA.

Will someone please turn the lights OFF !

vinnyfav, actually Japan is on the verge of depression. The money supply becoming more and more restricted. The costs of buying more and more oil, LNG and coal. Komatsu the #2 supplier of construction equipment has threaten to move more plants overseas if power guarantees can not be done. Honda, Toyota will move more production to America. I do not believe renewable resources will be available in time. zichi my friend the power grid is stretched to the limit. The big question is what would happen if there is a war in the middle east? One mistake and there will be war. Second what if Israel uses atomic weapons against the oil fields of the middle east? We are on the brink of economic disaster. Japan is on the verge of a 1930's depression.

@YuriOtani

Yes, Japan's economy is not in a very good shape at the moment. I do not think it is on the verge of a depression like Europe faced in the 1930s, however, even if the nuclear plants are not re-started. The Great Depression was pretty much an economic disaster that was created by a mixture of bad economic practices and a general economic breakdown in multiple countries at once. The international economy today is not exactly vibrant and pulsating with energy, but at the very least, countries and banks are not in a state where a region or world-wide hyper-inflation is likely to take place.

War in the middle east is not out of the question, but I think we can count on the US, Russia and other superpowers to do their best to prevent any wide-scale hostilities from breaking out. Similarly with Israel, while them using their atomic weapons is not out of the question either, I highly doubt it will happen unless something majorly wrong happens to their leadership, since such a move will spell political doom for Israel's international standing. (Also, it is still not confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons in their arsenal. As far as I know, they have not given any official information on the subject.)

Things are nowhere near the doomsday scenarios you described, and personally, I think it would certainly be better for the world at large if every country worked toward developing renewable resource power generation instead of nuclear energy. For the short term, however, until more research yields results that will change the status quo, nuclear energy isn't going anywhere, unfortunate as that may be.

In the short term this will cause hardship for Japan but in the long run it will allow Japan to develop technologies that are ahead of the curve as Japan did in the 1970s , during the oil shock.

The effects of the nuclear disaster are becoming evident

Already, the areas around the plant are becoming bereft of wildlife.

Birdlife and even insects (much hardier than mammals) are being decimated and mutated

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bird-numbers-plummet-around-stricken-fukushima-plant-6348724.html

Parts of Tokyo,Chiba,Saitama have recorded radiation levels at the same level as the plant in Fukushima whilst incineration of the waste is being conducted in Tokyo.

I would question if a mass sterilization and/or extinction of the Japanese people is not going to occur.

The future of Japan depends on the right choices being made now not when another earthquake decimates another nuclear plant-we should be learning now!

@kurisupisu

I am glad you brought this up because it reminded me of something I have been wanting to ask people of this forum.

Last summer here in Ibaraki, I observed a large number of insects, spiders and frogs that seemed to be lacking pigmentation (Completely or partially). Normally brown-greyish spiders that are now a pale yellowish tone. Frogs that are usually green and brown are now greyish. Grasshoppers that during the summer are usually green or brown looking like they sometimes do in late fall when they lose their pigmentation.

I have seen a couple of small spiders this year that seem to exhibit the same phenomena, but they were to small to really tell for sure. I am no biologist, so sorry I wont be able to give you any species names, but they are all common insects, spiders and frogs of the area.

I immediately at that time made the mental connection to Fukushima, but later dismissed it as I am well aware that the human brain is sometimes quick to find connections where there are none. Still I find these occurrences peculiar enough to ask here if anyone else has made similar observations, or have some reasonable explanation of the phenomena.

To clarify:

I don't believe that the doses announced for the area would be enough to cause this level of mutation. Still I found it peculiar.

@SquidBert

Insects are hardier than humans but the effect of radiation should produce mutations in eggs and the insect young as is the case in humans

However,The study below shows a surprising result!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1972.tb00973.x/abstract

Whatever is the case it won't be business as usual.....

@ExportExpert Couldn't agree with you more! So much electricity being wasted in this country! I see no problem to make up for the shortfall by saving energy alone. Here's to hoping for a permanently nuke-free Japan after May 5!

Seems like a lose-lose situation. Certainly, in the mid-long term nuclear power would preferably become a thing of the past. Increased reliance on fossil fuels is the wrong way to go, on multiple levels. Solar realistically isn't reliable enough on its own, but has some merits. Geo-thermal seems like a great opportunity for expansion and development in the near-mid term, much of which would be in national park/preserve areas. Wind power is expanding, but like solar, has its issues. In the interim, bringing the few remaining reactors back on line is probably the most viable(though loathesome and unpopular ) option. Meanwhile, power-saving is something we all can do, if we can accept cutting some luxuries.

Nuclear plants will be replaced entirely ...it's just a matter if time.

TheBigPicture, I agree it is just that the replacement needs to be ready before giving them up. Oh the Frogs could be from the extra emissions from the power plants. Did you know fossil power plants release higher than background radiation too?

Did you know fossil power plants release higher than background radiation too?

Yuri: Are you seriously suggesting that the increased levels of radiation we see here in Japan are due to emissions from fossil power plants? This must be a new record even for you.

No but what I say is true and chemicals and acid rain can do a lot of harm to any ecosystem. I made a few calls to people and they tell me while the import of LNG has grown by 2x, the import of crude for power plants has gone up four fold. The import of coal has gone up 2 fold. The question is how long can Japan keep paying for these imports?

@YuriOtani,

Do you have a source (other than your buddies) for that information by any chance? The math does not add up.

@Yuri,

I voted you down, but if you provide the source confirming your statement, I will vote you back up again.

Squidbert, laughs the numbers I was using was fuel for power generation. A 2 times increase is not much when not a lot is imported :) Same as the 4 times. Yes LNG is the preferred fuel in Japans power plants. Also the numbers keep changing, so the answer is not simple.

An interestinf research has just emerged showing Japan does not after all need nuclear energy to reduce its greenhouse emmissions. the question is where have they all this long to tell teh masses??!! Read on http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120422a1.html

An interestinf research has just emerged showing Japan does not after all need nuclear energy to reduce its greenhouse emmissions. the question is where have they all this long to tell teh masses??!! Read on http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120422a1.html

Rick, I am sorry ah what are they smoking? Perhaps taking? If you run the numbers and unless there is a 50 percent reduction in demand it will not work. Myself am not willing to live my life in discomfort to make the eco types happy.