national

Japan to complete 3 new reactors despite no-nuclear policy

39 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

Why would anyone believe anything the Japanese government says any more? And just to show you who's boss, they'll throw it back in your face.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

What do the people in these towns think of going ahead with the plants? What about the people in the surrounding areas that may be in a fall-out area if there was a disaster? I think it would be best to shelve the plans for these three..especially since at least one of them is managed by TEPCO. There is no need to build anymore when the government is trying to phase them out.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Makes a joke about zero nuclear energy since with the 40 year cycle, these reactors will on beyond 2050. The gov't is using the zero option to attract more voters in the general election and if it wins, will give lame excuses for continuing with nuclear energy.

12 ( +14 / -2 )

“It is extremely irresponsible for the government to tout ‘zero nuclear power generation’ without drawing up concrete steps to secure electric power in a stable manner,” it said.

But Japan has just been through the zero nuclear energy scenario few unusually hot months ago! It is evident that Japan can do without nuke electricity. There is enough electricity to satisfy Japan needs, but not enough to satisfy all the greed of a few selfish well connected individuals such as nuclear village crooks....

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Employment and manufacturing is increasing. How will electricity be produced with out these reactors?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Wait, I read the news yesterday and it said 2030, not 40.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But Japan has just been through the zero nuclear energy scenario few unusually hot months ago! It is evident that Japan can do without nuke electricity. There is enough electricity to satisfy Japan needs, but not enough to satisfy all the greed of a few selfish well connected individuals such as nuclear village crooks...

Actually Japan does not have enough to fulfill it's needs, from major corporations down to individual consumers costs, reductions in power have hurt the economy as a whole. Not to mention the HUGE increase in imports which has killed Japan's trade balance (now a deficit) and hurt production area's as well. Not to mention the increased costs are being handed down to consumers as well. The overall trickle-down effect of taking the nukes off line is hurting nearly all segments of the economy. Maybe for one year Japan can survive, but for the next 30? Highly doubtful.

In the long run shutting them down is more than likely the right thing to do. However in he interim until alternative, COST-EFFECTIVE replacement energy sources can come on line Japan can not keep on expecting to use fossil fuel powered generators.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Wait, I read the news yesterday and it said 2030, not 40.

Actually if you read the news here it said and I quote "Gov't aims to abandon nuclear power by 2030s", which could mean anywhere between 2030 and 2039.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This gov't has constantly moved it's goal posts and flip flopped on all major issues. It's unlikely to win the next general election and we will probably see the LDP returned to office which would take a very different stance on the future of nuclear energy.

Both parties should have a policy to close down all reactors older than 40 years. Close down all reactors which have failed the stress test. Close down all reactors that are discovered to be on active fault lines or in dangerous locations. Only reactors which have had their safety standards greatly increased should be allowed to restart.

All spent nuclear fuel should be removed from the atomic power plants and placed in newly built storage depots in each prefecture with an atomic plant.

Even if the country does continue to use nuclear energy it will still be limited and will still require fossil fuels to generate at least 60% of the power.

Future gov't's need to invest and increase the use of all types of renewable energies and not just solar panels. They should encourage all major companies to generate at least 20% of its power needs from renewables. There should be a strong push to increase the efficient use of power by 15%.

If nuclear energy remains, there is no need for the 35 working reactors at the time of 3/11. At present, I think nuclear energy could only generate 20% of power and not the 30% level prior to 3/11.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

flippity floppity

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Since two of the plants are in Aomori, where the economic situation is dire, the people will accept the plants construction as it provides jobs and some economic activity. But it is a bit of a dance with the devil! But you will notice most of the reactors are situated in rural areas far from the real users, just in case anything ever happened!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The government said Saturday it would go ahead with planned work to complete three new nuclear power reactors, despite saying a day earlier it would phase out nuclear power generation by 2040. Edano added, however, that the start-up of the reactors would be subject to approval by a newly created government commission to regulate nuclear power. On Friday, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s government adopted a new energy policy, including the nuclear phase-out, in what was widely seen as bowing to public pressure after the Fukushima disaster.

A priori, these three paragraphs are contradictory.

I thought, and hoped I had misunderstood the news yesterday... I see this was not the case... Why are you wasting money on new reactors which - IF the government actually does start to phase out nuclear power, will become expensive "ornaments"

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Maybe they could turn them into outlet malls?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Admit it folks, nuclear power is here to stay.

After such a huge disaster, the Govt. has its blinkers on and only sees potential profit by switching power stations on.

There seems very little hope in this Govt. and it bullies residents in what it calls "persuading nuclear power is safe". Indirectly it is saying that 11 March was a one-off. Complete incompetence and a disregard for residents.

An aging population, high suicide rate, huge problem with bullying from school to work, and the Govt. showing its own bullying tactics. A reluctance to change ones ways for the better...always the ganbare attitude that is only a phrase with normal encouragement whatsoever.

Welcome to Japan.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Above meant no encouragement whatsoever...predictive text.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan needs more nuclear energy. Stop protesting.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Precisely as predicted- loopholes, omissions and fine print detail " surprises " to ensure the new zero N power policy is nothing but an election bone thrown to the public. Who is Edano kidding , as if they build 3 new reactors and the new " independent" nuclear safety agency will not approve their start...yeah..right. As pointed out above why would anyone in this country trust anything the government says anymore.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This sort of illogical, politically motivated, and economically costly maneuvering is merely one more symptom of the continuing decline of modern Japanese politics. Among other things, this decision, which will affect the lives of millions of people for years to come, is more evidence that the Japanese government will never effectively reduce the enormous budget deficits that accumulate year after year: White elephants, white elephants, white elephants on parade...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hi, it is completely logical. I don't want to pay high energy bills and I believe no one wants. Solar panel may not be entirely efficient since it can't generate energy during the night and it requires expensive batteries to store the energy. Also, Fukujima was a fatality caused by the nature. It will improve the current technology for nuclear plant safety. It need to shot down plants near the ocean that can be affected by tsunamis. If people ask to close all the nuclear plants until 2030, then Japan will become even more weaker to self protect the own country. Germany is ok, they are safe since people in Europe understands that war was a fatality and they created the EU to avoid any future war. If history was different, then people were not be able to understand how wrong countries can become with nationalism. Later in the future, the country may switch to new technologies like Microwave space stations. Japan needs to use its technology to go to space perhaps building cities there or even helping to build the famous USS Enterprise and help to create a starflet. There is infinite amount of natural resources in space :) We paid taxes for these nuclear plants. Better to complete what was built than abandon all these projects and ensure that there will be enough power to cool down the plants in the disaster. The country will be entirely dependent of other countries gas and will need to pay even more if it chooses power down everything.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

This seems rather contradictory to their no nukes policy, doesn't it? It would lead one to believe their policy is not worth the paper it is written on. The policy is purely to calm the masses and get votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Fukujima was a fatality caused by the nature.

No it wasn't ! It was proved to be a "man-made" catastrophy.

We paid taxes for these nuclear plants.

How about using the tax money to help relocate the displaced residents into "proper" living quarters ? Are you one of them ? Or do you still have a "real" roof over your head ?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Ka-ching... Nuff siad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Government need first to help the people affected by the disaster and also need to complete what is unfinished. Keep a plant without finish it takes much more money for the tax payers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Yomiuri Shimbun is right on target:

"It is extremely irresponsible for the government to tout 'zero nuclear power generation' without drawing up concrete steps to secure electric power in a stable manner."

Spot on. And no, fossil fuels don't even reomtely count as "stable" in the world's current political and economic climate.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Civil war, anyone?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rick Kisa:

" But Japan has just been through the zero nuclear energy scenario few unusually hot months ago! It is evident that Japan can do without nuke electricity. "

....and in the process, Japan has imported massive amounts of fossil fuel, to the tune of an extra 60 billion USD, destroyed its trade balance, and severely impaired its industrical capacits. And by the way, how do you feel about all the additional CO2 blowing about, which I believe most antinuclear protesters are also against??

There is no free lunch in real life.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

“ It is extremely irresponsible for the government to tout ‘zero nuclear power generation’ without drawing up concrete steps to secure electric power in a stable manner,” it said. "

Exactly. That really sums it up. If they want a zero nuclear energy situation, let them work out a sensible plan and follow that through. This headless-chicken type of policy of "bury them NOW, NOW, NOW" is cheap populism of the worst kind.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

What, it's 2040 now? I thought yesterday they were saying 2030.

Anyway, I called the restart of building new reactors last week, so I'm not surprised. Japan never learns from its history (and often rewrites it!), they won't learn from Fukushima either. It's only a matter of time before the next nuclear disaster here.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

“We don’t intend to withdraw the permission that has already been given by the ministry,” Yukio Edano, the minister of economy, trade and industry, said on Saturday as he met local administrators in Aomori, according to reports.

I hope the people intend to force the permission to be withdrawn. Since the people are the ones who pay for it, and who have to bear the burden of any accidents, it seems fair that their wishes will be respected.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

We paid taxes for these nuclear plants. Better to complete what was built than abandon all these projects and ensure that there will be enough power to cool down the plants in the disaster. The country will be entirely dependent of other countries gas and will need to pay even more if it chooses power down everything. -- HKitagawa

Are you saying that nuclear power is economical compared to alternative energy even after adding the cost of Fukushima's displacement. loss of agricultural output and loss of land? It bankrupted the largest utility in Japan and put all taxpayers on the hook. Which is the impractical source of energy? And talk about dependence on other countries. How many uranium mines does Japan have? Where is nuclear waste processed? And where will it be discrded long-term? And what is Japan's defense going to cost as nuclear weapons proliferate. When all is factored in -- nuclear energy is hardly a bargain. It seems cheap only because these costs are mostly borne by others.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The minister for National Policy has stated that some reactors will have their life cycle increased to 60 years which means some reactors still operating at the end of this century.

This week the gov't has given a very confusing energy policy. If it intends to end nuclear energy it should be clear on that point. If it intends to go on with nuclear energy it should be clear on that point too.

In the end, it probably won't matter much because come the general election the DPJ will be out of office.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Japan to complete 3 new reactors despite no-nuclear policy

See? It is only the people and not the politicians, who will save Japan and its people from going to waste! What the gvt is saying is something like 'you can do n say what you want, we shall force nuclear everything down your throats. After all in case of accident, we shall still tell you nobody is responsible!'. Why are politicians so adamant and behave as if they are the last human beings to live in Japan? why? why?

4 ( +4 / -1 )

So happy to see my tax money being wasted.

Is it just me or does Japan have the most plants for land mass and population? This is just beyond crazy. The country survived without any for months and now this?? I guess the government needs their kickbacks and golden parachutes more than ever.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

0 nuclear by 2030, but they're also building new reactors? What are they thinking?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

81 solar power projects: 243 MW; six wind power projects: 122 MW; homeowners and small companies installed solar panels: 202 MW; small-sized hydro power projects: 0.2 MW; offshore wind turbines (120 billion yen over 10 years to set up): 300 MW; two wind farms off the coast, north of Tokyo: 250 MW; 10 solar farms, 1wind farm: 230.2 MW; solar panels (at 400-600 of its facilities costing 60 billion yen): 200 MW; solar plants (30 billion yen): 100 MW; solar plant: 70 MW; solar plant (8 billion yen): 27 MW; floating wind farm: 16 MW; floating turbine: 2 MW; solar plant: 13 MW; two solar power plants: 3.3 MW; 250 solar farms: 500 MW (100 billion yen); 100 solar facilities: 100 MW (24 billion yen); 20 solar plants: 60 MW; hydropower plant: 1 MW (1.05 billion yen);

2450 MW total promised (rounded up). Keep in mind that this is peak output, and not base load and several hundreds of billions (getting closer to trillions) of yen are needed before any of these projects can go ahead (approval means nothing without the money to back it up).

1 nuclear power plant: 1000 MW, or thereabouts (base load). Peak output is higher, of course. Cost: About 400-450 billion yen, depending who you talk to.

The numbers...are kinda of damning.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

cabadje - oh yes the numbers...until something like Fukushima happens...then the numbers are out the window. Why doesn,t the pro nuke crowd ever include the cost of accident clean up, decommissioning, waste storage for the next few thousand years etc. in their calculations. It's easy to argue N power is cheaper when you omit the above costs - its just creative accounting.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Japan to complete 3 new reactors despite no-nuclear policy

With such confusing messages and at this rate, Japanese are born to live by, and die of nuclear everything......

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Honne and tatemae.

Uso mo ho- ben.

As much as I love Japan, these are two things I cannot get to love.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cabadje - oh yes the numbers...until something like Fukushima happens...then the numbers are out the window.

Are they?

Should we compare the damage caused by nuclear plants vs the damage caused by conventional power plants? Do you believe nuclear plants have a worse safety record?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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