national

Japan, U.S., others vow to triple global nuclear energy by 2050

35 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

It's all about money.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Another Fukushima? For them it doesn't matter.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

Nuclear pollution?

No thanks!

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

Yes, this is what the world needs. Not everywhere is an active fault line.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I'd like to know what these green activists want us to do. No coal, gas or oil. Check. Nuclear, no it is too dirty later to clean up the waste. Check. Hydro is only good in places with lots of water, and those pesky dams destroy lots of natural habitats. Check. Wind, solar is clean, but their capacity is spotty and we still have no means of saving the excess capacity to use at night or when conditions are not optimum for electric production.

So what would they have us use or do? They just keep talking green, but it is not feasible and won't be for some time!

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Start by reducing the demand for electricity, gas, and oil. There are unlimited ways forward.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

More nuclear power generation means less dependence on imported oil. The declaration will help enhance Japan’s national security.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Here's something all the pro nuclear power people can appreciate, China currently is #3 in capacity and is currently constructing 21 additional nuclear reactors. The US has 1 in the works. Japan has 2. (Wiki)

8 ( +8 / -0 )

16 words.

Chernobyl disaster, Three Mile Island accident, Fukushima Daiichi ,Kyshtym disaster, Windscale, 1968 Thule Air Base B-52, Samut Prakan radiation, 1966 Palomares B-52 crash, Windscale fire, SL-1,, Tokaimura nuclear accident, Mayak,Goiânia accident, Lucens reactor, Church Rock.

there is plenty more, Oi NPP, Tsuruga, Nigata etc, but anybody can research.

Indonesia is building on an active volcano, Turkiye on a major fault line…

the world has gone crazy. Glad I’m old.

-7 ( +5 / -12 )

deanzaZZRToday 08:17 am JST

Here's something all the pro nuclear power people can appreciate, China currently is #3 in capacity and is currently constructing 21 additional nuclear reactors. The US has 1 in the works. Japan has 2. (Wiki)

That's great! Now about those coal plants...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Why isn’t geothermal a thing in Japan?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Geothermal sites are usually in national parks preventing their use for power generation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

To all the tree huggers objecting to this how about give an alternative rather than your normal moaning and complaining. Heres what you have all said so far: Nuclear power no, its bad for the environment. Hydro dams no because its bad for the environment, kills trees and animals. Wind farms no because its bad for the environment, can't recycle wind turbine blades which get buried. Solar farms no because its bad for the environment, solar panels can't be recycled and need to be buried. Can't use coal or oil because its bad for the environment.

Unless you have an alternative idea how about just stop moaning and try be happy with life.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

In the current fleet of nuclear reactors, pre-2011, about 50 were not constructed with 100% safety in mind and profits before safety. Fukushima happened only because of the lack of safety features.

Now post 2011 there are 20 reactors if permitted to restart.

The fleet of 50 reactors generated just 27% of total power.

To replace the fleet with Gen IV reactors, which are not ready would be an enormous task. The cost of building a reactor has more than doubled making it more expensive than renewable energy. Any new reactors would need the support of the people.

The damage to the nuclear industry was caused by the nuclear village that could never imagine there could be a nuclear disaster in the country.

France with the highest percentage of power from nuclear energy is shutting down some of its reactors.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I said it before: Nuclear energy is the only way to go!!!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

World nuclear energy only managed to generate 14% of total power. Most countries cannot afford to join the rich man's club.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Of course they want to minimize reliance on oil at all costs.

Anyway, Japan found a place willing to be a dumping site for the nuclear waste yet?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Not that hard to manage nuclear waste now, how hard can it be to manage much more in the future.

And why concern ourselves with increased chances of nuclear disasters, let's cross that bridge when where at it

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Like the nuclear wastewater, let's pretend that it's safe by diluting it first with the ocean so we can hardly detect the presence of nuclear particles before dumping it of course in the same ocean. Oceans so big it will take quite a while before anything noticeable happens. And when it does let's cross that bridge then

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Stefan... 31 people died from Chernobyl, zero at Three Mile Island, zero at Fukushima, zero from radiation at Windscale but 32 in the fire...

In terms of death pretty cheap, especially when compared to coal mining and the pollution from fossil fuels.

But we also need to take into account the clear up costs at the atomic stations. Definitely not cheap.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

When will Gen IV reactors become available?

"Gen IV reactors are two-to-four decades away, although some designs could be available within a decade. As in the case of Gen III and Gen III+ designs in the United States, Gen IV designs must be certified by the NRC under 10 CFR Part 52, based on updated regulations and regulatory guides."

https://www.amacad.org/publication/nuclear-reactors-generation-generation/section/6#:~:text=Gen%20IV%20reactors%20are%20two,updated%20regulations%20and%20regulatory%20guides.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Corporations-first LDP regime's selfish "vow" at overseas despite no even domestic deliberation.

It's just "green washing" to benefit nuclear industries on the excuse of energy issues.

unlike Europe or US, Japan is still highest risk area of large earthquake.

Radioactivity will be dumped into the oceans even if next nuclear disaster caused, like Japan.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@patricia Y: Start by reducing the demand for electricity, gas, and oil. There are unlimited ways forward.

For me, @Patfricia nailed it, start by reducing the demand, consume less, aim for a circular economy.

Read or -re-read "Small is Beautiful" by Schumacher.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Finally. Sanity is coming to the fore. Even if the (oil-produced t-shirt wearing, oil-produced green hair-dye sporting, oil-produced sneakers stomping) Greenies shake their fists and scream ever louder. Release even more cans of soup on even more priceless artworks in rage! (delivered to their doorsteps by oil)

Right now, in the world, NOW, over two thousand five hundred MILLIONS of people survive the cold and heat their food with...wood or animal dung. When measured by Joules of energy, perhaps the LEAST EFFICIENT, and environmentally MOST DETRIMENTAL, way in which they could do these activities. But what do the plane-hopping, protest-fetishizing Greenies care? "JUST STOP OIL! ZERO EMISSIONS!!" But also, stupidly contradictory: "NO NUKES!!" Smh.

It would actually IMPROVE the environment to give these people coal to cook and heat with, believe it or not. As it would IMPROVE the environment to give coal burning countries down on the development scale (along with hypocritical Germany, who've broken new records for awful brown coal consumption after climbing out of bed with gas-rich Russia over Ukraine) natural gas conversion plants and then nuclear power plants to replace that coal with. There is an energy ladder here, but the Greenies don't care about the literal BILLIONS of people stuck at the bottom, stripping forests and burning high-carbon content fires for their livelihood. Do as (super-wealthy) Saint Greta demands you do, or face her shouts of "how DARE you"!

These poor people DESERVE all the energy YOU now flippantly consume without batting an eye. And one way or another, they're going to make moves to get it. YOU can go back to the forests (you certainly will NOT! lol), but WE know that the best way to improve the environment is to LIFT these people out of their energy poverty as quickly as possible. And that's NOT through "EVs" or totally environmentally unfriendly "Green tech" manufacturing. It's through nuclear power, the safest (by far, people), cheapest and least carbon intensive fuel known to man, and let the Greenies' myopic, selfish, self-indulgent and simply ignorant worldviews be dammed.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yes, this is what the world needs. Not everywhere is an active fault line.

Pretty much. Investment in nuclear is the way to move away from fossil fuels. Japan ofc has to make a special effort to keep them safe, being all earthquakey.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There is another, extremely abundant source of power but the backhanders connected with nuclear are so influential that it is not discussed at all.

https://www.sei.org/publications/energy-from-faeces/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Hito Bito

Right now, in the world, NOW, over two thousand five hundred MILLIONS of people survive the cold and heat their food with...wood or animal dung. When measured by Joules of energy, perhaps the LEAST EFFICIENT, and environmentally MOST DETRIMENTAL, way in which they could do these activities. But what do the plane-hopping, protest-fetishizing Greenies care? "JUST STOP OIL! ZERO EMISSIONS!!" But also, stupidly contradictory: "NO NUKES!!" Smh.

How does a poor country build a single nuclear reactor or provide the technical skills to build and operate one?

"Companies that are planning new nuclear units are currently indicating that the total costs (including escalation and financing costs) will be in the range of $5,500/kW to $8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100 MW plant."

Many countries in Africa could do well with renewable energy like solar and wind.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The majority of people in India cannot afford electricity and many steal it. 25-50% of the total.

https://www.sify.com/technology/technology-vs-the-16-billion-hole/#:~:text=Despite%20significant%20advancements%20in%20technology,cent%20according%20to%20this%20report.

How many Indians have no toilets? 20% of households. More than 300 million people.

How many Indians have no running water?  Nearly 163 million people lack access to clean water close to their homes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

PTownsend @ 1:35.

Why, thank you for your supportive words and elaboration. Exactly what I meant.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Hito BitoToday 01:41 pm JST

Finally. Sanity is coming to the fore. Even if the (oil-produced t-shirt wearing, oil-produced green hair-dye sporting, oil-produced sneakers stomping) Greenies shake their fists and scream ever louder. Release even more cans of soup on even more priceless artworks in rage! (delivered to their doorsteps by oil)

People are going to wear something. Perhaps you would prefer to see them naked to demonstrate their commitment?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is the best, fastest way to create abundant energy . It will also allow people in poor countries to have access to more energy

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This planet will burn down long before 2050.

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal. Our knowledge of physics and system theory tells us that in the wake of the inputs inserted by humans the climate system has become nonlinear and unstable. This system is full of malignant positive feedback loops that push it away from equilibrium. There are no stabilizing mechanisms whatsoever that can keep the climate system in equilibrium. But there is no need to be an expert: The rapid rise in temperature and humidity is visible to the naked eye. The catastrophic loss of our planet and the ultimate extermination of humanity are very near. There may still be a remedy: Getting out from energizing ourselves from carbon, and moving on to a new era of energizing ourselves from the sun's radiation and from heavy nuclei. That is easy to do, and should have been done a long time ago. However, there are powerful social forces that fight vehemently against this simple and obvious cure and against the attempt to salvage the planet and the human race. These enemies of the planet claim that moving to modern transportation based on electricity will ruin our society. These devils do not explain how can the usage of efficient, high performance and enjoyable electric cars ruin our society? And what society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and all the oceans boil and become steam?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

First - 10 CFR Part 52 - that is a US specific governing policy not a global one.

Second - The planet will be fine with whatever happens. It’s humankind that will primarily feel the impact and suffer the consequences of climate change. The irony is not lost due to humankind being the primary manipulators of such.

Be it nuclear or otherwise, or be it with or without the presence of humans, this rock will continue its journey around the sun.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yes,yes,yes show me the money. How many countries can afford the luxury nuclear energy to generate electricity?

This is a US-Japan "Debt Trap" to get some third world countries to be burdening with huge debts. Talk is cheap!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

There is no sustainable alternative for nuclear power, so that's why it's not a good base power source.

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