Japan's greenhouse gas emissions projected to rise 15%

“We have the technological know-how. Japan can do anything Germany can,” Kato said.

This is exactly what I have been saying all these months. In fact, Japan, you should set your sights even higher than Germany. Become once again a world leader, and give your people a future they can believe and invest in. This should be the legacy that you leave to the next generation, not a mountain of nuclear waste.

Japanese politics, with its high leadership turnover, internal power battles and gridlock, is another obstacle. Its track record in recent years has been marked with indecision.

Bingo. And this will not change any time in the near future, as it is just a bunch of spoiled little boys running the country. Leadership is non-existent there.

Sorry, but this is complete and utter nonesense!

Yamaguchi area is run on electricity provided by local factories and Chugoku Denki. When the typhoon tore through here a few years ago, much of the area was left without electricity from the latter provider, but the companies soon had everyone up and running. Within three days the entire area was back to normal. we don't have a single nuclear power plant here, and the one they proposed building in 2004 was scrapped as an idea after local opposition to it. We also have one of the lowest emissions rates in the entire nation, year-on-year.

While emissions may rise across the eastern part of Japan due to a return to traditional methods of power production, I think it will be far less than this projected number. If one thing has been learned here, it's that self-sufficiency is easily attainable through alternative methods with minimum impact on the environment.

All this unnecessary worry about Japan not using nuclear energy is unfounded!

"“We have the technological know-how. Japan can do anything Germany can,” Kato said"

ummm... are you JOKING? Germany buys most of it power from France now! and France makes most of their power from Nuclear power plants. It is TYPICAL. Pass responsibility.

Japan should be an example for Germeny. NOT the other way around. They both did amazing after the war. But I dont think any country could change, grow and imporave as much and as fast as Japan did. Isolated as they are. Germeny doesn't have to import 90% of everything. And they have roads to a zillion EU countries. And can run power lines acorss their border. Japan has had so much to overcome. dont look to Germany whose Nuclear Free future is total BS! (I am all for nuclear free future, but Germenies is a lie and a farce). Japan should look toward themselves.

....and I will bet that the crowd who crows about global warming emissions and CO2 trading is largely identical with the antinuclear crowd.

And of course when the brownouts come and electricity prices go through the roof, they will complain about that. Brilliant!

Squidbert

This is exactly what I have been saying all these months. In fact, Japan, you should set your sights even higher than Germany. Become once again a world leader, and give your people a future they can believe and invest in

Hear hear. I absolutely anticipate Japan aggressively pursuing green energy technology and most likely in the process becoming a world leader in that field as a matter of course. They have made a brave decision to move away from nuclear power but, perhaps in the far broader scheme of things, it's the kind of move the world needs to see from one of the world's leading industrial nations in terms of becoming serious about sustainable energy production.

Lead the way and show the world we dont need nuclear power, some pain is needed before success comes always,

lots of properganderists spreading fear and disinformation for the wrong reasons.

Germany did not shut down all of their plants but plan a phase out over a number of years. It takes years for replacements to be built. Japan should do the same thing bringing the plants online that can be run safely. Have outside people come in and do honest inspections. If they can pass bring them back online. I like many doubt the honesty of the Japanese inspections.

Japan should do the same thing bringing the plants online that can be run safely.

Except that they're all in Japan, the whole country is a potential earthquake site and since 3/11 we have been in a period of elevated and somewhat unpredictable seismic activity. (As I've mentioned before, I've experienced more big-to-medium-sized earthquakes here in the last year than I did in the whole of the previous 30 years). There are no nuclear plants in Japan that can be run safely.

Robert Dykes, your information is not correct. It is true that currently Germany has to import a very small percentage of its power, but it is not just replacing its nuclear energy with nuclear energy from France.

The lack of a sufficient power grid and unhomogeneous regional distribution of power production temporarily forces Germany to import an amount of power that would count to around 4 nuclear plants. But during the past winter there was even the opposite situation when France had to import power from Germany as it was so cold that even 50 something nuclear power plants couldn't keep up with power demand from for bad insulated French Houses with electricity stoves. A result of nuclear power politics.

It is true that it's difficult for Japan to import power like within Europe, but Japan on the other hand, has a much higher potential to harvest renewables. Solar, water, wind and geothermal energy are much more available on an island like Japan then in a central european country like Germany.

It's just a question of consciousness and politics... and the right use and development of technology.

Nuclear energy does not produce green house gases. Oil, natural gas, incinerators, gas and diesel engines? Enjoy the summer heat on the trains and subways and in the offices and clubs. Can ice be produced without producing green house gases? Only with nuclear energy.

Also, hybrid cars, seen as so green and desirable here, they run on petrol and electricity. The electricity is largely produced through burning fossil fuels. So how exactly are they better for the environment?

noriyosan73

Can ice be produced without producing green house gases? Only with nuclear energy.

What about solar, wind, tidal, hydro or geothermal?

Japan is far better off producing greenhouse gasses until alternatives can be put into operation than facing more radiation pollution/poisoning. ..Just saying..if the choice is between greenhouse gas or radiation the least damaging is greenhouse gas. probably best to figure out how to safely dismantle the damaged reactors and how to decontaminate all the soil,ground water and sea before firing up another NPP.

It doesn't matter what source generates power, the price will be too high for consumers and not high enough for profiteers.

Japan could very well bring back reactors that have been systematically checked by the IAEA and thus help reduce the effects of green house emissions.

Until new sources (safe) of energy are on line and working it's a coin toss, watch energy prices rise through the roof, watch the balance of trade go WAY out of balance and into the red BECAUSE of the increase in imported resources to run the green house gas emitting generators. The economy go further into debt, people get poorer and poorer as unemployment again continues to rise because people can not afford the higher costs.

OR,

Turn the reactors on for the time being and help the economy GROW by developing new renewable sources of energy. It's a crying shame that extremists rule the roost and can't see past their own noses that they are only shooting themselves in the foot by pushing for the shut down (and getting it) of all reactors here in Japan.

Yubaru, I don't know what you exactly mean by 'extremists', but I suppose it is largely due to what you refer to as 'extremist', that renewable energy is a viable option at all. You will see that those countries with the most active 'extremists' have pushed the development and application of renewable energy most. I would say 40+ years of anti-nuclear 'extremist' movements around the world have forced even the most conservative politicians to think about ecology and something else then their old boys' nuclear energy networks.

And btw, the people who are pushing against restarting nuclear power plants here in Japan are very normal citizens, many of them mothers and fathers with small children, who are simply horrified by the possibility of another Fukushima in their backyard.

And with several nuclear plants on or close by fault lines, it is only a question of when not if there will be another nuclear disaster, no matter how 'systematically' those plants have been checked by the IAEA.

the people who are pushing against restarting nuclear power plants here in Japan are very normal citizens, many of them mothers and fathers with small children, who are simply horrified by the possibility of another Fukushima in their backyard.

As opposed to the slow, gradual deterioration of our climate due to increased greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution? That's what those children are inheriting - a hotter, dirtier Earth. The problem is that gradual disaster doesn't scare people as much as sudden and spectacular ones, so people get way, more worked up about nuclear plants and the risk of a sudden disaster, than the slow gradual disaster of climate change.

it is only a question of when not if there will be another nuclear disaster

This is a nonsense statement which cannot be proven.

Mustn't forget that Japan is starting to import fracked gas from the USA and she also has has huge undersea reserves of Fire-ice, frozen Methane, which is set to kick into the energy mix from about 2018.

UnagiDon, obviously you have no idea about the reality of Fukushima residents and even more obviously you don't have small children and live in an area with high radiation. For you the nuclear disaster must be rather far away.

And what's the point in comparing an ongoing nuclear disaster with global warming? It's like comparing apples and oranges.

it is only a question of when not if there will be another nuclear disaster

This is a nonsense statement which cannot be proven.

Mathematically it can be proven, it's just a question of time. The longer the nuclear power plants are running the higher the chances for a disaster get. And what about the contrary statement, that nuclear energy is safe and that there won't be a nuclear disaster in the future, is not nonsense? It was exactly what the Japanese nuclear cronies were saying for 50 years.

UngaiDon...Your,the governments, and the Nuclear energy producers claim that NPP's are safe because the margin of chance that a NPP will have a catastrophic failure are slight is ridiculous...There have been hundreds of near disastrous failures at hundreds of NPPs around the world and plants have also had failures that have done vast amounts of damage that we do not yet know how to remedy. This damage will take decades,more likely centuries, before the areas around the failed NPPs will considered habitable for humans,livestock.or crops. so far know one,neither government,NPP operators,nuclear scientist,nor you have figured out how to safely remove damaged NPPS,decontaminate land and water of the radio active pollutants,or even store and or recycle the spent fuel..Yet you continue to claim Nuclear power plants as the safest and best method for electrical power generation.. Nuclear power generation certainly can no longer be considered the most affordable form of electrical generation.How much will be spent cleaning up the latest mess??? The cost associated with clean up and storage alone out weights any the cost,environmental or financial , than the cost related to generating via burning fossil fuels.

The cost associated with clean up and storage alone out weights any the cost,environmental or financial , than the cost related to generating via burning fossil fuels.

And so it justifies our poluting the planet gradually and unstuppably in the long term? Why does the above statement sound so hypocritical to me? (oh, and maybe to quite a few other guys, right?)

Japan's greenhouse gas emissions projected to rise 15%

Wrong. Recent research shows that Japan does not even need nuclear plants to reduce their carbon footprint, something pro-nukes are eager to tell whoever cares to listen to them (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120422a1.html ). Nuclear electricity is a poor, risky business adventure, which is expensive, environmentally suicidal, unsustainable, unethical and depicts the highest level of inherent selfishness, laissez-faire attitude and outright malice among greedy politicians and companies.

Sorry, but this is complete and utter nonesense!

followed shortly by:

While emissions may rise across the eastern part of Japan due to a return to traditional methods of power production, I think it will be far less than this projected number.

So which is it? "complete and utter nonsense", or actually have some truth to it? You seem conflicted, my friend.

Also, hybrid cars, seen as so green and desirable here, they run on petrol and electricity. The electricity is largely produced through burning fossil fuels. So how exactly are they better for the environment?

You are not supposed to think about that. So what if nuclear power is phased out. Drive your hybrid car powered by oil and natural gas generated electricity and feel good about yourself. The fact that global warming is a made up scare tactic to make you turn over your life to an ever expending state is irrelevant. Just shut up, drive your hybrid, recycle diligently and feel good about yourself. You are saving the world! Leave those pesky details about how you are going to cool your house this summer to the government. They will know what's best.