national

NRA says review of Takahama nuclear plant almost complete

53 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

Not a word about reducing energy use so "expensive fossil fuels" would be reduced.

Anyway, let the fight to keep Fukui-ken nuke free begin.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

For which we can read both sides have agreed on the size of the brown envelope required to facilitate such review.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

There are so many minuses associated with nuclear power,not to mention the current impossibility of decontaminating land of radioactivity that makes it complete idiocy for Japan to rely on nuclear while my neigh our sells her solar generated power back to Kansai Electric on an almost daily basis......

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The Japanese publis does NOT WANT nuclear energy . . . . . .The Japanese people have an amazing ability to adapt . . .but I think if the power brokers don't heed the sentiments of the people there WILL be a major backlash

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Is this thanks to the new pro-nuclear members of the NRA?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

All reactors reaching a life cycle of 30 years should be decommissioned. The Takahama No1&2 reactors are 40 years, and No3&4 30 years.

Last year a shipment of MOX fuel was delievered from France which was for the No3 reactor.

Prior to the election of the current LDP government Kansai power was screaming about lack of power for the summer peak demand providing all sorts of graphs but since Abe became PM not a word from them on summer power generation, which according to their site, today the peak demand is 22GW out of a supply of 26GW or 87%. These figures are much lower than the years of the DPJ government following the 3/11 disaster.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Not a word about reducing energy use so "expensive fossil fuels" would be reduced.

Turn on your tv once in a while, or better still ask your office manager why the aircon is set at 29.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is the second time they have forgotten to mention that the final decision to restart the reactors lays solely with the local prefectural councils, who are remaining conspicuously quiet about these restarts. Is it possible that they have been paid off by the federal government? Wow! Does hat kind of thing really happen in Japan? (Sarcasm)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Disillusioned

This is the second time they have forgotten to mention that the final decision to restart the reactors lays solely with the local prefectural councils, who are remaining conspicuously quiet about these restarts.

Although previously the approval of the local community, local assembly, prefecture assembly and the governor were sought before restarting a reactor its not a requirement by law. If the likes of the Niigata governor continues to refuse to give his approval to the restart of the NPP, we'll have to wait and see what actions are taken by PM Abe to over rule that?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

which according to their site, today the peak demand is 22GW out of a supply of 26GW or 87%. These figures are much lower than the years of the DPJ government following the 3/11 disaster.

I don't see the pattern you're getting at here. Today's current projected peak is 23.3 (91%). In 2011 (on the same date) it's 23.4, 2012 is 24.5, and 2013 is 24.3. Couldn't these fluctuations just be down to temperature?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

afanofjapan,

Is this thanks to the new pro-nuclear members of the NRA?

No, the two new commissioners do not take their posts until September.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cha Ching ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ lots of money for those in charge

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no way they'll walk over the local people's sentiment and wishes to that extent. No way. It'll make the 60s agitation look like a village fete. This is a much more powerful movement, sprung, ready to snap. It has JA and the JGFA for starters, in the background, shaking their heads saying, 'No'. Niigata, Fukushima, Shiga... all falling into line. The LDP is a dead man walking if they push beyond the line.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Solar power, without the government subsidies, is about six times the cost of nuclear. Germany and the rest of Europe are backing away from wind and solar due to their noncompetitive high cost. Fukushima was an inexcusable regulatory failure, but there is no practical alternative. Japan's per capita energy consumption is not bad, a little less than France or Germany, and about 60% of that of the US. Manufacturing takes a lot of energy.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

There is no way¥¥¥¥ they would go against¥¥¥¥ the public will¥¥¥¥¥ it would be totally ¥¥¥¥¥ against their safety objective ¥¥¥¥¥ to do so. I trust Abe San to¥¥¥¥¥¥ appoint people¥¥¥¥¥ who are qualified¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ in the nuclear¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ industry.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Cricky, but if THAT were the case, TEPCO would already be running its remaining fleet of nuclear power plants, but seeing as it isn't. QED.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The cost of nuclear energy in this country runs into many ¥trillions which does not include the cost of the nuclear disaster site which has cost ¥10 trillion to date and will need a further ¥26 trillion over the next 10 years and eventually will cost more than ¥50 trillion.

Every year since 1974, nuclear energy has received massive gov't grants for R&D. By the time of the 3/11 disasters, it was running at ¥500 billion per year.

The cost of trying to play catch up with the reactor safety is costing more than ¥15 trillion.

On top of that there's the cost of decommissioning the reactors, probably about 20 of them after the NRA have finished their inspections. The cost of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and the problem and expense of at least 1,000 years of safe storage.

The nuclear power utilities are given tax breaks that other industries don't get.

I wonder if all that money had been spent on developing real clean and renewable energy how much more advanced it would all be by now.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Zichi ; That s the best comment here , thanks . There is also another cost though ,, that s not in yen or in dolars ,, its in our genes ,, its the radioactive insult on living things ,, which keeps increasing . We are destroying life on this planet and its irreversible .

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I wonder if all that money had been spent on developing real clean and renewable energy how much more advanced it would all be by now.

Maybe - but it's not very helpful in the historical context. In 1974 the oil shocks hit Japan hard - it desperately needed to come up with ways to generate power without relying on imports. Nuclear power was proven, efficient and (relatively) cheap. Renewable development never would have been an option - it was unproven and would have required a lot of the one thing Japan didn't want to rely on (oil).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It was America from the mid 1950's which pressurised Japan to build nuclear reactors and help provide an additional supply of material to built enough atomic weapons and with the help of the CIA persuade the public and the politicians that nuclear energy was clean, safe and cheap. All of this was revealed in recently released documents in the US.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

There is no way they'll walk over the local people's sentiment and wishes to that extent.

Gee, article 9 ring any bells? Since when does anyone in power in this country care what the minions think?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Zichi,

It was America from the mid 1950's which pressurised Japan to build nuclear reactors and help provide an additional supply of material to built enough atomic weapons and with the help of the CIA persuade the public and the politicians that nuclear energy was clean, safe and cheap. All of this was revealed in recently released documents in the US.

Do you have a reference for that? I ask because LWR reactors are unsuitable for the production of weapons-grade plutonium, and the only power-generating reactor suitable for the task was the British Magnox reactor at Tokai.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@t-marie, JA and JGFA members probably mostly support the lean towards getting rid of Article 9, but threaten their farming and fishing? Watch out!

The CIA funded and promoted the LDP and offered and supplied BWRI and beyond technology. The main reason Imperial Japan began it's war against the States was? Exactly. So supply them with what they went to war for and chill them out.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It was America from the mid 1950's which pressurised Japan to build nuclear reactors

The memos show that the CIA gave support to Matsutaro Shoriki who wanted to support nuclear power as a stepping stone to Japan's own nuclear weapons program. They also state that they wanted to “revive the hopes of the deflation-oppressed Japanese in reconstructing their economy.” - but the true purpose seems to be an anti-Soviet campaign to create a more positive image of America. Tetsuo Arima, the main researcher of the memos, himself admits that the growth of nuclear reactors in Japan can't solely be linked to American influence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Solar power, without the government subsidies, is about six times the cost of nuclear.

Not here (Japan). The cost of dealing with the Fukushima disaster, which any sensible person would include as the cost of nuclear, is going to run to hundreds of billions of dollars. This is one of the most expensive industrial accidents in history.

And let's not talk about subsidies as if they are a bad thing: nuclear power itself is subsidized to start with - when everything's going right. Disaster cleanup costs are simply passed along to the public, because if TEPCO or its counterparts had to pay, they'd go under within months.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Under the nuclear liability law, TEPCO will only have to shell out a maximum of ¥120 billion out of the total cost for the nuclear disaster of ¥50 trillion. Now that's what you call real government subsidy? Since the 3/11 nuclear disaster, there has been no change to that law?

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Wow! TEPCO will avoid paying 99.75% of their (Shimizu's) blunder then? Thanks, Zichi.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I wish everyone in Japan could receive a (translated) version of this Comments thread in their next email.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Zichi- you keep quoting that 50 trillion figure, but I've never been able to find a source with a breakdown of what that number really means. Is that direct cleanup? Economic cost?

Link to source I've you've got one handy, love to take a look at the numbers.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Hokkaidoguy

The estimated ¥50 trillion is the money needed by TEPCO to deal with the nuclear disaster inside the former atomic plant. On top of that, there's the compensation to the nuclear victims and the cost of the decontamination which is being paid directly by the central government. To date. TEPCO that've received ¥10 trillion and will need ¥25 trillion over the next 10 years.

The cost of the massive ice wall is ¥30 billion but these costs always increase. There will be the costs of dealing with the melted nuclear cores which went --->meltdown--->melt through--->melt out. And the cost of decommissioning the plant which will produce more than 100,000 tons of radioactive waste. The cost of building the nuclear waste depot next to the nuclear disaster site.

In the beginning, pro nuclear supporters say it would cost no more than ¥5 trillion, for everything. TEPCO have paid that much in monthly support payments to the nuclear victims. In the end, the cost will be much higher than ¥50 trillion, and in 100 years, could easily cost twice or three times that amount.

In the end, it will take more than 100 years and cost more than $1 trillion but I won't be still around to find out?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Zichi,

Again, do you have a source for this ¥50 trillion - $1 trillion figure?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

hokkaidoguy

Over the past three years I have provided endless links about all aspects of the nuclear disaster including ones on the financial costs. There are many articles and posts on line about the cost of the nuclear disaster and even the most conservative state the costs will be more than ¥25 trillion. Sorry but I'm not here to back track and track down links for people and your request was the second on this post.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Zichi

Sorry but I'm not here to back track and track down links for people and your request was the second on this post.

A google search on "Fukushima 50 trillion" brings up two things:

1) unsourced stories and comments on conspiracy websites 2) comments on japantoday. Guess who makes them. Starts with "z".

You are the only person I see on a regular basis making this claim.

Give me a hint then. Was this figure in a government report? Was it in a study by the IMF? world bank? Another international body? A university?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Under the nuclear liability law, TEPCO will only have to shell out a maximum of ¥120 billion out of the total cost for the nuclear disaster of ¥50 trillion.

Under the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund Tepco does have to pay the loans of ¥5 billion yen back, through both general contributions and (optional) special contributions. The subsidy is that these loans are virtually interest free.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

hokkaidoguy

I have just spent a couple of hours reading articles on the cost of the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima site, the cost of decontamination work, the cost of compensation to the nuclear victims and the monies already paid and those promised to TEPCO.

Experts from the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology assessed the situation of the decontamination at Fukushima and added up the costs for this process. According to them, decontamination in no-entry zones only will cost up to $20 billion and decontamination in other areas will be $31 billion. The government already allocated $11 billion for the cleanup but never made the total costs public.

Prior to nationalisation TEPCO had liabilities of ¥25 trillion and owed ¥8 trillion to bondholders. Since the nationalisation TEPCO have received about ¥10 trillion.

The nuclear disaster is only a little more than three years ago but already it has become a bottomless pit for melted nuclear fuel and public money.

If you disagree with the figures I have quoted I suggest you could provide your own.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Wow! TEPCO will avoid paying 99.75% of their (Shimizu's) blunder then? Thanks, Zichi.

Well bruinfan, as zichi has told us, TEPCO's majority owner is the Japanese government. So the Japanese government is responsible for the majority of the cost of the blunder.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Zichi-

Well aware of the decontamination cost estimates. Those numbers add up to about ¥5.5 trillion.

That leaves a gap of ¥44.5 trillion, and I've never understood where you were getting that figure.

Prior to nationalisation TEPCO had liabilities of ¥25 trillion and owed ¥8 trillion to bondholders. Since the nationalisation TEPCO have received about ¥10 trillion

Where are you getting these figures? They make no sense. 10 trillion in loans and 8 trillion in bonds are liabilities. You seem to be presenting these figures as separate from the 25 trillion in liabilities.

TEPCOs ledgers are available here: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/overview/facts-e.html

2009 liabilities: 10.4 Trillion. 2013 liabilities: 14.7 Trillion.

These figures include bond holders and the 1 trillion in loans from the Japanese government (not 10 trillion).

Yes, a lot of money - but only if you have no revenue or fixed assets.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

hokkaidoguy

we estimated it would reach ¥5.7 to ¥20 trillion over the next ten years. the generation cost of 1 kilowatt hour (kWh) of electric power from nuclear plants could reach ¥17, or about three times that of pre-accident levels (¥5.4 – ¥6.4). These results make it difficult to argue that nuclear energy has any cost advantages over renewable forms of energy, such as wind power.

http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/pe(kobayashi20110719)e.pdf

The cost of the cleanup of the Nukes of Hazard, and these figures don't include the cost of compensation to the nuclear victims, likely to be more than ¥10 trillion or the decontamination costs and other funds needed by TEPCO. The cost of building the nuclear waste storage next to the nuclear disaster site.

A paper from the Japan Center for Economic Research, end of 2011

Energy Saving and Renewable Energy Development Less Costly than Sticking with Nuclear Energy

http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/pe(kobayashi20120130)e.pdf

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The cost of the cleanup of the Nukes of Hazard, and these figures don't include the cost of compensation to the nuclear victims,

Yes it does. Scroll down the first page to the table. It's right there. Income compensation: 0.63 (Trillion).

Both of these papers are from 2011. A lot has changed since then as far as the information we have on the state of the reactors. For example, we know that construction of a sarcophagus will not be necessary - and that's an important point because the entire basis of their 20 trillion claim hinges on the construction of a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus. It's right there at the top of page 2.

They make the point quite clearly that the cost of decommissioning will only skyrocket to 20 trillion (from 5 trillion) if construction of a sarcophagus is necessary. That was briefly an option in mid 2011 when the paper was written, but it hasn't been seriously considered by anyone since then.

Oh, and even if their worst case scenario HAD come to pass, we STILL wouldn't be at your 50 trillion figure.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@Zichi

Thanks for the many links.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The nuclear disaster is the most expensive and costly industrial accident in history. When all the many costs and loss of business and profits are all added up the cost won't be ¥50 trillion it will be more than ten times that in excess of ¥500 trillion.

The nuclear disaster site, the nuclear victims compensation, the building of a nuclear waste storage, decontamination of the no go zone will use up more than ¥50 trillion alone.

There are enormous losses because of the nuclear disaster and lost of production and produce. I would give a list of more than 30 items involving those enormous losses but JT or the text won't let me do that just no doubt some will request the more than 30 links too.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I know. Isn't it just AWFUL when people ask you to provide evidence and facts to your claims.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Guess you didn't ready my comment. I tried to provide a fuller comment with more than 30 links but was prevented from doing that but I guess it does not take much to understand and workout all the losses and costs that have happened just because of this nuclear disaster instead of trying to associate just a few and the costs and losses are massive and they continue to accumulate daily.

The problem with pro nuclear energy supporters is they don't want to recognise those losses and costs because it puts a big question mark over the future cost of power generated by it?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

No, I read your comment. I read this: I would give a list of more than 30 items involving those enormous losses but JT or the text won't let me do that just no doubt some will request the more than 30 links too.

And I can't speak for anyone else but I would be very interested to see the 30 plus stories that average a different way that 16/17 trillion yen will be used to pay for this and how we will end up with a cost of 500 trillion yen.

The problem with the anti-nuclear crowd is that they make unsubstantiated claims about costs and losses and can't provide any independent evidence to support it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

And I can't speak for anyone else but I would be very interested to see the 30 plus stories that average a different way that 16/17 trillion yen will be used to pay for this and how we will end up with a cost of 500 trillion yen. The problem with the anti-nuclear crowd is that they make unsubstantiated claims about costs and losses and can't provide any independent evidence to support it.

Why don't you give your considered assessment of the full costs? As long as we know where you draw the line (what counts as a cost and what doesn't), we have something to go on. I don't even care if you provide links - in fact, last time I asked, it was like trying to get blood out of a stone, so save yourself the trouble - but I am curious what you, or Star Viking, or others who devote their energies to playing down the scale of the Fukushima disaster think it really costs.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Wipeout, every time you've asked me for something I've responded. I've never made any claim which I haven't been able to support with a credible link.

I certainly haven't complained when I've been asked to provide evidence.

As for the costs of the clean up... I don't know how much it would cost. I haven't researched it and I'm not prepared to guess.

I've also never claimed it would cost 50 trillion yen. And I do think that when someone makes definitive claims, it does make sense to be able to back them up.

You accuse me of trying to downplay this disaster. But I've merely repeated what the experts have been saying, what the WHO and UN have said and what science tells us. All of it is available on Google.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Wipeout, every time you've asked me for something I've responded. I've never made any claim which I haven't been able to support with a credible link.

Untrue. I asked for a link to a very dubious looking claim from you: "Japan should be looking at adding the modern nuclear power plants, with the 21 st century technology to go hand in hand with renewable fuel. I've been saying that since March 2011. The leading scientists say the same."

There was a very definite implication of a) scientific consensus and b) the necessity of Japan being advised by that supposed consensus of leading scientists to build new nuclear power plants, and still being advised to do so while Japan's nuclear generation had ground to a complete standstill in the wake of the 2011 disaster.

Because it looked so dodgy, I simply asked for links to that, and in the thread in question, which rambled along for quite some time, links never came. You never got beyond offering up James Hansen and a couple of co-authors as "the leading scientists".

(For reference purposes, if anyone cares enough, the thread in question followed the now expired story on JT "Gov't unveils draft energy policy with nuclear power as key source")

3 ( +4 / -1 )

wipeout,

a shame when the only offering from some posters is their constant piggy backing on other peoples comments without offering much to the dialogue. I can certainly understand why pro nuclear energy supporters wouldn't even want to think about the total losses and costs from the nuclear disaster, because once the truth is added up, for most people nuclear energy would be over.

As for the costs of the clean up... I don't know how much it would cost. I haven't researched it and I'm not prepared to guess.

Some are just willing to try and make any sort of effort.

Costs of the nuclear disaster are enormous making it the most costly industrial accident in history. The finals losses and costs will run into many hundreds of trillions of yen, even as much as ¥500 trillion which is half of the current debt level. Just consider the following which isn't even complete?

Cost of economic loss from the disaster. 2. Cost of compensation support payments to the nuclear victims. 3. Cost of loss of land use and products due to soil and water radiation contamination. 4. Cost of compensation payments to the nuclear victims. 5. Cost of healthcare for monitoring all 350,000 Fukushima children for thyroid cancer.

Cost of healthcare for monitoring Fukushima adults. 7. Cost of loss for Fukushima for loss of tourism and sale of farm fish produce. 8. Cost of the National Diet investigation into the cause of the disaster. 9. Cost of decontamination work inside the exclusion zone. 10. Cost of storage of soil collected from decontamination work.

Cost of maintaining nuclear waste depot. 12. Cost of transporting more than 5,000 fuel assemblies to the reprocessing plant. 13. Cost of reprocessing spent fuel. 14. Cost of the thousand year plus storage of the spent nuclear fuel. 15. Cost of rebuilding the second nuclear plant Daini in Fukushima.

Cost of decommissioning the four reactors and nuclear power plant at Daini, Fukushima. 17. Cost of decommissioning the nuclear disaster site with its six reactors.18. Cost of the golden hand shakes given to the TEPCO executives at the time of the 3/11 disaster. 19. Cost of updating the safety of the fleet of reactors and atomic power plants. 20. Cost of decommissioning reactors which fail the NRA reactor stress tests and safety inspections.

Cost of the loss of profits to all the other power utilities. 22. Cost of additional imports of fossil fuels to cover the loss of nuclear energy. 23. Cost of loss of tourism to the country because of the nuclear disaster. 24. Cost of developing technology for dealing with the nuclear disaster site, like robots and ice walls.

In March this year (2014), A new law has been enacted by the Diet to allow the current entity dealing with compensation for victims to now also manage much of the decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi. They will also be tasked with using government funds for any decommissioning effort TEPCO balks at paying for. They will also have some authority to instruct TEPCO to do things.

Japan's record of nuclear cover-ups and accidents

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20263-japans-record-of-nuclear-coverups-and-accidents.html#.U8knVHwaySM

Disaster insurance alone makes nuclear power uncompetitive.

From this we can conclude:

Nuclear energy becomes uncompetitive once the costs of completely insuring against disasters are fully integrated into its price.

Without full insurance, disaster damages will have to be socialized. Given the limited budgets of governments it will necessarily be the case that not all disaster costs will be compensated. We must ask if this is morally acceptable.

It is irresponsible to argue that nuclear energy is the solution for our CO2 problem. It makes little sense to rely on nuclear energy - which the 'green' economist E. F. Schumacher called an "evil of an incomparably greater 'dimension' than anything mankind has known before" - in order to reduce human-induced climate change, which is yet another evil of incomparably great dimension. Fortunately there are other options available - such as wind, solar and hydroenergy - and we have to make full use of their potential, alongside other far-reaching changes in how we produce, store, distribute and utilize energy.

But first we must have a proper discourse on the true costs of nuclear energy, and fully analyze whether it really makes sense to include nuclear energy in our future energy mix.

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2265605/the_true_cost_of_disaster_insurance_makes_nuclear_power_uncompetitive.html

Still trying to work out a Chinese puzzle someone told me the other day about nuclear energy being "clean, safe and cheap".

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Brilliant wipeout. You provide evidence of me not answering your question with a link that NOT ONLY answers your question (unless of course you are saying that Hansen et al are not leading scientists to which I would say what's your your expertise to say that) but shows where you have avoided one of my questions. And when questioned about that, how do you respond?

'Keep waiting'

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

No. I am quite correct. I do actually look before I leap. You didn't post links that dealt with my question.

In addition, you have a longstanding habit of avoiding questions that are put to you, by means of answering a question with a counter question.

That approach sidetracks your comments into irrelevancy. You energetically advocate nuclear power on these threads, so it's perfectly fair to ask certain questions when you do that, such as what it would cost, whether it's any longer sustainable in Japan, how the Fukushima disaster fits into the picture, and so on. Every time I ask, you hit back with a counter question about fossil fuels.

I don't make claims and then waffle away when people ask for links, I can put up my source of information for any claim I make, and people are welcome to decide for themselves whether they think those links are valid.

unless of course you are saying that Hansen et al are not leading scientists to which I would say what's your your expertise to say that

I am saying - as I said before - that it is not correct to say that they are "the leading scientists". Please try to understand what the function of the definite article is in this phrase, and what the phrase means (and is clearly intended to mean when you use it). It's doesn't mean "some leading scientists", or "a few leading scientists".

And in fact, it turns out it was four people who got together to write an open letter. I had to find that link for myself, because you never did post it when asked.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

The second problem was that the letter did not at all say what you suggested (this is exactly why people do ask for links). It never mentions Japan. It does not acknowledge the recent Fukushima disaster. It is not a case of "the world's leading scientists saying post-2011 that Japan should be looking at adding new nuclear power plants".

Your opinion is that Japan should, but when you say the leading scientists agree with you, you haven't been able to demonstrate that they do.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Wipeout

You do realise that moderators frequently delete my links don't you?

They either claim that they are 'Off topic' or because Japan Today is not here to promote website X.

The is a definite article but I would have thought that the contributors on this board are intelligent enough to understand that there is no scientific hierarchy where scientist x is #1. The link that you've been allowed to publish says Top climate change scientists. Top. The leading. Same Same.

And no the letter doesn't mention Japan. It is addressed to world leaders who influence environmental policy though. And I'm at a loss to understand how that doesn't cover Japan? Was it only aimed at English speakers? The West? Everyone but Japan? I read that as meaning everyone. I read that as meaning it's relevant to Japan, and especially given that article which was wholly about the government's new energy policy.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The is a definite article but I would have thought that the contributors on this board are intelligent enough to understand that there is no scientific hierarchy where scientist x is #1.

They're intelligent enough to understand what your phrase "the leading scientists agree" means. It's not a difficult concept. It implies a majority or consensus opinion among the leaders in the field.

However, and very misleadingly, you were actually talking about just four people who were co-signatories of an open letter, speaking for themselves and themselves only. Which is why the letter was signed by only four people, and not by "the leading scientists". I'm sure many other scientists would agree with them, but I'm just as sure many wouldn't. Which would leave us with "the leading scientists" unable to reach agreement on this issue. Hardly surprising, as accelerating nuclear programmes across the globe is a policy issue, and policies rarely achieve consensus.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Do all the power utilities with nuclear reactors have secret slush funds used to persuade politicians to promote and support the use of nuclear energy?

Chubu electric have been revealed to have a secret ¥250 million slush fund. It had its contractors pony up ¥250 million ($2.46 million) over 20 years for a secret fund to buy the support of politicians for nuclear power and other utility-related concerns.

The corruption in the nuclear village runs deep.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

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