national

Nuclear expansion on track despite Fukushima: OECD report

21 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

Too bad. I just hope that no further incidents occur.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Hope and a healthy dose of denial got Japan it's biggest man-made disaster so far. Should have used reason and logic instead.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

i am all for it if proper safety checks are done, good maintenance is performed, proper overseers are appointed, and they leave the hubris behind.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Sillygirl, my thoughts exactly.

When all the debates and protests are over, the same question remains: where is the energy we need every day going to come from?

Alternatives are simply not ready to take up the slack, despite myself being 150% supportive of renewables.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Lots of lovely clever word-play in this article smoothing over the little 'bump' of Fukushima.

Often it is the wordsmith who carries the day.

Are we really back to all or nothing again, and since nothing is not workable, the only choice left is full steam ahead?

If so, then I am afraid the correct title for this article, since it brings on the inevitable, is "Nuclear explosion on track, despite Fukushima"

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

A+b/a=a/b≡?Jul. 30, 2012 - 08:09AM JST

Too bad. I just hope that no further incidents occur.

So far all incidents are related to Gen 1 reactors or plutonium enrichment reactors. They will be building Gen3+ reactors, which make up about half the total number of reactors worldwide but zero percent of level 4+ incidents.

MTBCF is expected at 10^5 to 10^6 years rather than the current 10^4 for Gen 1 reactors like Fukushima (which was scheduled to be shut down and replaced a decade ago but the same people that are complaining now complained then and prevented the replacement)

0 ( +7 / -7 )

My guess is that in 10 years, nuclear won't be so hot anymore. The reason is because the renewables are expanding far too rapidly. For instance, Germany has increased their total renewables ratio by 5% (mostly from solar) in just a YEAR! So at this rate, Germany will easily have 50% more from renewables in just 10 years. That's a staggering rate.

So I would not worry too much about nuclear to be honest. In 10 to 20 years, I'll bet that people will hear the word "nuclear", and laugh. It's just not competitive anymore.

It takes 10 years or more to build a single nuclear plant, and in that period, total renewables ratio would have increased by 50%. What can compete with that?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

basroil

So far all incidents are related to Gen 1 reactors

The Fukushima reactors were Gen 2. And yes, we've all heard that before when Chernobyl occurred: "It was a Gen 1 reactor, it won't happen to Gen 2 reactors." I'm sure that we'll be hearing that again: "It was a Gen 3 reactor, it won't happen to Gen 4 reactors!" And on and on...

MTBCF is expected at 10^5 to 10^6 years rather than the current 10^4 for Gen 1 reactors like Fukushima

The problem with this is:

1) It's a theoretical number which may have absolutely no relevance to reality whatsoever (e.g. Chernobyl and Fukushima happened in a period of a 25 years distance, not in between billions of years).

2) It doesn't mean that an accident will happen IN billions of years, it means that it will happen WITHIN billions of years. So the accident could happen in 1 million years from now, or the accident could happen tomorrow. Again, these are just theoretical numbers that basically have no relevance to reality whatsoever.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"@basroil-So far all incidents are related to Gen 1 reactors or plutonium enrichment reactors. They will be building Gen3+ reactors, which make up about half the total number of reactors worldwide."

?????????

But only 15 of the 442 nuclear reactors operating in the world are considered Generation III reactors.

The vast majority of plants under construction around the world, 47 in all, are considered Generation II reactor designs—the same 1970s vintage as Fukushima Daiichi, and without integrated passive safety systems.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/03/110323-fukushima-japan-new-nuclear-plant-design/

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

64% of Americans are opposed to increasing the number of nuclear reactors in their country.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

"Nuclear expansion" is that some polite way of saying nuclear disaster? Fukushima was a nuclear expansion was it not.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Repost: Waste to Energy power plants instead of incinerators that wastes energy. Italy is the same way as Japan in assets are not being utilized in Italy 6.7% of waste goes to the waste to energy power plant, Denmark 65% of waste goes to the waste to energy power plant , France 42.3% of waste goes to the waste to energy power plant , Germany 40% of waste go to the waste to energy power plant , Sweden 55% of waste go to the waste to energy power plant. Japan only has 7 waste to enery power plants that may get 1% of the waste.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If atomic power plants are so safe, why are they always built away from urban city centers where the power is needed?

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

zichiJul. 30, 2012 - 01:00PM JST

That's because Gen-3 specification there is ABWR, yet a large portion of nuclear reactors are PWR which are technically not Gen3 even though the safety specifications are just as good.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

zichiJul. 30, 2012 - 07:30PM JST

If atomic power plants are so safe, why are they always built away from urban city centers where the power is needed?

If other power plants are so much safer, why are all large (2GW+, 200MW+ for solar) plants built away from urban city centers where the power is need? Simple reason, water and space. More so first than second in the case of Japan. Water pollution and boats are quite annoying after all.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

UtrackJul. 30, 2012 - 03:23PM JST

Doubtful, your numbers are probably hiding heat plants, which Japan does use much more than electrical plants.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Thomas AndersonJul. 30, 2012 - 12:53PM JST

I suggest you brush up on statistics. This is the second time that you have confused very simple concepts. MTBF is in reactor years, not cycles around the sun. 25 years is about 10000 reactor years considering that there are about 500 reactors at 80% duty. You can also check the reports and see that Fukushima and Chernobyl both should be considered one accident, not multiple, as the reactor interdependence is quite high.

By making it 10^6 years between failure, you will have accidents every 2500 years, and since most accidents happen in older plants, probably far less if they actually replace reactors when they are supposed to be replaced.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

basroil

Simple reason, water and space. More so first than second in the case of Japan. Water pollution and boats are quite annoying after all.

There's plenty of water in Tokyo Bay, and when the Fukushima atomic plant was built in the 1970's there was space to build the plant there.

The first offshore wind turbine plant will be built on East Tokyo Bay,a second one will be built off the Fukushima coast.

The construction of solar energy plants are very new but in Kyoto there's now one.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

@basroil

I suggest you brush up on statistics.

ThomasA does have a point.

Again, these are just theoretical numbers that basically have no relevance to reality whatsoever.

Statistically speaking, a normal distribution is unrealistic in any event, so theoretical numbers are just guesswork and have little reality.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

America is hoping Japan will end it's use of nuclear energy, or seriously limit it because they are waiting on the side lines ready to supply coal and gas. To supply gas, it will have to build port terminals to cool the gas for transport and it can supply Japan with all of its LNG needs and at a price less that what it's currently paying.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Atomic power isn't safe in the hands of profit hungry power companies and other civilians. Unless all reactors are shut down, there'll be another major nuclear disaster, not a case of if, only when? Can we even trust countries like India and China to operate their deadly plants with safety in mind. Fukushima continues to release it's deadly cargo spewing it across the world.

We can draw all our energy needs from the cosmos.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

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