national

Nuclear power only option despite Fukushima: industry

55 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

55 Comments
Login to comment

People never learn do they. 'Clean Energy'? Hastily glazing over nuclear waste a little?

Human's who are by nature error and omission prone beings, will never be able to 100% safely operate a nuclear power industry. You can employ whatever error management and reduction techniques you want, chains of errors will inevitably occur which will lead to future catastrophes. There are plenty of viable, feasible alternatives to nuclear, though the nuclear industry would never admit that.

People forget the past too easily. Shame on the industry leaders for putting profit above health as always. The future is dim indeed.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"Some 200 experts..."

Stop right there. Some 200 experts being paid by whom?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

May God save Japan in her future natural disasters!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Of course decommission any older ones--don't extend their licenses at all.

But there are a lot of newer plants, and they are very much needed.

Turn them back on, ASAP.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Just-a-bigguy: "May God save Japan in her future natural disasters!"

Exactly. It's not "if", but "when", and I'm sure we'll hear the same excuses then as we hear now, see the same massive suffering, and the same costs incurred towards the people that profit from it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

A top industry leader ..... Director-general John Rich, of the World Nuclear Association

Would anyone expect a person in his position to say anything else?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Its more like some people's obscene profits have only one option: nuclear power.

Thorium would be the way to fo, but it will cut into profits. So does proper disposal of nuclear waste.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

In other news:

Whisky only option for having a good time, said an official spokesman for Scottish distilleries.

-4 ( +12 / -16 )

If so where were / are / they? "There are plenty of viable, feasible alternatives to nuclear, though the nuclear industry would never admit that." Please get real! If there was we would have had them by now.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@waltery, Rephrase...if the other clean energy alternatives being developed got the same level of government subsidies , tax breaks and other forms of support as nuclear did over the years we would have had them by now indeed...

7 ( +8 / -1 )

'Climate change' seemed pretty weak as an excuse to promote nuclear energy. Couldn't do better than that?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Climate change and the danger it foretells need “nothing less than a global clean-energy revolution,” he said.

Waste to Steam Energy, Power Plants would be a better option.

US Gov’t: Widespread contamination throughout northern Japan, including Tokyo “Entire region would be required to be posted as radiological area”

http://enenews.com/govt-widespread-contamination-northern-japan-including-tokyo-entire-region-be-required-be-posted-radiological-area

Industry Neglect for profits has made once rich productive land a bio hazardous environment.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The whole nuclear industry has already come under fire from energy watchdog groups for their lack of transparency and sub-par safety regulation - not just in Japan but globally This is like the tobacco industry telling us that smoking is not bad for your health and that there is no proof cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer. I would not believe any nuke sponsored spokesperson's comments about nuclear energy's benefits.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

A top industry leader has defended nuclear power as the only realistic way to reduce global warming despite Japan’s nuclear disaster last year.

What else could we expect from Big Nuke?

Not only do we need to move away from using nuclear energy, which only generates 11% of total world power, but we need to move away from the idea we need to have the huge power companies with their huge power plants who, at least in this country have an almost total monopoly over both generation and supply of power.

We need to move to system that provide power where it's needed or bing used. Each building generates all the power it needs from renewable, clean free energies.

Many would claim, that would be impossible, a dreamworld and pie in the sky. We are at the dawn of many new technologies, like nanotechnology, paint which generates solar power, bodies of a car which are the battery and the solar panel for power.

We are surrounded by so much free energy, we need to use what we have and convert all our waste into power.

Changes to such a huge and powerful industry won't happen over night and probably not within the next 20 years, and if the likes of BIg Nuke, it will never happen.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Sometimes I just wonder...is it the nuclear industry lobby that is behind the story (hoax if you will) of CO2-emissions so they can promoot nuclear as clean energy?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The public are only against nuclear power because they currently think they don't need it. They will in summer, unless they learn to live without air conditioning.

As I've said before, it would take years to build the "renewable" power plants and wind farms (more like "wind continents") required to make up for all the nuclear plants. Prices would have to rise because there's no money for government to pay for it all. And the public would protest if they were legally required to reduce their consumption.

At the moment it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it. At some point the public will have to decide what's more important - getting rid of nuclear power or a cool summer.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

This headline is incomplete. It should say:

Nuclear power only option despite Fukushima: industry says Director-general John Rich, of the World Nuclear Association (WNA)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Answer this one question: Have we found a clean solution to nuclear waste?

The answer is no. Please google "nuclear waste and storage" for more info. From wikipedia "Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half-life 24,000 years".

Does anyone trust these guys to manage for 20 years, let alone 220,000 years?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

On another note, Word to Zichi, as always.

"We are surrounded by so much free energy, we need to use what we have and convert all our waste into power."

Exactly.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

John Rich is correct, and all the Luddites out there should be allowed to demonstrate how they want to live in a non-industrial society. Surely, the Amish can do it, but they don´t want to live in big cities and enjoy all the modern energy-consuming amenities. I wonder how many of the antinuclear Luddites are ready for that.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

I agree with this conclusion.  

As I have mentioned more than a few times before, people need to take a realistic view of the issue and ask themselves - honesty - what are the alternatives?

Coal-powered energy production is incredibly polluting, and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are not yet at a large enough scale to make a significant contribution to any nation's energy generation mix.

I am reading a government-level report right now that highlights an eye-opening reality:  that is DESPITE the Fukushima disaster, and taking into account 1/ large forecast future increases in global energy demands, and 2/ a general desire to combat climate change, Germany is the only nation among all counties that a/ currently have nuclear power plants, and b/ plan to build them (ie: SAE, Kuwait, etc.) that has plans to phase out use of nuclear energy.

In fact, Germany plans to buy more electricity from France, which in 2010 generated 74% of its energy from nuclear power.

All the other nuclear nations: U.S., Russian, Korea, UK, India, the EU, etc. realize the value of nuclear energy to their national energy mixes and plan to continue utilizing nuclear power, although notably, after strengthening safety standards.

The Fukushima disaster has prompted many countries to tighten safety standards and implement stress tests on existing reactors, and - yes - consider extending the lifespans of these plants.

Don't anybody get me wrong - I am 100% for the full utilization of renewables, but as yet, it isn't happening and people need to look at the best available options.

And on that note, one of the key reasons I support president Obama is because he supports the expansion of the US renewable energy sector. He has vision and it's in the right place IMO (in stark contrast to the primeval thinking of the GOP candidates who only apparently want to drill baby drill.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

America only generates about 10% of its total power from nuclear energy.

America, Britain, France, China, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway, are all countries using nuclear energy but they are also making very substantial investments in renewable energy.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lF7n5tYtkFg

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A top industry leader has defended nuclear power as the only realistic way to reduce global warming

To use global warming as a way of promoting nuclear power really disgusts me...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Andrew - "Human's who are by nature error and omission prone beings, will never be able to 100% safely operate a nuclear power industry. You can employ whatever error management and reduction techniques you want, chains of errors will inevitably occur which will lead to future catastrophes."

Agreed. But why do you - or anyone for that matter - expect any energy productiion industry to operate 100% safely? None of them do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tokyo, at least has 3 waste to energy power plants: Adachi, Ariake and Chitose. They are all operated by Clean Association of Tokyo 23. Chiba, Osaka, Aomori and Fukuoka have one waste to energy plant each.

With the population of Japan being 168 Million I think the waste must be massive so it only makes sense to convert incinerators to energy producing plants.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Blatant refusal to differentiate Uranium fissioning reactors versus Thorium fissioning reactors! All are labeled 'nuclear" in this article - All Japanese must read www.theoildrum.com/node/4971 Japan's finest scientists in the world, can so run CANDU reactors on Thorium, as China does - or better: design their own LFTR reactors or better, and buy cheaper, more efficient, more plentiful, safer, Thorium even from India. Time now to turn away from the American styled designs as found at Fukushima, and reach hard for Thorium styled reactors - safer, cheaper top build, safer waste product by far, and possibly easy to fuel into the 22nd Century. Decision time is now for Japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Prior to the 3/11 nuclear disaster, nuclear energy was generating about 25% of total power, and to achieve that needed about 35 out of the 54 working reactors. To generate 100% power from nuclear energy would need about 250 reactors.

Following the disaster, generation dropped to 18% and within 6 months was about 11%. Currently, nuclear power is generating less than 4% and by the end of April it will be zero.

Even the power cut backs in Kanto last summer were not necessary. There might be a close call between available power and power demand for a peak period of 2-3 hours each week day. The rest of the time there should be no power shortage problem. It was a ploy by the power companies.

For more than 6 months nuclear energy has generated less than 10% of total power. There have been no power outages. From last September many factories increased production to deal with the disaster reconstruction. Offices and businesses have all been functioning.

The country can generate enough power to meet demand without the use of nuclear energy, but the power companies will tell us different because they make billions out of nuclear power.

Renewable energy could generate 20-25% of total power, which would be equal to the amount generated from nuclear energy. I also think, 10-15% reduction in power consumption can be achieved by using power more efficiently without any loss in the quality of life.

The whole industry of power generation and supply needs a very radical overhaul. We need to start thinking about new solutions to old problems, not old solutions to old problems.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Utrack,

With the population of Japan being 168 Million I think the waste must be massive so it only makes sense to convert incinerators to energy producing plants.

The population of Japan is about 130 million including about 2.5 million non Japanese. The rate is dropping since the birth rate is negative. By the end of this century, the population could be less than 30 million, not including the 50 million foreign workers who will be needed to do the work, and pay the taxes.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Nuclear energy does not fit within clean, green or renewable energy no matter how many times the industry puts that wolf in sheep's clothing.

The World Nuclear Association will tell people anything to try to prop up this dangerous and dying industry. Areva and Westinghouse have quietly given up on the US and EU for new reactors and is after China and India.

They lie about dependency and anything else they can get away with because journalists rarely have the time to research deep enough to fact check their statements. IE: the US total power generation capacity from nuclear is 9%. How much of actual power generated from nukes is closer to 19%. Why? Because the power companies use nuclear power first. You can't throttle a reactor up and down based on demand like you could with a natural gas plant. So the east coast where most of these reactors are has an artificial dependence on nuclear power. This false dependence is also created because there is a fleet of aging reactors on the east coast that have paid for themselves and are now running on pure profit. Of course they want to run them at 100% as much as possible it is making a small group of people including Goldman Sachs (they are heavily invested in nuclear) a huge profit.

The US doesn't need nuclear and neither does Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What is shocking me from the pro-nukes is that their argument is "if we need power we have to produce it regardless of its impact". This is an as good logic as stating "if I need space I need to invade my neigbour country". That's to say the objective does not justify the means and if the objective cannot be achieved reasonability, it need to be changed to be achievable and not at any cost. This is serious and require most likely a paradigm shift of our current expectation about living standard. Then, if AC has to be turned off during summer, what's the matter? Let's go working in short, T-shirt and flip-flop, open the windows and go early to work. It will still be better than taking the risk of another Fukushima.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hydrothermal. Japan could produce enough energy for itself and to sell to other countries.

The first and only system to unlock the awesome power of deep-ocean hydrothermal vents for energy, mining, and water desalination. http://www.marshallsystem.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6-_UTU_bJ0

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"reduce global warming"

Has anyone talked to the main instigator of global warming/cooling, Mother Nature about this?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Serrano – “Has anyone talked to the main instigator of global warming/cooling, Mother Nature about this?”

Probably not because the majority of us on this thread actually have half a clue about the causes of climate change.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Andrew - "Human's who are by nature error and omission prone beings, will never be able to 100% safely operate a nuclear power industry. You can employ whatever error management and reduction techniques you want, chains of errors will inevitably occur which will lead to future catastrophes."

Agreed. But why do you - or anyone for that matter - expect any energy productiion industry to operate 100% safely? None of them do.

SushiSake3, sorry but that's comparing apples with oranges. Other energy production industries like coal or gas can afford not to have 100% safety, a mishap there doesn't mean wiping out half a country and rendering it unlivable.

I wouldn't expect Nuclear to run at 100% safety because it's a human impossibility, which is exactly why it's so dangerous and should be scaled back as a method of energy production, not promoted and increased.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Andrew, thanks for your comment, but I'll agree to disagree.

Nuclear energy has been utilized by many countries for half a century and there have been very few major accidents.

I think we are both right, in particular where you say "I wouldn't expect Nuclear to run at 100% safety because it's a human impossibility." However, my view is that an entire energy industry should not be shut down due to less than even a handful of serious accidents spanning 3 decades.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you go to a surgeon, surgery will be the only solution; but people being the sheep they are, business will dictate all terms and people will follow.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SushiSaki3

Nuclear energy has been utilized by many countries for half a century and there have been very few major accidents.

The countries you mention dont experience 20% of the worlds most powerful earthquakes nor do they have thousands of years history for powerful tsunami. Which on those points, Japan isn`t a country which should have built nuclear reactors in the first place.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Director-general John Rich, of the World Nuclear Association (WNA), has defended nuclear power as the only realistic way to reduce global warming despite Japan’s nuclear disaster last year Geezzzz here is another amoeba who don't seem to know that Nuke Power Plant is not an excuse to stop Global warming. It's the hard headed countries producing the gases destroying ozone and mother earth. Stop or lessen production from the 3 top countries producing that deadly gas. Go ahead and pursue the use of Nuclear energy for power until the next disaster so we will have a new topic about the dangers of nuke power. ;))

3 ( +3 / -0 )

SushiSaki3, thanks for your comments as well. Unfortunately I'll have to agree to disagree as well.

However, my view is that an entire energy industry should not be shut down due to less than even a handful of serious accidents spanning 3 decades.

I agree with this in terms of straight number of accidents. However I would ask you to consider the comparative ramifications of these handful of nuclear accidents. In theory how many coal power plant explosions would equal a nuclear meltdown in terms of long term contamination and health impact? The straight numbers give a deceiving sense of safety.

Also one important thing not to forget is just how close nuclear disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl were to escalating to an unthinkable level. Most of Europe would have been uninhabitable had Chernobyl not been able to be contained to the extent it was (this scenario was possible). Again the same scenario in terms of Fukushima, the possible evacuation of Tokyo was a reality for a time had the situation escalated further.

How many times can we tempt fate until a future meltdown slips out of all control?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There will be more Nuclear power plant failures and disasters,,In japan and other countries too! There have been two big disasters to date,both have left people displaced, huge areas un-inhabitable by humans,and contaminated vast water sheds and farm lands....Don't let some expert from inside the "Big Nuke" camp convince you that the only two choices are nuclear power generation vs world destruction via climate change...The nuclear industry is using hype as a way to scare people into Excepting and supporting Nuclear Power Generation. That is their marketing plan..However they will never acknowledge the down side and devastation the industry has and will bring upon us. In america we have a saying.."Fool me once shame on you..Fool me twice shame on me". Please do not be fooled!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The whole issue of spent fuel is of course never mentioned by these nuclear chuckleheads. Nobody has anywhere to put it or any real plan for it. We have tons and tons of this crap piled up and nuclear plants and temporary storage at govt. reprocessing facilities. The US has no clue what they are going to do with theirs and the spent fuel pools are beyond maximum capacity. Storing it in parking lots in casks is at best a very temporary measure.

Germany has no storage facility. France has no storage facility. Japan has no storage facility. The US has no storage facility. The problem has hit maximum density we can't ignore it any longer. Reprocessing, fast breeder reactors and MOX have all failed. Continuing to run nuclear plants makes this problem even worse.

The current US "solution" is to keep dumping it in casks in parking lots for 200 years. The casks are rated for 20 years and require ongoing human intervention even for those 20 years. Like the world has never had war, major disaster, disease outbreaks or something we never thought of. This is insanely stupid.

I would rather lower my power usage even considerably to avoid needing nuclear.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Fossil fuels kill tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people or more. These fuels cause increased cancer and pollutes thousands of square miles of land. What about this menace to human health and well being?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Look at the graphs on this page: http://alturl.com/iru38 and what tiny fraction nuclear takes up there. Next explain me how you are going to replace that with nuclear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nuclear power is not an option. It failed. Time to move on.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Maybe John Rich should ask the future millions of people with cancer (as a result of the radioactive pollution from Fukushima)if nuclear poser is their choice?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

TheBigPicture, coal burning plants release radiation into the air. Above background...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There are ALWAYS ! options....in everything...however strongly the vested interests try to say otherwise.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Don't anybody get me wrong - I am 100% for the full utilization of renewables, but as yet, it isn't happening and people need to look at the best available options.

It isn't happening because the nuclear power syndicate won't allow that to be utilized unless they will be the one to start it and junk all their nuke plants. That's the simple answer to that. Same as having electric cars but not so affordable for the masses because it will kill the big oil company syndicates. And the culprit of global warming is caused by fossil fuels. This nuclear energy is all about business and greed. Same as Tobacco manufacturers. It is hazardous to your health and can kill but we will keep on producing and selling...we don't care if you get COPD, cancer, or dead...it's just our business of raking money....hehehehe.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Japan's nuclear plants contribute heavily to global warming by discharging most of their heat unused. There was no electrical shortage last summer and the government's scare tactics may have killed some people unnecessarily. When incidents of heat stroke started increasing, the government finally broke down and told people it was fine to turn their air conditioners on. YuriOtani is correct. Coal burning plants do release radiation into the air. So do nuclear plants under normal operating conditions. We need a new economic model that is not based on perpetual growth in consumption of resources. We need to use less fossil fuel regardless of what is done to Japan's incurably corrupt nuclear power industry. No Luddites are necessary. We can still have smart phones and MRIs, all we need to do is make efficient use of what is naturally available.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is the **Nuclear Fascism*** at work...

These Governments are ONLY pushing nuclear in order to protect their own nuclear industries instead of doing what is best for ALL the people on the Planet, which is to go Solar in a big way ASAP!

Fukushima PROVED that Nature can destroy any land based nuclear reactor, any place anytime 24/7/365! How will these Governments pay for yet more meltdowns?

What about the effects on Climate Change caused by the radionuclides that were released from Fukushima, most of which are NEVER mentioned in MSM http://is.gd/fzc4Wu and why are all climate scientists not speaking up about them unless they have been told not to? http://wp.me/p21p6a-7DE

*Nuclear Fascism http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nuclear+fascism

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No wonder folks are protesting Nuclear Benefits of Solar (of all flavors): ✔ Less costly to build ✔ ZERO RISK OF A MELTDOWN ✔ No Trillion Dollar Eco-Disasters ✔ Faster to construct ✔ CLEAN from start to finsh. ✔ No radiation worries or leaks ✔ No foreign dependency ✔ Prices dropping yearly ✔ Creates green jobs ✔ No nuclear cleanup expenses

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well connected GANGS are making a killing off these radioactive waste projects and they stand to make the most money from the Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster at Fukushima; this will enable them to "RUN" Japan as never before!

No wonder the Japanese people are powerless to stop these GANGS from doing whatever they want... How many Politicians will benefit from this Nuclear dirty money?

Supporting Nuclear just enables their Gang controlled Utilities...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watch Interviewer: Do you believe Tepco is ready to run nuclear plants? — Tepco after 20 seconds of total silence: “That is a difficult question” http://enenews.com/?p=29022

0 ( +0 / -0 )

German TV: Armageddon if Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 collapses and melts down — Could change the world — Most likely consequence is that reactors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 get out of control — Interview with nuclear engineer (VIDEO) http://enenews.com/?p=28996 snip

My personal concern is the fourth reactor block.

The building has been strongly damaged by the earthquake.

There are approximately 1300 spent fuel rods in the cooling pond on level four. In the level above newer rods are stored as well as a lot of heavy machinery. This is all very, very heavy.

If another earthquake occurs then the building could collapse and another chain reaction could very likely occur.

Narrator: So, a meltdown under the free sky which would be the end of Japan as we know it today.

The radiation would be direct deadly.

The work on the ground would be totally impossible.

The most likely consequence is that reactors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 get out of control.

Armageddon!

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