OECD chief says Japan needs nuclear power

Supporters say without nuclear power, energy-hungry and resource-poor Japan cannot continue to function normally

Then I guess we're looking at a new normal.

either japan will have an economic suicide or a nuclear suicide. how does that saying go again, stuck between a...

Kyodo News quoted him as saying: “As a condition of growth policy, you have to have sufficient sources of energy to fuel the economy, households, companies, and infrastructure.”

but here it's constant negative growth, shrinking population, sluggish economy, deflation, declining exports, rising deficit .....hopefully OECD chief will retreat his statement.

I subscribe to a Japanese paper and I am sick of its emotional and hysterical tones of their reporting on nuclear plants. I agree with OECD chief. For the time being, at least, we have to rely on nuclear power plants. Arguments on pros and cons for the nuclear plants must be done in the long run. It is stupid that we stop all the nuclear plants now and try to rely on other power sources.

Of course he does.

Japan needs nuclear power.

Wrong. A recent research has just emerged showing Japan does not after all need nuclear energy going forward. It does not even need it to reduce its carbon footprint, something the pro-nukes have been eager to tell anybody who cared to listen to them! Read on http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120422a1.html

Switch on all the nuclear plant you like, as long as you appoint regulators who are not in the open market. One either meets nuclear safety standards or one does not. Japan does not. Many countries meet them, why can't Japan?

This is just ridiculous!

Although listed under different addresses the many of the Tokyo OECD and IAEA offices are pretty much collocated. By coincident, not too far away from TEPCO

This is the PERFECT opportunity to quickly develop alternative tech, and Japan could get massive amounts of power from geo-thermal. It can't be done over night, but turning the NPPs back on is just an invitation for another Fukushima. We all know here that's it's not a question of IF the big one will come, it's WHEN. It's just not safe.

In other news: Pigs say we all need more mud.

To the people of Japan: Don't listen to what the Head of the OECD says or any other organization that has invested interests in nuclear power/energy for that matter. Come to your own conclusions about what should be done and do it. Show that you live in a true democracy by expressing the will of the people. According to most recent surveys done on everyday Japanese citizens, most people do not want nuclear power - that has become pretty clear. And the OECD should keep their noses out and respect the will of the people.

This is exactly right. Only other source of power is to burn the BS that the politicos talk.

So I guess this is well known to most people but for anyone who didn't know.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) is the parent organization of the OECD-NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) born out of ENEA (the European Nuclear Energy Agency).

The OECD-NEA works closely with IAEA and the European Commission. So just maybe OECD have motives other than those of the Japanese People close to heart?

Because of Fukushima, Germany changed direction on nuclear growth and other countries have shifted gears. The OECD is feeling pressure from the nuclear industry, a story that Noda no doubt already feels locally.

But with over 50 reactors out and not needed and lots of conservation and local energy to tap into, Japan can choose to tell the OECD to take a hike into Fukushima and talk to the people there.

But with cashola from Japan given to the IMF rather than to the victims or towards any greening of energy, perhaps the OECD senses an opportunity to sway government again away from progress against nuclear

If ever there was a country that could go nuclear free, it's Japan. We're all rooting for you. You have the technology. You have a population that if leveled with would probably enjoy something new to do and strive for. Go for it

I should not be surprised if Noda ask Gurria to make this statement. The "nukes" are politically unpopular but economically. If they were turned back on they would save money that could be used to pay for the Eu, or Japanese, debt. I think that countries go bankcrupt because the population votes in government projects and laws to promote such things as perceived safety, irrespective of whether they can afford them or not. Many of the costs in the government sector are justified in terms of "safety." How can one argue? Lives may be at stake...

When the OECD chief moves his family to Namie, I'll listen to what he has to say regarding Japan's nuclear power industry. The 30% statistic is a gross exaggeration and whatever has been lost is being made up sufficiently by other means. An 84.4% drop in nuclear power production resulted in only a 2.6% decline in power supply. http://www.iea.org/stats/surveys/mes.pdf#search=

By the way remind me folks, has any OECD official visited the Tsunami area and victims and the damaged nuclear plant since March 11?

The danger in Japan is that if one nuclear power station goes back on line, the others will sense their opportunity and follow, regardless of safety or local opposition. You can sense them all waiting, their eyes on Oi. When will Oi break ranks?

Just like sheep or cows, with no farm hands carrying the experience or the authority to stop the herd once it begins to move, they'll push through. It'll be cheeky, but it will be fait accompli.

Who pays his salary and how much did he get for saying that? Japan needs unsafe nuclear power like it needs, well another Fukushima disaster - which has yet to be solved on year on.

Japanese people need a safe country to live, for themselves and for their following generations..You just can't have a huge nuclear power industries on a small island country with endless earthquakes and tsunamis. Where all people go if the island becomes inhabitable.? Can OECD provide anything for Japan from insurance to security? Don't think so.

OECD Chief perhaps wants Japan to become a Nuclear Grave yard in the oriental just as Hitler created concentration camps to kill millions of Jews as he hated them for their entrepreneurship in several European countries. OECD Chief must first of all learn why the chancellor of Germany confirmed that nuclear safety is a Myth and so decided to shut down all reactors by 2022. If OECD Chief reads reports on events leading to the man-made disaster at Fukushima he will understand that living with nuclear reactors is equivalent to living with Nuclear weapons on your bed side.Let people of japan prefer a peaceful and happy life instead of anxiety every moment of their daily life. Man does not always live for making money only as it does not confer happiness but only provides you with satisfaction of physical wants coupled with a restless mind and mental sickness which do not make life worth living

Easy to say that when you don't live here. With all these EQ predictions and after 3.11, shutting them all down is a no brainer.

Angel Gurria is not living in Japan so it is hardly surprising that he would say this....

After Fukushima, Germany voted to shut down all its nukes by 2022. Germany knew it had enough solar & renewables to power their whole nation 100%, so they do not need nukes. Neither does Spain, Italy & California. Los Angles just passed a Feed in Tariff, so they are on target to close down both nukes by 2030. Japan needs solar & electric cars. Japan can totally switch to solar & renewables 100% by 2030 if every homeowners puts up 10 panels in 2013. I am raising funds in California to help homeowners in Japan buy 10 panels. Japan does not need nukes. The majority knows this in Japan, Germany, California & worldwide. Here comes the SUN.

PM Naoto Kan passed the Feed in Tariff. That is what Japan need to launch its swift move to Solar by 2030. Say a big cheer for Naoto Kan!

Put the question of whether or not to continue with nuclear power to the population in a referendom, then abide by the result

It seems to me that the head of the OECD is a very wise man.

The only reason reactors haven't been restarted has nothing to do with their safety. It's simply because people, including the vast majority of those on this forum, perceive it as dangerous and don't want it. Even if it were proven and demonstrated that they are safe, still they wouldn't be restarted until public opinion is changed. Thus I think here the challenge is twofold: 1 - Make sure the reactors are safe. 2 - Educate the public about its safety. I'm a little disconcerted about how most people seemed to have been taken by this craze and fear about nuclear energy. In 50 years we have had 3 accidents globally. The result has been a number of death and large inhabitable areas. Now take oil as a source of energy and look at the disasters produced, eg Exon Valdez, Gulf of Mexico, etc. There's been hundreds of them. They have destroyed more lives and made larger areas (of the sea) inhabitable. Why isn't people jumping on that as well? I think many folks are myopic and easily galvanize against the fear of the moment. Two years ago banks were the villain, now it's nuclear energy, tomorrow will be something else. Thinking with your own head, IMHO, is to recognize that: 1 - Nuclear energy is neither safer nor more dangerous than oil. 2 - Japan does in fact need this energy source at the moment to function well. Given a better alternative I'd be in favor of decommissioning reactors. As the situation is now I think we need them.

Re upintheair's post:

1 - Nuclear energy is neither safer nor more dangerous than oil.

The dangers of nuclear and oil energy are different in quality, not quantity. The word "more" has no meaning here, absent full discussion of "danger."

2 - Japan does in fact need this energy source at the moment to function well.

Japan has been functioning just fine for over 1 year with every one of its 47 nuclear plants down. Best not to talk through your ass when posting comments in the internet.

In 50 years we have had 3 accidents globally.

I guess the 3 you are referring to are: Three Mile, Chernobyl and Fukushima right? If you include Three Mile Island, this means you have put the bar for serious accidents at INES level 5 right?

Well there are at least 3 other INES level 5 accidents (Windscale, First Chalk river and Lucens in Switzerland)

(Skipping level 6 Kyshtym, that was military reprocessing).

So then we have INES Level 7 with Chernobyl and Fukushima. That would make 6 accidents right?

Well I say no. Because the way reactor safety is quantified, is accidents per reactor hour right? So In all fairness we must count Fukushima as either 3 or 4 accidents( you would have to evaluate if each reactor would have caused at least level 5).

So there we have it then, 9 or 10 accidents over 50 years world-wide. One accident every 5 years. Or 3-4 accidents over 50 years in Japan.

And this does not even count accidents at reprocessing plants like the JCO incident killing 2 at Tokai Mura in 1991.

Acceptable? I say, let the people decide.

2 - Japan does in fact need this energy source at the moment to function well. Given a better alternative I'd be in favor of decommissioning reactors. As the situation is now I think we need them.

I think we don't. In an ideal world I would like to get rid of both oil and nuclear. I see that Japan today has a real opportunity of getting rid of nuclear. I do not see this opportunity for oil right now, not even with the all the NPPs turned back on. (Nuclear accounted for only 11-12% of the primary energy source consumption)