Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
national

Thousands across Japan rally against nuclear power

44 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments
Login to comment

BertieWoosterMar. 11, 2013 - 08:04PM JST

The reliance on nuclear power killed Tohoku.

Please, "killed Tohoku"? What fantasy world do you live in? Tohoku is not a nuclear wasteland. We are, however, suffering from bad publicity that stems from comments such as yours.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BertieWoosterMar. 12, 2013 - 07:39PM JST

Yet another alternative to Nuclear Power:

(BBC): Japan extracts gas from methane hydrate in world first

It can be done!

Houray! Let's Global Warming Japan!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BertieWoosterMar. 12, 2013 - 07:39PM JST

Yet another alternative to Nuclear Power:

(BBC): Japan extracts gas from methane hydrate in world first

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21752441

It can be done!

Need people to tell you how bad that is again?

1) You are burning methane, which means CO2 and all the problems that come with that.

2) A single accident can release a hundred years worth of global warming chemicals, and all the issues that come with that.

3) A single accident could sink every ship in the area, and make a massive fireball (not too likely, but quite possible).

4) Mining it requires toxic chemicals and releases chemicals to contaminate fish

5) Mining it requires techniques and machines not yet developed and that eliminate it's price advantage over oil.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Yet another alternative to Nuclear Power:

(BBC): Japan extracts gas from methane hydrate in world first

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21752441

It can be done!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

BertieWoosterMar. 12, 2013 - 10:37AM JST

Instead of spending INCREDIBLE quantities of money and energy on "defending" our various countries from imagined enemies.

Okinawa is not on topic in the least bit. I wonder why the mods haven't picked up on your off topic comments when anyone can see it's exactly the same language you use when discriminating against foreigners.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

BertieWoosterMar. 11, 2013 - 11:46PM JST

Recovering from the tsunami is a very small part of the problem.

Tell that to the tens of thousands that lost their loved ones to the tsunami. It is "an emotional issue" and dismissing those people's losses is disgusting.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Instead of spending INCREDIBLE quantities of money and energy on "defending" our various countries from imagined enemies, if we had put that money and energy into solving the energy problem, we would have had it licked by now.

We have one planet.

There isn't anywhere else to go.

Wouldn't it be a good idea if we all worked out how to live together and tackle the energy problem planet wide?

So many are stealing from the future.

Brazil is tearing up the rain forest. China is polluting the air. Everyone is buying cars and pumping exhaust gases into the air.

And nuclear power and fracking just passes the buck to future generations.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Zetsu...Japan is the third largest economy in the world. For these corporations to compete, you have to have dependable energy source to run their companies. It's not all about cost. You don't want to have rolling blackouts to run a manufacturing. I agree with you that clean energy is a way to the future, but it's a slow transition and it will take a long time. The comparison to nuclear power is like current internal combustion engine. China is adding 18 million cars a year and they emit more and more CO2 in our atmosphere. But is there alternatives to energy efficient gas power cars? At this time, no. But maybe in 30-40 years, somebody will manufacturer alternative powerd cars that are efficient as gas power of today, and be accepted by consumers.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@sfjp330

Your calculations may be economicaly defendable, I don't know. Cheaper is not necessarilly better. As for solar or wind power not being viable, sure not for now or without adapting our lifestyle. Isn't it worth a try? How viable was nuclear at it's beginning?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Zetsu Mar. 12, 2013 - 08:20AM JSTSure, these unanswered problems too and they are big ones. I'm not denying CO2 problems or saying it's the solution. But nuclear contaminated ground/sea cannot be the trade in for land retaken by the sea. Death count is not all that counts when assessing danger. But sure, coal and gas do their part.

We could all live in a dream world. and you seem to have solutions for Japan's 120 million people. If you don't agree with nuclear power as a main source of power for the next 3 to 4 decades, what is your solution? How do you want Japan to go through this transition? And at what cost?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Left-wing nonsense. Period.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Heda_Madness

Sure, these unanswered problems too and they are big ones. I'm not denying CO2 problems or saying it's the solution. But nuclear contaminated ground/sea cannot be the trade in for land retaken by the sea.

Death count is not all that counts when assessing danger. But sure, coal and gas do their part.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Zetsu Mar. 12, 2013 - 07:45AM JST Seriously? You mean what's happening in Fukushima is "cost effective"? And what about that cost effectiveness after this 40 year period? Because that is when in becomes interesting regarding costs...

Anything that is man made can have accidents. Tell me about Japan's other 53 nuclear powerplants. They have been cost effective and have track records for safety. Sure, clean power generation is seen as the best choice to meet the growing demand for electricity. However, the transition and cost effectiveness to other source of energy will take another 30-40 years. At this time, nuclear power makes economics sense because Japan does not have immediate options for their 120 million people. The cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity is 25 percent cheaper than coal and less than one-quarter of natural gas. Utilities recognize that they no longer can rely heavily on natural gas for electricity production because of its high and volatile prices. Nor is solar or wind power viable. Although politically popular, in most instances, they are far too costly and cannot provide power reliably at industrial strength.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The next decades will reveal a lot of unanswered problems

You mean such as how many low lying areas are retaken by the sea? Because the impact of CO2 is not just restricted to the 50x deaths that you get from gas to nuclear. But the longer, extreme problems.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@sfjp330

If Jpaan decides to build new units, the operational costs are nominal and over a 40-year time period, and have proven to be cost effective.

Seriously? You mean what's happening in Fukushima is "cost effective"? And what about that cost effectiveness after this 40 year period? Because that is when in becomes interesting regarding costs...

nuclear power would look even more attractive

Nuclear power will NEVER look attractive. For money hungry politicians maybe, but not for common people who have to cope with the consequences of the problem.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Agreed, coal and gas is not clean or sustainable, neither is nuclear... There's no miracle solution we can apply now, but that's no reason to justify cheapest solution. People are only ready to trade for same or better value, but face it, it can't be done. Maybe we have to put on hold that growth myth... why always more? Is enough not enough? Idealistic, I know... As for nuclear being far better for the environment... well I'm not really convinced. The next decades will reveal a lot of unanswered problems with decomissioning and waste disposal. And by the way, bury or store waste is not really a fantastic solution. The waste will just pile up and then? Just go for it and hope for a future solution is never good problem managing. Depressing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ka_chanMar. 12, 2013 - 04:47AM JST Japan should do fine on alternate energy sources as wind, solar, and geothermal.

It's all economics. Japan does not have effective options yet. In the future, companies that know how to run nuclear efficiently will succeed. Fukushima event has disrupted nuclear for short term, however, nuclear plants still have lots of protections from the J-goverment. It still is the cheapest power Japan has. If Jpaan decides to build new units, the operational costs are nominal and over a 40-year time period, and have proven to be cost effective. If J-goverment would ever attach a price to carbon or any other alternative energy, the nuclear power would look even more attractive.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

That's a fair point. But they also have coal and gas which is neither clean nor sustainable. Far worse for the environment than nuclear.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

New Zealand meets much of the nation's power needs by operating geothermal power plants. Germany has been building them lately as well. South Korea and the UK have been building tidal and wave power plants. Japan can switch too. Rise up, people! The politicians serve the interest of their and their friends' business interests, not yours.

That's incorrect. New Zealand produces most of its energy through hydroelectric dams. Though they have invested a lot in geothermal power, geothermal electricity represents only 13,6% of the electricity it produces. 52% comes from hydroelectricity, 28,4% from fossil sources (oil and gas mainly).

New Zealand has about 750 MW of installed capacity in geothermal energy, Japan has a bit over 500 MW. The problem is that Japan is much more populous than New Zealand and has a much larger industrial sector. Plus, geothermal plants in Japan would need to be installed mainly in national parks, which creates a lot of tensions with environmentalists and tourism businesses (what do you think hot springs are?). 80% of Japan's geothermal potential is situated in national parks or monuments.

By all means, it should be developed, but it has its drawbacks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan should do fine on alternate energy sources as wind, solar, and geothermal. Since the whole archipelago is a hot bed on geothermal activity, this is the most natural solution for Japan's energy needs. But the government has decided to go for the traditional solution of gas instead. Since they claim there is at least 14 years of supply, there should be no need for nuclear power. But the disposal is and will be an issue for years to come. Remember that shutting down a plant doesn't mean it's safe. Until the fuel is gone, it will never be safe.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

With scientists warning that global warming is progressing faster than expected, with the thresholds for major negative consequences on the world, scrapping completely nuclear power isn't simply economically foolhardy, but amazingly irresponsible for the environment. there are other green sources of energy, but none offers the reliability and affordability of nuclear power.

What people should ask for is the end of government-corporation collusion in Japan that allowed power companies running nuclear plants to be lax around safety and to under-design plants with regards to major natural disasters. The nuclear industry can be safe, but you need an independent public watchdog to make sure that those who run the plants follow the rules adequately, especially if they're for-profit companies that would be tempted to cut corners to save money. Japan should copy the French model on this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Basroil,

Recovering from the tsunami is a very small part of the problem.

Recovering from the radiation damage is a massive undertaking and will probably not be finished for fifty years.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Well said, Moonraker!

Nuclear power creates energy now, but passes the problem of disposing of radioactive waste to future generations.

So much energy is wasted.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yeah, right basroil, as long as nuclear power stations don't have to be insured and we hope for the best and the taxpayer picks up the tab when somethings goes wrong and nuclear power is subsidised to the hilt by the taxpayer again and the waste is just left around waiting for a good idea about how to dispose of it and the cost of decommissioning reactors is excluded from cost calculations then it looks cheap. Come on, the whole industry is smoke and mirrors and its proponents are disingenuous and bought and paid for.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

BertieWoosterMar. 11, 2013 - 08:04PM JST

The reliance on nuclear power killed Tohoku.

The tsunami that followed a 9.0 quake killed Tohoku, and 20000 people with it. Don't marginalize those who died in the natural disaster.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

MoonrakerMar. 11, 2013 - 06:07PM JST

Back in the 1950s, nuclear power stations were sold to the public as producing electricity that was "too cheap to meter". Wonder what happened to that promise.

The russians made it so that people began to fear nuclear winter, then the hippies lied to everyone by saying it's no different than a bomb. The russian bomb factories called Chernobyl didn't help out, considering people had just started seeing it as a viable energy source again.

France on the other hand though, is 80% nuclear and because of that both exports to other counties and is cheaper than all the others in the area, including coal using Germany. Rates are half or less, so the cheap part still holds as promised.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

sighclops,

The growing reliance on gas & oil is killing the economy.

The reliance on nuclear power killed Tohoku.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

In the case of nuke power stations, there is not one in the world that is insured. They are uninsurable.

Back in the 1950s, nuclear power stations were sold to the public as producing electricity that was "too cheap to meter". Wonder what happened to that promise. It seemed to go the same way as the "mighty micro" in the 70s that would ensure we worked only a couple of hours a day.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

BertieWoosterMar. 11, 2013 - 02:56PM JST

There are, however, many ways power can be conserved without much sacrifice. And there are many ways renewable energy can replace nuclear power and coal/oil based systems.

I can bet you that you won't find a single engineering analysis that agrees with you (greenpeas and economists aren't engineering). The only renewable sources that make any economic and engineering sense in Japan are dams, but they are already at near capacity, and even with flooding thousands of sq. km of pristine forests you won't get past 15% of the total energy needs. Fossil fuels are here to stay at this rate, along with the millions of excess deaths per century they bring.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

FACT: Japan cannot survive without nuclear power. The growing reliance on gas & oil is killing the economy

Absolutely true of course. I trust the morons marching up and down will volunteer happily for the much higher oil, gas and electricity prices. I suppose someone took down their names and addresses so we know where to send the bills for the next 50 years??

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

FACT: Japan cannot survive without nuclear power. The growing reliance on gas & oil is killing the economy.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Probably the people who are protesting against nuclear power are different guys than the people who voted for the Abe government.

That's a terrible thought Bertie. That would mean those opposed to Nuclear Power either didn't vote or are in a vast minority. Let's hope it's not the latter.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Disillusioned,

It's good to see so many people protesting, but I have to ask, how many of these protestors voted for the Abe government?

Confusing, isn't it?

Probably the people who are protesting against nuclear power are different guys than the people who voted for the Abe government. In any case the turnout for the election wasn't great.

The truth of the matter is that those who want nuclear power have something to gain from it. I would imagine a large majority couldn't care less.

There are, however, many ways power can be conserved without much sacrifice. And there are many ways renewable energy can replace nuclear power and coal/oil based systems. Instead of building bridges and tunnels, if Abe wants to spend money, it would make a lot of sense to use it to increase the renewable energy sources and lighten the burden on Japan in the future.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Good luck! I'd like to see it done as well, but especially with this government it will not. Just the other day there was an article about how the nuclear industry has already pretty much bounced back, and I'll we'll see fighting to put a number of reactors back on-line increase in the very near future. However there should be none of this, "We vow to have safety precautions that meet the new requirements put into place within the next three to five years but want our plant back on-line now!" crap. IF the plants go back on it should only be AFTER they have met the requirements, stress-test contents are made clear, and the companies be made in writing to take 100% of the responsibility and face jail time for any accidents caused by negligence, cost-cutting, scandals, etc.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

These masks is to protect against PM 2.5?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

It's good to see so many people protesting, but I have to ask, how many of these protestors voted for the Abe government?

Unfortunately, the Japanese governmental stance on nuclear power has as much to do with pride as it does with economics. They have spent billions of dollars instigating nuclear power over the last 50 odd years and their pride will not let them give it up.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Go for it Japan. This is brave act to support all those left behind in Fukushima.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Nuclear energy can not be eliminated but future plants must have design that would eliminate meltdown.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

People of Japan should put their money where their mouths are and buy (Japanese produced) solar panels and wind turbines until their pockets are empty. This will help the green industry in Japan scale up faster with such huge demand from their own citizens and then they can export their products in an increasing competitive market.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Sillygirl, Without the sneaky deals , opaque dealings and falsified maintenance, it will be impossible for the utilities to make a profit off of the NPPs.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Thanks good people of Japan for standing up for what you believe in.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

If you want to shut down nuclear reactors you have to protest by shutting down the country. You have to get the transit workers and the pilots to protest with you. Taking a walk scheduled on exactly the same day, down the same road is futile. People will just avoid it.

0 ( +4 / -3 )

I think it is very difficult to go zero. Instead they should be protesting sneaky deals, opaque dealings and falsified maintenance.

7 ( +7 / -1 )

And nuclear power is going to harm us,our children,their children......etc

5 ( +8 / -4 )

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