national

Thousands rally in Tokyo against nuclear power

69 Comments

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

© 2014 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

Respect for you stance but simply not enough people.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

“This is an opportunity for Japan to drop nuclear power,”

And use what as immediate alternative? Buy fossil fuels from middle east? There has to be an alternative viable option for large scale consumption before we ditch the nuclear powered ones. Or else, there will be dark powerless days ahead!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

More than 5,000 protesters gathered at Hibiya Park in downtown Tokyo to urge the government not to restart nuclear plants

I am totally against restarting Nuke Energy plants in Japan as there may be a possibility of another mega size earthquake hitting Japan is very high..

However, I would like to know how many of these 5000 protesters actually voted for the LDP.

You know the LDP was very outspoken about restarting the Nuke plants before the last election, and most amazing thing is that the LDP won the election by a majority.

I would like to know who are confused here. Voters or the LDP? What do voters want?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

The Japanese government is trying to justify the use of nuclear energy through the use of convoluted logic and fractured syllogism. The answer is not to accelerate our move into a nuclear future.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@roughneck

I believe this answers your question :

"Nuclear plants have been closed, so you cannot say we cannot live without nuclear energy," anti-nuclear campaigner Junichi Okano said

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I wonder there are not more people on the street for that. Resuming the HAMOKA PLANT which sits right in the center of the expected TOKAI quake is probably the worst idea ever. Already before the shutdown about 1000000 signatures were collected to shut it down - without any effect though. The nuclear lobby in japan ist just too strong. Obviously there wont be any information on TV about that. The government further tries to control the internet for such stuff. Back in 2011, a friend translated foreign news into japanese to post them in twitter and facebook. These translations then magically disappeared which made her very upset about the control that is been taken. Furher, the secret of states law makes such actions even easier in the future.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

No one died as a direct result of the nuclear accident, but at least 1,656 people died as a result of complications related to stress and other conditions while their lives in evacuation become extended

There have been a total of 3,000 deaths in temporary housing across all of the regions and whilst it's clear that there have been more in Fukushima then elsewhere, this article suggests that all of those who have died in Fukushima have been because of the nuclear situation. Which clearly isn't the case.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Last week, on the anniversary of 3/11, the speaker of the lower house called for an end to the use of nuclear energy.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Last week in an NHK poll, 30% of the population said they wanted an end to nuclear power.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

I hate the idea of nuclear power being brought back to this quake-prone country. But this protest will go nowhere. The last Tokyo election was clearly polarized as nuclear vs no-nuke....the nuclear side won. The people have (stupidly) spoken.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Last week in an NHK poll, 40% of the poll (not the population) were undecided about the future use of nuclear energy. 40% thought nuclear energy was probably necessary for the Immediate future.

Two thirds of local assemblies, with nuclear reactors are opposed to restarting them. The LDP is divided on the future use of nuclear energy including opposition from the Komeito Party. At least three former prime ministers have also called for the end of nuclear energy.

There are no solutions where and now to safely store the 15,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel, which contains 159 tons of plutionium. Since 2002, the gov't have been seeking a suitable site but no local authority wants it in their backyard. In the coming decade, more than 20 reactors will need decommissioning which will further add to the problem of nuclear waste, and its unlikely, the power utilities will be able to replace them with new builds.

Even if some of the current fleet of reactors are restarted, probably 16 if the NRA signs them off, nuclear energy in future will play a much reduced part in power generation, probably providing no more than about 15% of total power.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Sorry - yes 30% of the poll want an end to nuclear. 44% want some nuclear plants to close. 23% said they want to keep the remainder and 1% (I think) wanted more to be built.

In total, over 2/3 of the poll wanted nuclear power for Japan. Which is a massive sing when you consider for the past 3 years everyone on here have been saying that the majority want a total removal of nuclear.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

To be honest, even if it was 10 million people in that park, the government wouldnt pay attention. Looking after their buddies...

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Sorry - yes 30% of the poll want an end to nuclear. 44% want some nuclear plants to close. 23% said they want to keep the remainder and 1% (I think) wanted more to be built.

In total, over 2/3 of the poll wanted nuclear power for Japan. Which is a massive sing when you consider for the past 3 years everyone on here have been saying that the majority want a total removal of nuclear.

By that logic, over 2/3 also wanted removal of nuclear power in Japan. The people in the middle group either need not to be counted, or can be counted on both sides. You can't have it both ways.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Its unlikely, that 30 out of the current fleet of 48 reactors can meet the new safety standards set by the NRA. 13 are too old to retrofit and therefore more likely will be decommissioned. The four reactors from the Fukushima No2 plant won't operate again, that leaves 14 possible reactors. The governor of Niigata is opposed to restarting reactors there. The inspection work of the reactors by the NRA is behind on schedule.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I'm not sure how you come to that - 30% want a total removal. 44% want some of the nuclear plants to close and 23% want the status quo.

Whilst it could be argued that 74% want a reduction in nuclear power, less than 1/3 want a total ban.

On here, I've read hundreds of times than the popluation want a total ban on nuclear power. This recent poll shows that not to be true.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

For decades the people were told by the nuclear village and gov't that nuclear energy was safe, clean and cheap.

Mayor of Town That Hosted Fukushima Nuclear Plant Says He Was Told: “No Accident Could Ever Happen” http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/17/mayor_of_town_that_hosted_fukushima

One reason for cheap is the fact that 80,000 out of a workforce of 100,000 at all atomic power plants are nuclear gypsies or day labourers were the power utilities wage bill is much lower than if they had to employ the workers directly. That is a practice which needs to end.

What was once thought cheap is now costing many ¥trillions. The nuclear disaster site has used up more than ¥10 trillion of public funds and a further ¥25 trillion will be needed over the next 10 years. The eventual cost be more than ¥50 trillion. The power companies have spent more than ¥12 trillion updating their nuclear plants to meet the new safety guidelines set by the NRA. The experimental Monju reactor has used up many ¥billions in its failed experiment and will now be decommissioned.

The power utilities were unable or unwilling to build their nuclear plants so they could withstand all the forces of nature. Some took more action than others but TEPCO was miserable failure on that level and hope the other power utilities are not the same.

Whatever happens with nuclear energy, fossil fuels will still be needed and the industry needs to find ways to reduce the amount of coal burnt for power generation and what remains should at least be at advanced coal burning plants with reductions in greenhouse ages and pollution.

The country needs to continue to improve on its use of renewable energy.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Good for them.

Yet another shining example of how Japanese citizens do in fact raise their voice in opposition publicly, quite contrary to the stereotypes of all Japanese as blind 'sheeple' not wanting to speak out and go against the grain of society.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

About 70 percent of voters want to see an end to nuclear power generation in Japan, according to an Asahi Shimbun opinion poll conducted on Feb. 16 and 17.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201302190028

A major problem with all polls is that the population were lied to for many decades by the nuclear village which assured the people that nuclear energy and its use were safe? There are still many people who believe those lies.

The power utilities have about ¥40 trillion of profits locked into those nuclear reactors and will do whatever it takes to scoop it up. The power utilities reamins one of the one powerful industries in the country. They control the power switch, at least for the moment.

But from next year, 2015, new laws will be enacted to break the decades old monopoly the utilities had over both power generation and power supply. New companies will supply the power.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@roughneck

And use what as immediate alternative? Buy fossil fuels from middle east? There has to be an alternative viable option for large scale consumption before we ditch the nuclear powered ones. Or else, there will be dark powerless days ahead!

At its peak, nuclear power generation provided slightly less than a third of the total, so yes, as Japan never went in very strongly for renewables, it would be the fossil fuels that this country already uses, plus enough to make up the shortfall from nuclear power.

They could try to alleviate that by taking conservation of electricity a lot more seriously, pushing harder to have solar panels installed on as many homes, public, and commercial buildings as possible, and investing more in renewables. The advantage Japan has over some other countries - let's say Thailand or Morocco or Peru - is the huge technical, research and manufacturing base. There is certainly the capability in Japan to focus efforts away from one area, such as nuclear, towards another, such as renewables. It's a question of will.

Japan's seismic problems are a fatal obstacle to nuclear power. The previous model - denying them, ignoring them, claiming total nuclear safety - is unworkable. Furthermore, Fukushima demonstrates that when a major accident does occur, Japan is unable to cope with it. Another opportunity lost...

So it may well be time to tell the nuclear sector here to take that 20 to 30 percent of power they contributed, and shove it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I'm not sure how you come to that - 30% want a total removal. 44% want some of the nuclear plants to close and 23% want t

Whilst it could be argued that 74% want a reduction in nuclear power, less than 1/3 want a total ban.

If you use the middle group, they can be used on both sides of the argument:

74% want a reduction 67% want to maintain the current system to some degree

You originally said 2/3 want to keep nuclear power. That would be the 67%. I was making the point that if you say 2/3 want to keep nuclear power, 3/4 want to get rid of it to some degree. The point being that the middle group should not be used for making conclusions on one side or the other of the argument.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

74% want a reduction. By saying that 74% want removal, it's suggesting that they want a complete removal not just a reduction.

Clearly 2/3 are happy for Japan to have nuclear power, albeit at a reduced capacity.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The whole of Japan should go on strike to send a united message that all nuclear power plants should be mothballed for good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nobody yet knows for sure how safely to store or destroy long-lived radioactive waste produced in all nuclear power plants. This nuclear garbage is a mixture of highly poisonous and perilous elements with fancy names like strontium, krypton, cesium, ruthenium, plutonium and so on

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It is not just the people on the street.. the power of the internet is vast and immediate.. use it..

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I have to wonder how many of the protesters even vote? Sadly it's just not going to matter until anti nuclear representatives are elected into office on a specific nuclear ending platform.

btw, geothermal can handle baseload like nuclear just fine. Nuclear in my province of Ontario covers 52% of our energy yet geothermal can be used per site to handle 60% or so. It would take time to make it happen, but it could work out. Japan is not alone in being held hostage to a nuclear industry while other options lie all around us.

Japan has options and I hope can reach for them. Combined with all the other toys out there and there really could be a rising sun of green energy, rather than a setting one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's great to see so many people protesting nuclear power, but sadly, their government is not listening and will continue to promote nuclear power and continue to partition for the restart of all the reactors regardless of public opinion. I'm curious to know how many of these protesters voted for Abe or how many of them actually voted at all!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

For god's sake THERE IS NOT SHORT-TERM ALTERNATIVE! Wish these people would educate themselves...

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

If there was no short-term alternative, then how have they been powering the country for the past three years?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

With fossil fuels.

I love how people are against nuclear for safety/health reasons yet wholeheartedly support the use of fossil fuels.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Well, I love how people who support N power in Japan are either connected to the industry in some way or are a safe distance away in their living room.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Yea, that's the only way people can be pro-nuclear isn't it?

I mean it's not like they could have read up on the subject, formed an opinion is it?

You all are happy that thousands die a year from the extra reliance on fossil fuels simply because it's not nuclear.

It's quite surreal.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

At the moment for many reasons ( one being the trade deficit ) japan needs to get some of the reactors back online meanwhile it also needs to work on and find cheaper alternatives to fossil fuel, I cannot however understand why more geothermal power is not used as this country boasts about its onsens but seems to waste the thermal activity on taking baths.

I am not a fan of nuclear anything but if they can ensure some of the reactors will not sustain the same fate as fukushima then get them up and running safely.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Heda_Madness

With fossil fuels. I love how people are against nuclear for safety/health reasons yet wholeheartedly support the use of fossil fuels.

I love it when some supporters of nuclear energy never give the whole picture or even mention any of the problems which nuclear energy also creates or often any suggestion on how to solve them.

The fact that support for nuclear energy will be a kind of answer from the gods and all problems will somehow be solved. Somehow? because we are usually left to think about what might be.

Prior to the 3/11 nuclear disaster, nuclear energy generated about 27% of total power but in the post nuclear disaster era, according to the NRA, in future, nuclear energy will play a smaller role in power generation, and is likely to be limited to about 15%.

That means the other 85% will be generated by other fuels, and fossil fuels will remain a major part. Probably, at least 65% of total power will come from fossil fuels and 20% will come from geothermal/hydro/renewables.

On a global level, nuclear energy only generates 2.5% of total power demand, or put another way, total power demand is 15 terawatts (TW) but the power generated from nuclear energy is only 375GW.

Nuclear power plants are enormously expensive to build and use up a massive amount of raw materials including rare metals and earths. Many materials are created from using oil. Britain can no longer afford to build its own new nuclear power plants and have turned to the Chinese and Japanese for a helping hand?

The current deposits of uranium at the current rate of use will be used up in about 85 years.

Nuclear energy has never been able to bring electricity to 1.5 billion people who are living without any form of power.

To operate, nuclear power plants need a huge amount of offsite power which is generated by fossil fuels and when it fails, which happened at the No1 Fukushima plant, then we get reactor meltdowns, and a nuclear disaster.

If all global power, were generated from nuclear energy, there would be a nuclear disaster every single month.

Dr James Hansen calls for the use of fourth generation reactors but so few of them are ready for commercial use.

Strange, how you always accuse people who oppose nuclear energy of being in support of fossil fuels when in fact in the world of reality you too support the use of fossil fuels because you continue to buy and use it unless you happen to be living off the grid, which I actually did for more than 10 years. You often quote how many will die from the use of fossil fuels which you are also responsible for. In fact, in developed countries like America, 40% of premature deaths from air pollution are caused from car exhausts, so driving a car adds to the problem.

We need to move away from the idea that big power must be from centralised power plants when in fact power can be generated at smaller more local plants and even domestic plants but you continue to support big nuke as being the only way.

Japan is an industrialised country and needs more power than what can be generated from nuclear energy. In the immediate future, at least 60% of that will come from burning fossil fuels. Burning coal isn't the problem. The problems are the greenhouse gases, mostly CO2 and pollution. If coal is burnt at higher temperatures both the amount of greenhouse gases and the pollution levels are reduced. With collection units, its now possible to collect more than 90% of greenhouse gases and pollutions. Power utilities have to be forced into only using advance thermal plants.

When you blame others for the premature deaths from the burning of fossil fuels including cars, please remember to include yourself because you are a user of both.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I love it when some supporters of nuclear energy never give the whole picture or even mention any of the problems which nuclear energy also creates or often any suggestion on how to solve them.

What that fossil fuels is worse for the environment or that fossil fuels kills more people? Of course nuclear isn't perfect, I've never said it is. However it's substantially better than fossil fuels.

The discussion is on Japan. Last time I looked there weren't 1.5 billion people here. It's about what's best for Japan. According to you, it's better to have fossil fuels to nuclear. Which means it's better to kill more people. And do more damage to the environment.

40% of air pollution comes from cars? And how much energy do we generate from cars? Power your house? No, so what does it have to do with Japan's need for nuclear power? Nothing.

Again, why mention cars for air pollution? You're trying to hide the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is a major killer. Nothing to do with cars. And everything to do with Japan's power consumption. Those of you who advocate it's use as a replacement of nuclear are saying that you are happy for thousands to die a year. This is without doubt.

James Hanson is one scientist that advocates the use of nuclear. He's not the only one. I'm yet to see a scientist say we should be using coal.

I'm blaming people for advocating the use of coal simply because it's not nuclear. It's dirtier. Kills substantially more people. And is costly.

And 2/3 of the Japanese population want Japan's power to, at least partially, come from nuclear.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

You all are happy that thousands die a year from the extra reliance on fossil fuels simply because it's not nuclear. It's quite surreal.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Heda_Madness

It's about what's best for Japan.

then I'll stop right there because the best for Japan is no use of the current fleet of nuclear reactors since none of the power utilities can be sure they can withstand powerful earthquakes and tsunami. The country can't affort another nuclear disaster.

But even if nuclear energy is used again it will most likely be limited to 15% so what's your suggestion for the other 85% of power needed?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The nuclear power debate is a tough one. Frankly I don't see how a power sucking nation like Japan can hope to maintain its economy without the use of at least some nuclear powers stations. If Japan had any natural resources of her own then this might be a different story, but having to rely 100% on imported fossil fuel is a tricky situation.

I hope that the Japanese can conclude some sort of arrangement with Russia regarding the Northern Islands that involves a deal to import Russian gas. Russia has a lot, and they're geographically close. Its a win/win.

The Fukushima disaster was caused by a one in a million freakishly large earthquake followed by a freakishly large tsunami that nailed the plant with a direct hit. I side completely with those who say that the Fukushima plant was woefully unprepared, constructed in a really dumb location, and way too old. But I believe that there are modern reactors that are much safer, and if Japan learns where and how to construct these plants the danger could be mitigated to some extent.

The other choice is to go back to life without air-conditioning etc. While I'm personally willing to do that, I wonder if the majority of people want to take such a drastic step. I mean you can only take "cool biz" so far, right?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men!" - BOC "Godzilla" All the promoters of nuclear energy please board busses that will relocate you next to reactors, and your grandchildren next nuclear waste storage dumps!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You all are happy that thousands die a year from the extra reliance on fossil fuels simply because it's not nuclear. It's quite surreal.

It was quite surreal when we heard that an even worse disaster was prevented only when the chief at Fukushima Daiichi took the initiative and disobeyed orders from TEPCO headquarters. It isn't reassuring to know that he was told to do the wrong thing, and that our safety depended on him doing the right thing.

It was surreal to hear that TEPCO wanted to abandon the Fukushima plant - and by extension, the rest of us - when the situation looked hopeless.

It was surreal to hear that the PM at that time was afraid for the safety of the Tokyo region, and believed that a metropolitan area of 30,000,000 people might require a large-scale evacuation.

And it's surreal to be browbeaten for having concerns about all this as if it was just some flash-in-the-pan incident that's three years in the past and doesn't have any wider implications.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The reason why Japan shifted from fossil fuels to nuclear energy is because of the oil shock that happened in the 70's. In support of PM Abe, I also don't think it's a good move to shift back to fossil fuels because it could hurt Japan's economy. Yet, I also consider the fact that Japan is prone to major earthquakes. We just need to wait and see on what the Abe administration has to say or do about this issue.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Here is the Energy answer Aneutronic Fusion Reactor - Eco-friendly Energy No radioactive nuclear waste, just clean and safe neutron-free fusion energy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUrt186pWoA

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Go to direct democracy, let the people vote on any issues. Power to the people!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How could anyone in their sane mind in the world be pro-nuclear energy?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

How could anyone in their sane mind in the world be pro-nuclear energy?

In the absence of any better alternatives...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In any discussion on the future of power supply technology, making arguments based on existing infrastructure to oppose future infrastructure is not rational. Most existing infrastructure is old, and nowhere near the state of the art. Remember, this is technology we're talking about, anything older than six months is probably already obsolete. Basically, if you aren't up on the latest developments, you don't know what you're talking about.

This is true for projected renewable energy technologies just as much as it is for projected nuclear technologies. A lot of very reputable studies have been conducted in the past few years which project that 100% reliance on renewable sources is feasible. But also, Generation IV nuclear reactor technologies are so much safer, reliable, efficient and easier to maintain, it makes current reactors look like dinosaurs.

The real key to the issue is to NOT stop technology development for irrational reasons, so we have a choice in the future of power supply, and a capacity for meeting our needs. Yes, we should take steps to mitigate risks in our current infrastructure - that's entirely rational. And if it means shutting down aging reactors maybe that's the correct thing to do.

We also have to recognize there's a significant cost and bring-up gap when implementing a new technology, so in the mean time, something has to fill the gap, or we decide to just do without for a while. Or use an otherwise undesirable technology for a limited time. The range of solutions isn't the problem, our will to engage them, or our ignorance and irrationality in not engaging them is the problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It was surreal to hear that the PM at that time was afraid for the safety of the Tokyo region, and believed that a metropolitan area of 30,000,000 people might require a large-scale evacuation.

There's an excellent article on slate.com that covers this in their article much of what you have heard about Fukushima is wrong.

After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns. Obama was briefed on the findings, and pressure for an evacuation abated.

Zichi - I've always advocated a combined use of nuclear and renewables. Still don't understand why you always ignore Onagawa when you say that one of them can be sure they can stand earthquakes and tsunamis...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

How could anyone in their sane mind in the world be pro-nuclear energy?

Because unlike oil/coal based power, it is clean and doesn't ruin the environment if managed properly. There have been three major incidents in 35 years, that have ruined a number of square kilometers in the world. Coal/oil based energy on the other hand has ruined the environment of almost the entire planet. Climate change is a direct result of coal/oil based power, and is a way larger threat to our planet than nuclear energy ever has been or ever will be. Nuclear energy is also much cheaper, and can be used by countries that don't have coal and oil resources.

If the incompetents at Tepco hadn't ignored warnings before the tsunami and had properly built defenses in preparation for such a tsunami, the problems at Fukushima wouldn't have happened, and the discussion in Japan wouldn't be happening. The Fukushima issue is a direct product of human incompetence and ignorance, on reactors built 40 years ago. With 40+ years of additional knowledge, combined with proper oversight, there is no reason why nuclear power cannot be provided safely, giving a clean source of energy that doesn't ruin our planet and kill, like coal and oil do.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Heda_Madness

Zichi - I've always advocated a combined use of nuclear and renewables. Still don't understand why you always ignore Onagawa when you say that one of them can be sure they can stand earthquakes and tsunamis...

Well while I think the country needs to push ahead with renewable energy in the immediate future its not ready to take over from generating power from fossil fuels. Countries across the world, including Japan, are going to go on burning coal because for the power utilities its cheap and available. They should at least be made to build and use advanced thermal plants but anyway, Japan burns much less coal than America, India, China, Britain and Australia. All of those except for Australia also use nuclear energy.

You keep mentioning Onagawa like its some kind of miracle plant. The Tohoku power company built Onagawa at a higher level than the the Fukushima plant and it also increased the height of the sea wall. Until TEPCO, Tohoku power has a much better culture of safety. But that does not mean the Onagawa could withstand a mega earthquake which in the coming decades will become more common has the forces of nature battle it over plate terrority.

Its easy for someone like you to state Japan should restart its reactors when you are living many thousands of miles away, in a country which does not even use nuclear energy and generates much of its power from hydro which you also oppose.

At least two power utilities have stated that they can't be sure their reactors can withstand power earthquakes and then there's the Hamaoka power plant located near the possible epicenter of a mega Nankai Trough mega quake well overdue.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I keep mentioning Onagawa because it did what it was supposed to. In fact it survived an earthquake bigger than it was built for. So yes, I keep mentioning Onagawa.

Its easy for someone like you to state Japan should restart its reactors when you are living many thousands of miles away

I can't believe you are resorting to this. I was also in favour of starting the reactors when I lived in Japan. When I was making regular visits to Fukushima. My locale has changed but nothing else. And to suggest that I support the starting of the reactors because I live far away is pathetic. And I'd expect more of you.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Heda_Madness

My locale has changed but nothing else. And to suggest that I support the starting of the reactors because I live far away is pathetic. And I'd expect more of you.

I don't because I hope the central government will consider what the communities with nuclear reactors want because not all of them support restarting them! and two thirds of the local assemblies oppose that and then the likes of the governor of Niigata. I'm not sure how the central government will act if communities oppose the restarts.

Not all of the nuclear power plants are built like the one at Onagawa so what are you suggesting that its restarted but many of the rest are decommissioned. I also suggest that you watch the NHK documentary on mega quakes which I have linked to in my recent comments. Its about 50 minutes but worth watching.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I am suggesting that Japan uses 21st century technology in both terms of nuclear and renewables. I'm suggesting that Japan moves away from fossil fuels, goes back to the Kyoto agreement and ultimately makes the country safer for it's citizens.

It's interesting that you say that 2/3 of local assemblies oppose them. I know last week you said 80% of Japanese public wanted no nuclear because you misread an NHK poll. I wonder if you've also misread that? 2/3 of Japan's public support Japan having nuclear. Perhaps the assemblies don't understand the needs of the public.

Onagawa was closest to the epicentre of the quake. It survived. Lessons should be learned from it. What did they do right and can that be transferred elsewhere?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Heda_Madness

I am suggesting that Japan uses 21st century technology in both terms of nuclear and renewables. I'm suggesting that Japan moves away from fossil fuels, goes back to the Kyoto agreement and ultimately makes the country safer for it's citizens.

The current fleet of nuclear reactors have ¥40 trillion of electricity profits locked into them before legally requiring decommissioning and I can't really see any of the power utilities just giving those up. There are three new reactors being built but those were started before the 3/11 disaster.

I think there would be major problems with building new atomic power plants with the latest available reactors. The climate scientist, Dr James Hansen has called for the use of 4th generation reactors which commercially are not ready.

There's the enormous cost of building new reactors and in future not many of the power utilities will be willing to spend their own funds and would only happen if public money was used. Britain can no longer afford to build its own new nuclear plants.

The power utilities have spent more than ¥12 trillion updating their current fleet of reactors in the hope of meeting the new safety guidelines.

While a large number of citizens may support restarting the current fleet of reactors there will be major opposition to building any new plants. Even last year in pro nuclear Yamaguchi Prefecture a new plant was cancelled.

Of course, the country like every other one should be trying to move away from using fossil fuels at every level including cars but power utilities are very powerful companies which make political contributions to the central government and they won't easily be forced into doing anything they don't want to. Unfortunately, coal remains cheap and available and all the power companies have stated they will go on using it.

Onagawa was closest to the epicentre of the quake. It survived. Lessons should be learned from it. What did they do right and can that be transferred elsewhere?

yes it was but the strength of the earthquake at local level was about the same as at Fukushima and have already stated that it was built higher and better culture of safety but again, the Onagawa atomic plant with its two reactors is not representative of the atomic plants in the country. There are more plants like Fukushima than Onagawa.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I'll support the restarting of all nuclear power plants in Japan only if TEPCO is dissolved to separate their transmission, generation and services businesses, and those responsible at TEPCO for the playing down of the nuclear disaster are prosecuted. Until then, no.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Again, the lesson's from Onagawa should be learned.

You have stated that it was built higher and better culture of safety... and if they'd built a sea wall that was high enough (and they should have learned from the Indian Ocean Tsunami). And surely you can improve the culture of safety.

Fukushima's problems were caused by the tsunami and poor management. You can remove the poor management (and I wish someone would remove all of TEPCO's management)

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It was fortunate that the Onagawa plant didn't lose its offsite power supply because on the day of 3/11 there were no emergency backup generators. which was the case at most of the atomic plants,

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Fortunate that it did the job it was supposed to?

It was unfortunate that a massive tsunami hit Fukushima, otherwise there wouldn't have been any problems.

So I'm pleased you now agree that Japan's nuclear plants are safe in an earthquake.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

t was unfortunate that a massive tsunami hit Fukushima, otherwise there wouldn't have been any problems.

First, in future the country will start to experience mega quakes which with doubt will also generate massive tsunami. When the Nankai mega quake happens its predicted to kill more than 100,000 people and will cause more than ¥100 trillion of damage.

Second, while the tsunami knocked out the emergency generators, and the earthquake knocked out all offsite power and mains water supply. It also caused cracks in the containment vessels and suppression chambers which are now leaking cooling water into the basements. Without the tsunami the emergency generators would have supplied but not the offsite water and power.

When the Tokyo firemen tried to pump water into the reactors for cooling there was an unknown design flaw on a pump valve which meant the water instead of going to the reactor was diverted into the isolation condenser. The plant manager thought cooling water was getting into the reactors when it wasn't. So even if there were no tsunami there still could have been reactor meltdowns.

The No2 Fukushima plant came within 60 minutes of having its own meltdowns.

The NRA are making their reactor safety inspections but 30 out of the fleet of 48 will fail leaving about 16 which might be safe to restart provided they are not on active fault lines or like Hamaoka, near to the Nankai Trough.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Heda_Madness

are you talking with me? If so, I don't known what ya smoking but I'm not retracting anything about the Fukushima plant which was badly damaged by the earthquake and further damaged by the earthquake created tsunami.

The No1 site lost all offsite power and water. Cracks in the containment and suppression chambers, damage to the isolation condensers, major structural damage to important building. Cooling pool cranes damaged. Extensive damage to the No3 reactor which I've previously posted about. Important valves and vents not working.

Unfortunately because of the damage caused by the tsunami it not been possible to fully investigate the earthquake damage especially inside the reactor buildings.

We are now going around in circles so post away, I'm done with you!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is an abundance of geothermal power sources. It is estimated that the country should be able to generate as much as 23 million kilowatts of energy, the third largest in the world after the United States and Indonesia.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Fortunate that it did the job it was supposed to?

It isn't really about being lucky this time. It's about what may happen when we are unlucky once.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Following the hydrogen explosions and the meltdowns releasing massive amounts of radiation the country got lucky because the wind was blowing out to sea, but had the wing been blowing south it could have created a worse story with the mass evacuation of more than 30 million people from Tokyo and the surrounding area, which the PM Kan gov't were considering and trying to prepare to do just that.

The reactors went into shutdown at the time of the earthquake but the containment vessels failed in holding the radiation and venting the hydrogen without causing the extensive explosions. The cooling systems for the reactors failed.

The No4 spent fuel pool almost collapsed which would have created a very difficult disaster which would have meant the site being abandoned and unable to achieve anything because the radiation would have been measure in many sieverts per hour.

There were numerous failures at the Fukushima nuclear disaster site and TEPCO continues to cause major accidents almost daily.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There were massive failures at the No1 Fukushima plant which why the country is now dealing with a LEVEL 7 nuclear disaster which will take many decades and into the next century to fix and will cost more than ¥50.

TEPCO, stated Dec.2013, it is highly likely that coolant water injected by fire trucks immediately after the accident on March 11, 2011 did not fully reach reactor cores where meltdowns occurred.

TEPCO, has been looking into developments at the plant in the early days of the disaster, said it has confirmed that water supplied by fire trucks flowed into pipes not leading to cores at the Nos. 1 to 3 reactors.

The utility said the amount of coolant water provided by fire trucks as an emergency measure was several times the amount needed to cool reactor cores, but part of the water was unexpectedly diverted to pipes not connected to the cores.

The company also said workers could not operate valves to keep coolant water from flowing into unintended pipes due to high dose of radiation at the plant.

TEPCO said if the prepared water was fully injected from fire trucks into reactor cores, it could at least have slowed melting of the fuel.

The company examined water flow in the pipes as it unexpectedly confirmed the existence of a considerable amount of water at a steam condenser at the No. 2 reactor in late March 2011.

The utility also said it is possible that the amount of coolant water injected into the core of the No. 3 reactor had fallen before workers manually stopped a high pressure coolant injection system.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident/

Japan is moving into an new era of mega quakes which most of the current fleet of nuclear reactors are not built to withstand.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Onagawa survived because it was supposed to. It wasn't luck.

Tokyo wasn't going to be evacuated. Even in a worst case scenario.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Good, I'm pleased you are inspired.

President Obama's top science advisers turned to Livermore to determine the extent of the peril to the Japanese archipelago. After days of high-intensity analysis and numerous computer runs, the scientists concluded that radiation in Tokyo would come nowhere close to levels requiring an evacuation, even in the event that Fukushima Dai-ichi underwent the worst plausible meltdown combined with extremely unfavorable wind and weather patterns. Obama was briefed on the findings, and pressure for an evacuation abated.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/fukushima_disaster_new_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html

I'm pretty sure if Obama knew we wouldn't need to be evacuated that he may have mentioned it to Kan. I know it's just a hunch but still...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

But Obama's confidence didn't go has far as the US military with families being sent back to Stateside and all ships putting out to sea.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I guess you didn't read the article? Try it

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

people can protest all they want, but nuclear power coming back online is crucial for Japans economic recovery? Or is the trade deficit and inflation from importing fuel a good sign of things to come? Wage increases?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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