Japan Today
picture of the day

Reactors to keep operating


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

© Kyodo

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Let's be among the first to realize a nuclear free country and to make a shift to renewable energy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Power that's too cheap to meter. Completely safe. A big earthquake and tsunami in Japan? Never happen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Green energy please!!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

others, perhaps supporting other types of energy appear with - feet together outside though it is a bright day for the Daiichi . . . tremble.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Renewable do not have a chance to fill the requirement for electric demand in the future. We need definitely nuclear.

In 2045 the Swedish requirement according to Danish research will be 500 TWh. Wind power have been built for €20 bln and resulted in 17 TWh which means that we need 26 times as much wind power to cover the requirement besides of water power and no nuclear.

The video "planet of the humans" has found out that renewable do require a huge demand of raw material and do have short life lengths and do destroy huge land areas and the operator just leave the area as restoring of nature depends on area owner.

In ten years we built nuclear resulting in 75 TWh output.

In cold weather the installed wind power of 10 000 MW just delivered 1 300 MW. Oh oh was the opinion. But why The Swedish Power Net have in many year informed that the nominal output in summer is 6 percent and in winter 11 percent. That is still 200 MW output less than expected.

For Sweden the amount of 2 MW wind power plants are therefore 91 000. But the main reason is that the yearly demand is 4 550 plants as effect of the low life length. In several years the erection of wind power have resulted in 3 500 plants for €20 bln. .

The waste from wind power is 50 percent higher than the nuclear waste if we calculate 300 wind power plants will give 9 000 m^3 waste while the total acumulated waste from nuclear are 6 000 m^3.

This is waste that never will be environmentally friendly and the epoxi exposures are strongly cancer activating,

In total 41 persons have been killed in nuclear accidents mainly Tjernobyl where the actual radiation is 800 mSv where still 200 persons live within restricted area. The worst radiation in Fukushima is yeardoses of 120 mSv which means one percent higher risk for lungcancer. A university in Ukraine have developed a unit for measuring the accumulated radiation an astronaut will be exposed for 350 mSv which according to the University increase the risk for lungcancer with three percent.

Norwegian Nuclear workers where evacuated with special chartred air transport to Norway as effect of the accident pity they landed in higher background radiation in Norway and Norway have had quite less deaths in Corona than Sweden. In India highly populated areas do have 200 mSv in background radiation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )


Well said, your comment should be the post of the day. thank you sir.

If renewables was the magic answer some you believe, I would have supported it a long time ago.


Yes correct only 9 right now, slowly more are being turn back online.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

don't these people have jobs? Oh, wait...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )


Of cource each country desides which energy sources they want to use.

In Sweden about 70 percent will either keep the nuclear or built new plants.

It´s a question of information. Michael Shellenberger an environmentalist was going from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear as effect of deeper studying in the matter. The same for Gunnar Littmarck former Greenpeace -leader have done equivalent transition.

A lot of things is radioactive and the life itself. Four persons generate more radioactivity than the Harrisburg. A nuclear engineerer measured the radioactivity within a nuclear plant without detecting anything in most of the places but onboard an aeroplane he detected continuesly radioactive exposure.

In Sweden if we do have a demand of 500 TWh we have no possibility to build that amount of wind power and the wind power is a costly way to fulfilled the demand.

Take for instance the sun power. The raw material demand and short lifelength do mean that you can burn fossil fuels instead. We have been told a completely lie.

If you don´t got any CO2 reduction out of using renewables than that is an ineffective way to protect for climate change and the prior everyone got the message the better. The common people have to be deeply eduacated in the matter.

To build nuclear in any form is quite more effective than to build renewable and the complete electrification of our society will improve the health by better airquality, less noice etc. so defenitely I prefer that.

A coal power plant during normal operation exhaust more radioactivity than Harrisburg after the accident. Do you prefer coal power? I don´t.

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