Gov't leans toward zero nuclear stance, but caution remains

zichiSep. 05, 2012 - 08:41AM JST

The manmade LEVEL 7 nuclear disaster wasn't created by the people.

It was created by an unexpected earthquake and tsunami.

The worse case PR nightmare for nuclear energy was created by the power companies and the lack of safety standards and proper supervision by over 4 decades of LDP gov't's.

True.

The power companies and the gov't's had 4 decades to get it right, but failed the country and failed the people.

Please, don't forget the bureaucrats - the roots of all evil (so it seems) in Japan.

Couple with the fact, that the country survived the hot summer time peak power demand without a single day without a single blackout.

And if the overused fossil fuel plants in the Kansai area had been run without breaks for maintenance over the summer blackouts would have been likely.

And if we had faced a record summer, like 2010, or worse (which will come eventually) massive blackouts would have been likely.

This makes many question the need for the future use of nuclear energy.

And many people are misinformed by those who produce their own facts and do not consider possible problems with the policies they promote, and a media willing, as in the old days, to blindly accept opinion from 'experts' without question.

zichiSep. 05, 2012 - 01:16AM JST

"And the energy sources providing the squeeze: Gas - fossil fuel & greenhouse gas emitter, Wind - has scalability and intermittency problems."

When someone important like the CEO of General Electric says what he did, you need to pay attention and not just dismiss in your usual fashion because power companies will listen to him and base their decisions on that.

I've my qualifications too - and they are more pertinent to the world of physics and engineering than management. The problems I stated cannot be wished away by an appeal to authority, in this case the CEO of GE.

Also, have you considered that as GE's Nuclear business is actually a joint venture with Hitatchi, their bottom line might have been hit because their sure-fire work in Japan has been hit badly?

Nuclear energy was never about providing clean energy but about making huge profits for power companies. If that changes, the power companies will move on to other fuels or energies.

Really? It's surprising that GE-Hitatchi are having problems with the power companies of the world eager for huge profits...

Heda_MadnessSep. 05, 2012 - 06:53AM JST

And it's well known that thyroid cancer is 100% treatable if caught at an early age.

Not just children. Stage 1 thyroid cancer is pretty much curable for anyone not old enough to die from a cold. Stage 2 is likewise 99.9% curable, and Stage 3 is above 80%. Stage 4 is the only significantly dangerous stage, but by then it's not just thyroid cancer. Due to screening of at-risk individuals, we can assume that at most it's going to be Stage 2 cancer, and thus nearly 100% treatable.

Which DOES not downplay any risk to the children.

Also... none of the international data has suggested there will be any danger to those living in the area.

There are actually several dangers, but all of them unrelated to radiation. There's a fairly large risk of malnutrition and lack of exercise due to avoiding foods and going outside, bullying, stress from parents, etc. While the kids themselves are probably fine on their own, assuming they are told the dangers of certain things, the parents are likely to overreact and cause serious harm.

Heda_MadnessSep. 05, 2012 - 07:10AM JST

But as you know, the wonderful thing about burning fossil fuels means that it doesn’t matter if you choose to live next to a power station or not, you can still be fatally effected by it. The proximity to the plant doesn’t matter.

Proximity DOES matter even for fossil fuels, as particulates, mercury, dioxins, and other known, studied, and verified beyond a reasonable doubt cause cancer almost linearly to exposure (unlike radiation, which is NOT known to cause cancer at the low rates from the Fukushima incident). The part that the government and its fossil fuel lobbyists don't seem to care about is that these fossil fuel plants are located in residential areas and even large cities. The fallout from those plants affects much larger populations, so even if the same 0.15% cancer rate increase (or a tenth of it, though statistical analysis tells us it is ten times more) is present, we would have tens of thousands affected. Even greenpeace notes that between fossil fuels and nuclear, nuclear is the clear winner. And they are the ones that prevented the Fukushima spent fuel rods from being shipped to France and made everything much worse in the first place.

Japan can lean as much as they want to 0%, but the government must remember that that 0% represents a very steep and long fall. Hopefully the ropes of reason will pull them back from the false ideology pitfall.

Heda_Madness and zichi, please do not address each other any further on this thread, since neither of you is willing to be tolerant of opposing views.

Readers, please stop bickering. Focus your comments on the story, not at each other.

World figures don’t give an accurate reading? So presumably those same world figures that include the worst case scenario from Fukushima wouldn’t give an accurate reading.

But as you know, the wonderful thing about burning fossil fuels means that it doesn’t matter if you choose to live next to a power station or not, you can still be fatally effected by it. The proximity to the plant doesn’t matter.

And you don’t need to lecture me on how many people were effected in Fukushima. You forget that I’ve been there a dozen or so times and helped many of the displaced people.

So just to confirm that the first nuclear power plant was built as a direct result of air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels is not relevant to your claim that nuclear power plants were built only for power companies to make profit. And at no point could it be seen that something that happens in a foreign country is relevant to your point.

And despite that, the fact that fossil fuels are more deadly than nuclear (statistical data available everywhere) is actually a fortunate benefit and not a reason why it was built. Human safety was never included in the thought process.

And it's well known that thyroid cancer is 100% treatable if caught at an early age.

Which DOES not downplay any risk to the children.

Also... none of the international data has suggested there will be any danger to those living in the area.

Yes my power comes from a number of sources. Am I happy about it? No, I'm not. Would I prefer to reduce the number of fossil fuels used for power - absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that coal/oil/gas fired power stations kill more people than nuclear. And to have a stance that promotes them over nuclear is neither environmentally friendly nor factually correct.

Heda_Madness Sep. 05, 2012 - 06:38AM JST. Simple question. How many people have died as a result of Fukushima (you can include your 100 people who died during the evacuation as well though I’m sure it could be argued that they were the weak and frail and would likely have died soon anyway). And then compare it to those that have died as a direct result of fossil fuels (statistical data is available).

Here is the problem. More than one-third of the children living near Fukushima plant have lumps or cysts, but this is not the same as cancer. J-goverment do not know that cause of this, but it might be the effects of radiation. This is an early test and we will only see the effects of radiation exposure afte five to ten years. It's well-known that radiation releases can have a particularly adverse effect on the human thyroid. Thyroid cells that absorb too much of this radioactive iodine may become cancerous.

You’ve been an environmentalist for 40 years but advocate the use of fossil fuels.

Being anti-nuclear is not the same as being an environmentalist. If you truly were then as well as the direct health impacts of fossil fuels you would be aware of the environmental impact as well. Global Warming anyone?

Zichi.

Simple question. How many people have died as a result of Fukushima (you can include your 100 people who died during the evacuation as well though I’m sure it could be argued that they were the weak and frail and would likely have died soon anyway). And then compare it to those that have died as a direct result of fossil fuels (statistical data is available).

It wasn’t a personal insult it’s that you don’t seem to be aware that the first nuclear power station designed for the use of electric power started being built in 1953. 12 months after the great London smog claimed thousands of lives. There’s a bit of an obvious link there, and it doesn’t involve profits.

but you promote fossil fuels which kill more globally than nuclear. Substantially more. You claim that nuclear was only about profit yet you clearly haven't researched the reasons behind nuclear power.

you can't say nuclear is dangerous and advocate fossil fuels as a safer alternative because it's not. never has been, never will be. Phasing out nuclear plants may be good thing but increasing fossil fuels and thereby killing thousands of more people every year till you get to a point where you can cover the shortfall is ridiculous.

and has I stated in another comment, Japan could reduce its CO2 by 25% by 2030 even without nuclear energy.

by 35% with nuclear (same article). But I do find it very interesting that you're highlighting the CO2 issue given that Japan has increased it's CO2 output for energy as a result of turning off the nuclear power plants and you not only support this but you promote it as the safe option.

zichiSep. 04, 2012 - 10:58PM JST

Nuclear power is so expensive compared with other forms of energy that it has become “really hard” to justify, according to the chief executive of General Electric, one of the world’s largest suppliers of atomic equipment.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60189878-d982-11e1-8529-00144feab49a.html#axzz25VdZY82U

And the energy sources providing the squeeze: Gas - fossil fuel & greenhouse gas emitter, Wind - has scalability and intermittency problems.

zichiSep. 04, 2012 - 10:29PM JST

and has I stated in another comment, Japan could reduce its CO2 by 25% by 2030 even without nuclear energy.

So it gives up nuclear energy, which until recently produced around 30% of Japan's electricity carbon-free, and still Japan can clip 25% off the 70-odd percent of carbon-produced electricity? Even if it is true - much better to get even lower in the carbon-stakes by combining nuclear and renewables.

marcelitoSep. 04, 2012 - 10:31PM JST

At least with the " green energy " power plants the dangers to surrounding population in the event of another " accident " would be negligible as opposed to the nuclear ones. I sure would much prefer to be near a green power plant when another " unpredictable " accident happens,,and not a Nuclear one ( as I was to Dai ichi last March ).

I would prefer to be near a nuclear plant rather than a hydro plant.

Btw, I would guess Star- viking and basroil that both of you gentlemen with such strong pro- nuclear opinions were a comfortable distance from Fukushima last March, correct?

That depends on what you define as a comfortable difference - I was about 100km north north west of Fukushima Dai-ichi. You?

zichiSep. 04, 2012 - 01:27AM JST

The political and social fallout from the nuclear disaster will last for decades.

The atmospheric, climatic, social, political, medical, economic fallout from the greenhouse gas disaster will last for millennia - at least.

zichiSep. 04, 2012 - 12:52AM JST

If the greenhouse gases are calculated per capita, Japan would much lower than 4th. It's impossible for a single country like Japan to resolve the problem unless the big three are also willing to get on board. America, India and China. All three refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

So? From a liability perspective Japan is responsible for Japan's emissions - per capita or not.

As for the top poluters per capita, in 2005 they were...

Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Luxembourg and Australia.

Let's not do anything until they change their policies eh?

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

zichiSep. 04, 2012 - 12:34AM JST

American companies have stated they can supply all the gas the country needs and at a price $3-$5 lower than currently being paid. Nuclear power plants can only be built with massive subsidies and grants.

Tidal Plants, Hydro Plants, Solar Plants...etc. can only be built with massive subsidies and grants.

Zichi

Star-Viking

"Japan in 2008 emitted 4% of the world's greenhouse gasses, so we're talking about a fair percentage of almost 1 trillion yen per year."

¥1 trillion is very different than the ¥24 trillion you first quoted. Fossil fuel power plants are not the only source of CO2 and greenhouse gases.

Yes it is different - it is 4% of ¥24 trillion, Japan's share of the climate change damage. I addressed the fact that fossil fuel power plants are not the only emitters with "a fair percentage" above.

In the news this morning, the Finance Ministry discussed findings from reports of the major power companies including TEPCO and KEPCO, and projected that electricity costs would DOUBLE with the 0% option, to 36 trillion yen from the expected 16 trillion yen. That would represent a direct economic loss to the country of over 10% GDP. That is more than education and infrastructure spending combined.

globalwatcherSep. 04, 2012 - 04:34AM JST

Is this all about money? I do not think so. Listen to a majority of people of Japan. They are wiling to pay r more for utility while business sector is resisting for change.

In the end, it is about money. Just look at the residential use hypocrites that attack TEPCO's price increases, they are NOT willing to pay more regardless of their anti-nuclear stance. Businesses from the get go have understood that there is much more harm in going the 0% option, as their businesses have already been hurt this year, and the lower living conditions become the worse health becomes, both resulting in excess deaths and higher costs to businesses that pay most of the taxes in Japan. Considering many businesses have to deal with much higher labor costs, taking away the energy advantage is the same as telling those businesses to pack up and go elsewhere.

A majority of Japanese want SAFETY first.

A vast majority of Japanese people also want all immigrants shipped off the country, to revert Japan to the 1970s, and Japan to go to war if needed for three sets of less than useful rocks. Not only are they not going to get it, but they must not if they wish to survive. They fail to understand that even with all the false information they receive, Fukushima will never kill more than 1000 people even in the highest estimates. When you compare that to just the production from Fukushima (878TWh), you end up with 1.14 deaths per TWh, which is far less than even LNG (4 deaths per TWh). Compared to total nuclear production of Japan, you have less than 0.17 deaths (including the previously mentioned 0.04deaths) per TWh. This is actually about the same as wind energy, lower than solar, and far lower than the fossil fuels that HAVE replaced nuclear. In fact, the 25% generation capacity that had to be replaced with fossil fuels will kill a minimum of 1000 per year (assuming all LNG, 250TWh replaced), and above 3000 deaths if you take into account the use of "clean coal" and oil. Clearly people aren't thinking about safety, because they simply don't understand what safety really is, and never stop to consider the safety factors of other energy systems.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html <very good read to get a rough estimate of the true costs of safety

Great info, Zichi. I prefer reading Japan side topics than US side.There is a big difference between the two. Info on Japan side is more filled with facts.

nuclear power will boost electricity rates and force companies to move production - and jobs - overseas

But some economists say a policy shift would spell opportunities for growth, both for companies now positioning themselves to profit from the change and the economy overall.

A majority of people are eager to get rid of nuclear power

Is this all about money? I do not think so. Listen to a majority of people of Japan. They are wiling to pay r more for utility while business sector is resisting for change.

A majority of Japanese want SAFETY first. There are always someone, in this case business, who refuse to change.

Regardless of what people assume is possible due to propaganda by politicians wishing to be re-elected, the simple matter is that is is entirely impossible from an engineering and financial stance. The ministry of finance has already released a preliminary report that the BEST case scenario for 0% option is a -7% growth rate, which would leave Japan with just 50% of it's GDP and almost ten times debt/GDP ratio which is almost financially impossible even with almost 100% internal debt. Japan will be bankrupted within 20 years with the 0% option. With 15%, we would see about 1% growth rate which is lower than most developed countries, and only with 25% option will they have a normal (for Japan) growth rate. Each percent of energy Japan must replace with fossil fuels is a minimum of 10 billion yen in financial losses, and if advanced systems are discussed it can be as much as 100 billion yen per percent (1%~10TWh, nuclear 5-8 yen/kWh, fossil fuels 9-15yen/kWh) in direct losses due to fuel costs, but as much as a hundred times that in secondary losses in everything from decreased spending to increased healthcare costs. For "non-polluting" alternatives it is less of an increase in healthcare costs but far higher direct and secondary losses in total.

From an engineering standpoint, it becomes even more counter-intuitive, as the supposedly green energies are far more polluting and actually take in more power than they produce in a year. The fossil fuel plants are very dangerous from an engineering prospective, and not much cheaper to build TWh per TWh than nuclear. Every percent replaced with fossil fuels will at minimum kill as many people per year as Fukushima is expected to in 70 years. And that is just assuming that we are talking about LNG, which is the safest of the three main types, yet not the largest source of energy in post Fukushima Japan (currently oil leads the pack, followed by coal). Of course, the engineering aspect doesn't include loss of life or health due to decreased living conditions as a result of the negative growth rate, which could easily be far greater than anything else.

Many people tout solar, which has enjoyed a 50% tax reduction benefit for decades, on top of the now obsurdly high FIT rates that are several times more than break even price of solar (i.e. you make a huge profit rather than just enough profit to spur improvements). However, Japan simply cannot make the panels in-house in quantities needed, mainly due to a lack of resources not used for far more profitable purposes, and ironically enough, electricity in the form of three year's worth of production per panel (an average 100W panel needed about 100-200KWh worth of energy, so if you want to make 1GW worth of panels, it would be about 2TWh of energy). As mentioned earlier, the best case scenario for solar by 2030 is just 20GW nameplate capacity, which in the real world will supply just 16 GW peak, and only 16TWh annually. 16TWh represents just 1.6% of Japan's electrical needs of 2009, let alone it's need at 2030 which will likely be above 1200TWh if trends continue. So while solar can be a part of supply, it can never be substantial. Wind is similarly limited by engineering possible in the next half century (without some external finance and massive increase in CO2).

The lawmakers should be very cautious about 0% nonsense, as it will destroy the nation and it's people. They can discuss replacing reactors when there can be rational discussion as well as viable alternatives. Neither is possible in the immediate future, but perhaps in a decade or two people can sit and actually weigh their alternatives, assuming they haven't bankrupted the country by then.

Zichi,

Japan in 2008 emitted 4% of the world's greenhouse gasses, so we're talking about a fair percentage of almost 1 trillion yen per year.

You seem determined to ignore any facts that divert the focus from nuclear energy.

Zichi, the cost comes from the article I linked to, converted to Japanese Yen.

Subsidies are widespread in China, India and other countries. Reference: http://www.earthtrack.net/files/uploaded_files/OCI.ET_.G20FF.FINAL_.pdf

As fot the FIT's - a subsidy is a subsidy.

Zichi

If all gov't subsidies were stopped and the nuclear disaster liability increased from the current level of ¥120 billion to ¥1 trillion, which is still very small compared with the eventual cost of the nuclear disaster, how many Japanese power companies would still be willing to build new atomic plants?

If all government subsidies were stopped for fossil fuels, and the disaster liability was increased from the current level of zero to their percentage of the 24 trillion per year cost of climate change, how many power companies would be willing to build fossil fuel plants? Ref: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/annual-cost-of-climate-change-will-be-163190bn-1778391.html

Thomas AndersonSep. 03, 2012 - 10:47AM JST

In Japan renewable energy has already been doubling every 2 years even before Fukushima. In 2009 Japan had 2,627 MW of renewable electricity, in 2011 that nearly doubled to 4,914 MW.

By the end of 2012 we are expected to have more than 7,000 MW of renewable electricity. In 2 years that will double to 14 GW of electricity, and so on.

Any references to those figure Thomas?

Which new plants in Japan are you referring to?

I don't believe I was referring to plants in Japan in that... oh wait... I get it you're being sarcastic. What a clever fellow you are.

No Zichi my statement would be in reference to the 42 reactors under construction in other parts of Asia mainly South Korea (9), India (7) and China (26). Seems these countries have decided that GEN III plants are the best answer to their swiftly expanding power needs. A quarter of a million children between the ages of 1 and 5 die in India every year from cooking smoke because they don't have electricity. The Indian gov't has decided to go with new nuclear technology now rather than wait on the possibility of solar and wind generated power, not to mention the even larger threat of global warming and the harm being done by burning fossil fuels to generate energy. Nuclear energy has zero carbon output. Let me ask you Zichi, if China and India's present power needs could be met by wind and solar why would they bother with nuclear?

Any serious discussion of future energy production in Japan needs to consider modern nuclear power generation. Whether this culture and can come to terms with the oversight and regulation involved remains to be seen. But like it's Asian neighbors, Japan will have some percentage nuclear power in it's overall future energy picture.

What do you know about GEN IV reactors Zichi? Did you know they can run on nuclear waste? Did you know they have passive safety features where the reactor will shut itself down in an emergency? Modern reactors can not run out of control like the one in Chernobyl because water has the dual role of coolant and moderator. My original comment was in reference to the statement that technology is not static. That includes nuclear technology.

Doing fine = increasing the use of fossil fuels which we KNOW kills tens of thousands a year globally.

Not to mention Japan's expanding trade deficit and the much bigger problem of climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels. Wind and solar will not provide the gigawatts necessary for an industrial nation. Not yet anyway.

"because it takes a static view of technology. Why would technology stop in its tracks?"

good point, along those lines nuclear technology has also been moving forward. Fukushima was a forty year old plant, technology and safety in new plants are light years better.

1) Except for the Oi reactors there are no reactors running in Japan and we're doing fine.

Doing fine = increasing the use of fossil fuels which we KNOW kills tens of thousands a year globally. Genius.

What is little discussed in the endless politics of unlimited economic growth, is the obvious option of reducing energy usage. This and efficiency measures (many using existing technology) could quickly cover the loss of nuclear energy and beyond. All societies will eventually have to move to a different type of economy using a different valuation model as the planet cannot sustain rampant capitalism with compound growth. Entrenched interests will fight this drone and nail, but it will happen either peacefully and through egalitarian means or will be a violent and inequitable process. The haves are already hoarding and arming themselves as they expect the latter. The challenge, if we are to avoid heavy bloodshed, is how and when to shift and societies that get ahead of the curve will be the ones most of us would choose to live in.

Wake me when an actual decision is made.

The government needs to create whatever incentives necessary to allow citizens to get solar panels cheaply, and swing Japanese R&D industry to create/deploy either spray on or window solar panels:

e.g. http://www.pcworld.com/article/241152/3m_film_turns_windows_into_transparent_solar_panels.html

Japan's difficulty is that people live in apartments and can't put up an array of solar panels on their mansions. In Australia and the US, a 1/4 acre block household with solar panels - if power is conserved - can end up with a quarterly power bill in credit. That's great if you have a house in Japan.... but an unlikely scenario for the bulk of the city dwelling population.

In Japan renewable energy has already been doubling every 2 years even before Fukushima. In 2009 Japan had 2,627 MW of renewable electricity, in 2011 that nearly doubled to 4,914 MW.

By the end of 2012 we are expected to have more than 7,000 MW of renewable electricity. In 2 years that will double to 14 GW of electricity, and so on.

So in just 4 years, we will have 20 GW of renewable electricity, equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors. Incredible... Considering it takes a decade to even just build a single nuclear reactor.

Wait, make that 2016, not 2030...

Don't forget that the vast majority of the LDP politicians favour a "greater than 25%" option. Of course, this has nothing to do with contributions they receive from electricity companies.

1) Except for the Oi reactors there are no reactors running in Japan and we're doing fine.

2) Japan has added 0.5 GW of renewable electricity within a month since the FIT started. Japan may add up to 20 GW of renewable electricity by 2030 (equivalent of 20 nuclear reactors).

all the sources = all the sides

I am not supporting NUCLEAR power, I don't say "we need nuclear reactors." However, getting rid of something as necessary as electricity source BEFORE finding a substitute seems just plain stupid. It's easy to get rid of the reactors, but are they already making sure there will be enough electricity that will not cost half of a monthly salary? If not, then all the sources are just playing election games and making the population suffer.