politics

Hosokawa challenges Abe's energy policy as Tokyo governor race begins

44 Comments
By Kiyoshi Takenaka and Linda Sieg

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments
Login to comment

He should come out here to Chiba and smell the air now that all the fossil-fuel power plants have been turned back on after 3-11 to supply power for energy hungry Tokyo. Fossil fuel power plants that were all phased out over the last 20 years to ease pollution. Nuclear energy isn't safe, but burning coal and natural gas is not the right alternative.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

come out here to Chiba and smell the air

That's the smell of money, son! Breathe deep!

People seem to have forgotten that Koizumi sold off the national oil company back in 2003. All that extra oil that Japan is using is a massive profit for the oil companies. Profit that will disappear quickly if Japan reverts to nuclear.

Solar and wind don't matter - even an aggressive plan to put windmills on every street corner would take decades before oil, gas and coal profits start to hurt. Nuclear is an immediate threat to profits.

The Tokyo government has absolutely no power to determine whether or not nuclear power plants in the rest of Japan are online or off. But the Tokyo governor tends to play a large role in swaying national public opinion. Enter Koizumi, no longer on the national payroll and thus free from nasty questions about his personal finances and a lame duck former PM who had no problems taking bribes to keep the oil flowing.

And despite all this, people will support them - simply because they said the magic words: "No Nukes!".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Sorry guys you've got it wrong. Nuclear is dangerous and coal, oil and gas are the future. And claims that 2013 was the 4th warmest since records began and the recent storms are not at all connected with global warming and fossil fuels. And claims that tens of thousands die each year because of fossil fuels is purely propaganda from the nuclear industry.

Nuclear is evil. And nothing will change people's minds. Especially science. And facts.

/sarcasm off

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Nice to hear all the N-power supporters banging on about "smelling the air " and facing "scientific " facts from the safety of their armchairs. No doubt you are a safe distance from any N-power sitting near a seismic faultline. As someone who lives within a 30 km evacuation zone near a N power plant in an earthquake prone area I say - Go Hosokawa / Koizumi . No N power plants on an earthquake prone Japan - renewables need all the govt. support and incentives that N-power got over the years. Get to it.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

i honestly don't think japan can survive w/o some type of nuclear energy. fossil fuels are a finite source while solar, wind and hydro power are extremely inefficient sources or energy. it's wishful, and a bit hysterical, thinking that japan should eliminate all nuclear plants.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

it does not matter, Hosokawa is the better choice when the opposite is an extremist nationalist

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The fun begins. Hope he wins before Japan becomes a totalitarian state under shinzo abe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nice to hear all the N-power supporters banging on about "smelling the air " and facing "scientific " facts from the safety of their armchairs. No doubt you are a safe distance from any N-power sitting near a seismic faultline. As someone who lives within a 30 km evacuation zone near a N power plant in an earthquake prone area I say - Go Hosokawa / Koizumi . No N power plants on an earthquake prone Japan - renewables need all the govt. support and incentives that N-power got over the years. Get to it.

And there's the head in the sand approach.

You think smelly air isn't bad? Check out the number of people that die each year because of the burning of fossil fuels (in 1953 more people died in a week in London than died from Chernobyl). And yes, we're not in the 1950s and the way that fossil fuels is burned has changed but it's still one of the biggest killers on the planet. And we're also not in the 50s when it comes to nuclear power.

And the scientific facts are available if you bothered to look for them.

And yes, Japan should be looking at improving it's renewable fuel - without a doubt.

But read what the climate scientists say. But oh yeah, they're paid by TEPCO aren't they...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Very well said Alex. We don't need another one of those guys in office or Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Given Japan's history of powerful earthquakes and tsunami.

Given that the country is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire and sits on three Tectonic plates.

Given that the nuclear village have a history of the lack of safety at its nuclear plants.

Given the nuclear village were unable to build atomic plants to withstand powerful earthquakes and tsunami.

Given that the country has after many decades been unable to resolve the problem of safe storage of the spent nuclear fuel, for thousands of years, and the safe storage of weapons grade plutonium for tens of thousands of years.

Given that the nuclear village has received billions and billions of gov't subsidies, and the cost of the nuclear disaster will eventually cosy more than ¥50 trillion.

Given that the majority of the population oppose the use of nuclear energy.

The country needs to end its use of nuclear energy and find other ways to generate power.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Coal Gas Oil.

That's the present. And the future.

It really is the only option isn't it? And we, as a society, should accept the thousands of deaths each year, and the untold damage done to the environment.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@heda madness "You think smelly air isn't bad? Check out the number of people that die each year because of the burning of fossil fuels (in 1953 more people died in a week in London than died from Chernobyl). "

As you said this is not 1953 - how many died in London from burning fossil fuels last year? Dont care much about your 1953 arguments...and anyhow I,m not saying that nuclear is dirtier than fossil fuels, what I,m saying is that nuclear is dangerous in Japan beacuse of the country being located on the Ring of Fire....you do get that, right?

All the pro nuke arguments are fine in countries that do not suffer periodic earthquake and tsunami on the scale that Japan does. Those Tectonic plates under these islands change the arguments completely.

You say "we're also not in the 50s when it comes to nuclear power" - indeed , but Fukushima happened in 2011 didnt it? Its all nice and dandy until another "unpredictable " and "unimaginable " natural event occurs and the "moushiwake ariamasen" bows come out...then its too late. No doubt some will say that chances of another similar event are too remote but hey, wonder what the Fukushima evacuee folks that will spend the rest of their lives rotting away in their "emergency housing " would say to that.

Once again - given your convictions , can I ask how far away from a N-power plant located in an earthquake zone are you living?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Heda_Madness

Coal Gas Oil. That's the present. And the future.

We are discussing the situation in Japan, not across the world but we all know about your pet hates, so across the world, the majority of people don't even have electricity, however it might be generated, But there again, the majority of the world's population don't have running water or flushing toilets.

The current number of nuclear reactor would have to be increased from the current 450 or so, to about 15,000 to equal the amount of power currently generated. Many many more if everyone had electricity.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Zichi - since they turned off the nuclear power plants how has Japan made up the shortfall of energy?

Coal...gas... oil

Marcelito

In answer to your question, I honestly don't know. But globally 2 million people die each year from air pollution. Now that obviously includes car emissions, so it's not all from fossil fuels. But I think it's fair to say that fossil fuels, globally, kills more than nuclear.

In the past 50 years Japan has had one major nuclear accident. How many people do you think would have died had Japan not adopted nuclear and continued with the coal/gas/oil option that Zichi and others advocate?

Nuclear has a risk. But the benefits are far outweighed by the risks. Potential deaths v Guaranteed deaths should win every time.

I don't live within 30 km of a nuclear power plant. I did when I was studying Environmental Geography and the effects of Chernobyl. My guess is the world's experts don't live within 30km from nuclear power plants either and I would also guess that that doesn't negate their opinions.

By forcing Japan to move away from nuclear you are guaranteeing that people will die. Not to mention increasing the number of people who have asthma and other bronchial problems.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

`Heda_Madness

How can power be provided to all the 7 billion people of the world? Can that be achieved by using nuclear energy. no because it would require building an impossible number of reactors at an impossible cost?

Even before the nuclear disaster, nuclear energy only supplied about 30% of total power. Much of the rest, at least 60% was being generated by fossil fuels.

Prior to the nuclear disaster I, and hundreds of millions of others had wrongly assumed the Japanese nuclear village had built their atomic reactors with safety features very much in the forefront of operations, only to discover all the power utilities had failed to build and provide safe plants, and instead put profits before safety issues.

But we have learnt that the situation isn't only limited to this country and in South Korea there have also been major issues over companies using fake parts for their atomic reactors.

You don't address any of the issues of storing spent nuclear fuel but especially the 45 tons of weapons grade plutonium, enough for 5,000 atomic war heads more than 100 times more powerful than those dropped on the country?

The previous gov't's and the current one have supported the new nuclear safety agency, the NRA who have begun the mammoth task of investigating the safety standards of all the country's reactors, which not counting those in Fukushima, number about 44. Some of those have already failed the stress tests, while other are coming to the end of their life cycles and not worthy of the capital cost of updating the safety standards.

The NRA must also decide if some plants like the TEPCO one in Niigata are on active fault lines. The NRA have been saying for some time, even after all the inspections are complete, which could take several years, there won't be a return to the situation prior to the nuclear disaster of 54 reactors with at least 38 in operation, and its unlikely, in future, more than 15 reactors will be allowed to operate.

Before the nuclear disaster, Tokyo was being serviced by TEPCO's 17 atomic reactors, with about 40% of them operating at the same time. That was about a third of the total reactors in the country.

Tokyo is now in a position to research how it uses power and how its generated and invest some time and money in alternatives and if nothing else is doing everything it can to reduce the total used by fossil fuels.

I guess since you are always so concerned about deaths caused by fossil fuels you at least don't drive a car fuelled by it?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Zichi - 3:03 pm >We are discussing the situation in Japan, Zichi - 4:20 pm >How can power be provided to all the 7 billion people of the world? Can that be achieved by using nuclear energy. no because it would require building an impossible number of reactors at an impossible cost?

Question for you Zichi - do you think Japan is correct to be using coal/gas/oil now to make up for the short fall? Do you support the continued use of Hydro power in Japan?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Heda_Madness

you haven't answered any of the questions I put to you, so you answer a question with a question?

Some alternatives Tokyo could consider.

Off shore wind lenses. CO2 reductions from smart homes, which are about 56%. Algae fuel distilled by nature. Solar cell technology. Biogas from human waste. Electric bus system with buses being charged from wifi plates. The country also needs a smart grid that can move power where needed.

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/japans-next-generation-of-renewable-energy

Since the nuclear disaster, the country has been having a renewable energy renaissance and Tokyo is well placed to take a major lead in that technology. Goldman Sachs said recently that it will invest as much as $487 million in Japanese fuel cell, solar, wind and biomass efforts.

The country had in 2010, 282GW of generating capacity and by mid 2011 had dropped to 243GW. The total capacity from nuclear energy was 33GW, so with all the reactors offline, the current capacity is 249GW, but most previous offline power stations have been brought back and some increase from the use of renewable energy like solar panels.

Modern fossil fuel plants are able to collect or filter out more than 90% of the pollution and greenhouse gases and the method of burning has advanced including the high temperature burning of coal being produced by Hitachi. Across the globe, the burning of fossil fuels will be a problem because countries like China don't want to make the capital investment in cleaner fossil fuel plants. Advancements are being made with gas turbines which can burn bio gas has well as LNG and are able to respond to power demands reducing the need for the so called base power loads.

The highest per capita producers of CO2 are the whole of North America, Saudi and Australia. Australia has no program to build nuclear power plants and will continue to generate most of its power from coal. 374GW of total power generated in the world is from nuclear energy. The loss of 33GW from Japan reduces it to 340GW, but the loss won't make a significant difference to the level of world pollution totals.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

All readers back on topic please. Posts that do not refer to the Tokyo gubernatorial election will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PM Abe feels threatened by this election and has withheld the release of the gov't policy paper on energy. Some of the LDP politicans are nervous about losing their seats in the 2016 general election if the reactors are turned back on. Not all of the LDP Diet are united on the future use of nuclear power.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Nuclear has a risk. But the benefits are far outweighed by the risks. Potential deaths v Guaranteed deaths should win every time.

Whether the benefits are outweighed by the risks is very much a matter of debate.

Leaving that aside, can you put an actual price on the Fukushima disaster? What it has cost so far, and what it is going to cost? Because that has to go into the ledger as well, and not in the column marked "benefits". How many trillions of yen need to go down the hole before you'd start acknowledging that this is getting very very expensive, for what nuclear advocates like to characterize as a "cheap source of power"?

Fukushima could have actually turned out far worse: it was not under human control for some time, and luck played a large part in getting us to where we are now. That is the reality of nuclear power genearation in Japan, if not everywhere, and the words of Hosokawa actually sum it up very well: "the myth has completely broken down".

This is exactly the reason why you have some politicians and power companies talking about restarting reactors, against the reality, which is that three years later, the reactors are still offline and Japan's nuclear policy is in ruins. While they will not accept reality, they do not have the power to alter it.

Japan's had a bunch of minor nuclear accidents - which, for simplicity's sake, let us overlook - and one full-blown nuclear disaster, which is being handled very badly. This is not a good basis for cranking the nuclear programme back up, because it indicates that if another disaster occurred (and we no longer have the privilege of saying, "it won't"), another chunk of the country would be off limits, more or less permanently. That's going to be a tough sell, don't you think?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@wipeout

Leaving that aside, can you put an actual price on the Fukushima disaster? What it has cost so far, and what it is going to cost?

To date, the nuclear disaster have cost much more than the ¥10 trillion given directly to TEPCO. The loss of business, the destruction of people's lives, the loss of property, the cost of decontamination. The nuclear disaster site will use up more than ¥25 trillion over the next 10 years, and will eventually cost more than ¥50 trillion.

Fukushima could have actually turned out far worse: it was not under human control for some time, and luck played a large part in getting us to where we are now.

The country got lucky because for the first period of the nuclear disaster, the wind mostly blew out to sea. Had it been blowing in the direction of Tokyo, well, a whole different ball game?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

To date, the nuclear disaster have cost much more than the ¥10 trillion given directly to TEPCO.

People who are vocally pro-nuclear should face this question squarely and if they can manage it, honestly. They should also explain to us who has to pay (this time and next) and why. Also, after their favourite industry has run up costs of this magnitude and washed its hands of them, where it intends to go from there - back to generating "clean, cheap, safe power" is it?. They can't just use the "hey, no one died" argument about a disaster that costs us hundreds of billions of dollars - from one power station, mind - and has practically destroyed the nuclear industry in Japan.

I believe the word for that kind of business model is "unsustainable".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@wipeout,

in addition, the nuclear village since at least 1974, received trillions in gov't subsidies.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

LunchboxJAN. 23, 2014 - 07:17AM JST He should come out here to Chiba and smell the air now that all the fossil-fuel power plants have been turned back on after 3-11 to supply power for energy hungry Tokyo. Fossil fuel power plants that were all phased out over the last 20 years to ease pollution. Nuclear energy isn't safe, but burning coal and natural gas is not the right alternati.......

Hosokawa never recommended burning coal and natural gas, Hosokawa Koizumi groups are familiar with solar energy power plants that has been implemented successfully in California and other states in USA. Utility scale solar plants and Rooftop photovoltaies (sic), etc.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Whether the benefits are outweighed by the risks is very much a matter of debate.

It's really not a debate. Substantially more people die from fossil fuels than nuclear.

Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power - NASA. You won't find anyone to disagree with this.

When you consider how many people would have died in Japan over the past 50 years if Japan hadn't have nuclear.

What these politicians are doing, is what politicians do the world over. They're playing on the electorate's emotions as opposed to using facts. They say that Japan should have more renewable energy. I don't think anyone would disagree with that - it SHOULD! But it's not going to happen tomorrow. And renewable energy is not always safe... just look at Hydro and the risks involved in that.

The world's leading climate scientist are begging for the world's politicians to adopt a nuclear/renewable policy.

And the Japanese politicians have the perfect opportunity to listen.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

It's really not a debate. Substantially more people die from fossil fuels than nuclear.

Yes, as I've already pointed out, that's the "hey no one died" argument.

Now let's talk about money, because that's one thing that people value more than human life. Can we afford Fukushima? It's clearly not a commercial operation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Going on the WHO figures, there were around 4000 extra cancers as result of Chernobyl. So in this case that would be an extra 800 fatalities a year. You want to compare that to the annual number of fatalities from fossil fuels?

The ScientificAmerican reported that nuclear has saved 1.8 million lives that would have been lost to fossil fuels and will save a further 7 million more.

It’s worth noting that the authors consider only deaths and exclude from the model serious health crises such as heart failure, bronchitis and other respiratory problems; including these problems would further weaken the case for fossil fuels.

And yes, as I have said Japan should be focussing on greener fuels but it can't do it now. Why have you advocated Hydro Electric yet at the same time say that Japan is too dangerous for nuclear. You want to compare the deaths from Fukushima to those from a failing dam?

The question that the politicans should be asking is whether Japan can cover the extra costs required for a non-nuclear? Can they afford the health related costs and other costs associated? Can they afford an already shrinking population to shrink forward? Or maybe if we kill off all of the week it would reduce the power problems.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The world's leading climate scientist are begging for the world's politicians to adopt a nuclear/renewable policy. And the Japanese politicians have the perfect opportunity to listen.

The logic of that "opportunity" escapes me. Pure nuclear doublespeak.

What Japanese politicians have is a triple reactor meltdown that this country is going to be dealing with for the next half-century at least. No country generating nuclear power today would have been able to handle such an event: it is unprecedented and the possibility of it happening had always been firmly rejected. We can no longer pretend that such a thing can't happen: the best alternative that's available is to scramble around for excuses about why it did.

For nuclear, Fukushima is an unqualified disaster, not a perfect opportunity. The nuclear industry here is now discredited, and that's not going to change.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

With how many fatalities? Oh yeah, it's not important.

Dear People of Japan,

We, your leaders, are ignoring what the scientists are telling us. We are ignoring what the climate scientists want us to do. And we are ignoring the facts. And as such we are going to adopt a policy which may cost more money. But will ultimately cost more deaths (by the thousands) of our citizens. Because we think that's correct. Money is more important to us than your health and welfare.

Yours

Hosokawa

PS Japan will get hotter due to the added air pollution but please use your air con less

*To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power: As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change. We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump. Read more about the letter and the controversy surrounding it Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power Continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits. Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology. While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump. With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much has changed since the 1970s. The time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century. We ask you and your organization to demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy. Sincerely, Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution Dr. Kerry Emanuel, Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University Earth Institute Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of Adelaide and the National Center for Atmospheric Research*

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

In USA, nuclear energy is out of dated.

Solar power in the United States includes utility-scale solar power plants as well as local distributed generation, mostly from rooftop photovoltaics. In mid-2013, the U.S. passed 10 GW of installed photovoltaic capacity with an additional 0.5 GW of concentrated solar power. In the twelve months through October 2013, utility scale solar power generated 8.46 million megawatt-hours, 0.21% of total US electricity The largest solar power installation in the world is the Solar Energy Generating Systems facility in California, which has a total capacity of 354 megawatts (MW). The United States conducted much early research in photovoltaics and concentrated solar power. The U.S. is among the top countries in the world in electricity generated by the Sun and several of the world's largest utility-scale installations are located in the desert Southwest. There are plans to build many other large solar plants in the United States. While the U.S. has no national energy policy, many states have set individual renewable energy goals with solar power being included in various proportions. Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring California's utilities to obtain 33 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by the end of 2020 A total of 4,324 MW of utility scale solar power plants are under construction and an additional 25,926 MW are under development, with 19,060 MW under construction or development in California. The use of solar water heating and solar area heating is less common in the U.S. than in some other countries Above is a partial copy from Wikipedia. Because power companies are involved, night or bad weather do not matter. However, our area in USA use Mohave desert solar energy plants. Some people have own rooftop solar panels. During daytime, it accumulate solar energy on Sanyo created solar paned I did not go on that but these people do not pay to utility company. We subscrive utility company's electricity. Our state do not have nuclear energy plant, anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heda, what does restarting 50year old nuclear plants has to do with development of advanced nuclear energy Fact is those plans are cheaply built, mostly paid under the table and extremely poorly maintained.

currently in Japan there is no proper oversight, the companies that run those plans, has abysmal knowledge how to operate or maintain them.

I am all for advanced nuclear energy, especially since there are safe and self sustaining designs available but Japan would not be the right place to test them due to amazing amount of seismic activity and amazing level of political corruption.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

In March/April 2011 I said that Japan should be looking at bringing in the new nuclear power plants and got record negative ratings. For a future energy policy they should be increasing their use of renewable and should be bringing the new nuclear plants.

Until then there options are increasing Fossil Fuels or the existing nuclear plants.

And as I've posted on many occasions the stats, the facts and the figures support the latter. And I'm yet to see any convincing evidence to say they shouldn't be. And waffle or nuclear is bad erm kay is not what I would call convincing evidence.

In all of the posts I've made, I've stayed clear of blogs and gone with what I would call major scientific publications. I did read on a number of blogs that there were 4000 times more fatalities per unit from fossil fuels than nuclear but I haven't used that (and I'm not now) because I haven't been able to corroborate it.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Nuclear energy, if the reactors are restarted, according to the NRA will in future only generate about 15% of total power compared with double that before the disaster, less than half of the 38 reactors operating on the day will be allowed to operate again. None of this likely before sometime in 2016, probably at least until after the next general election.

More than 60% of the people are opposed to future use of nuclear energy including in those communities with NPP's. Building new atomic plants has gone out of the window since no one any longer wants one in their backyard.

Similar problem with building a safe storage for spent nuclear fuel, which is at 15,000 tons and the plutonium which is at 45 tons, because no one wants it in their backyard.

Not running the 17 reactors, following the statement by the NRA won't have much of an affect on world greenhouse gases?

Either way, the country will continue to use fossil fuels and so the money should be spent to build cleaner plants. The LDP gov't is not a united party on the future use of nuclear energy, their Komeito partner remains opposed as do several ministers.

The country will be saddled with the cost of the nuclear disaster, at least ¥50 trillion and will be paid for by generation after generation of tax paying workers. There are more than 25 reactors which need decommissioning now or before 2030 and although the power utilities are suppose to pay for that, after the enormous costs of updating the safety at their atomic plants, on that point, they will once again, go cap in hand to the gov't?

Trillions and trillions of public money was poured into the bottomless pit of the nuclear village which has turned out to be a failed industry. It failed the country, its people and the world.

Its the nuclear village which has brought chaos to the industry, caused an energy crisis and had all the country's reactors shut down.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

60% of Japan's population are against nuclear. So that would be everyone who voted from the opposition and abstained at the last election.

Your energy policy is guaranteed to kill more people. You say that there will be a reduction of 15% from nuclear so an increase of 25% for fossil fuels. Going forward 25% more people will die because of your energy policy. Fossil fuels kill at a rate substantially greater than nuclear. This is without question. Yet you seem determined to promote it as a way going forward.

According to you, an increase of 25% in pollution won't affect global warming. By that logic I guess you have your air con on full all the time and the brightest light bulbs you can buy. Afterall, if an energy guzzler like Japan won't make a difference then how will you?

You say that nuclear is bad because of the seismic issues in Japan. Yet you continue to promote the use of Hydro electric.

This is the perfect opportunity for the Japanese lawmakers to follow the lead requested by the scientists. To improve their nuclear capability and to improve their renewable capability. This is the potential to save lives, unfortunately your policy will continue to kill people. And you seem to be happy about that.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Heda_Madness

I think in your comment you are addressing me but please include my name if you are expecting a response?

60% of Japan's population are against nuclear. So that would be everyone who voted from the opposition and abstained at the last election.

That would also include people who voted for the LDP and I've already pointed out that even the LDP gov't isn't united on the future use of nuclear energy, which includes some of the ministers and even ex PM's?

Your energy policy is guaranteed to kill more people.

I don't have an energy policy. That is decided by gov't's, not private individuals?

You say that there will be a reduction of 15% from nuclear so an increase of 25% for fossil fuels.

I didn't say anything. But I did comment that recently the NRA have stated that if and when the reactors are given permission to restart, its unlikely the country will return to generating 30% power from nuclear energy and could be more like 15%? So accordingly, a 15% reduction would require it being replaced by other means which also includes a reduction in power demands, which is down about 5% since 2011.

Going forward 25% more people will die because of your energy policy.

Once again, its gov't's which set the energy policy but on that point it should also consider what the voters and paying public want. You certainly like to throw around wild figures, so I don't know how a 15% reduction in power from nuclear energy would cause 25% more people to die?

Fossil fuels kill at a rate substantially greater than nuclear. This is without question. Yet you seem determined to promote it as a way going forward.

Do you think about that when driving around in your non fossil fuel car? Even dialling back the clock to pre 2011, nuclear energy only generated about 27%-30% of total power and much of the rest from fossil fuels. You want to turn on atomic reactors which might not be safe, until at least inspected by the NRA, and updated by the power utilities? Safety is not an issue for you, nor is the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and plutonium, which you haven't even mentioned in any of your comments?

According to you, an increase of 25% in pollution won't affect global warming.

Where does an increase of 25% come from? Another of your wild cards? The shut down of the reactors has increased the country's greenhouse gases by about 15-20%, exact figures are not yet available and YES that increase won't change the global situation one way or another,

By that logic I guess you have your air con on full all the time and the brightest light bulbs you can buy. Afterall, if an energy guzzler like Japan won't make a difference then how will you?

Japan consumes less per capita energy than many more countries, and is about 18th on that point? Surprised you don't know that?

Personal stuff? Let's see. Lived off the grid for about 20 years in total during which time I grew and produced most of my own food. I haven't owned a car for 35 years, since 1979 and I've never hired one. Less than 5 air flights in the last 20 years. Live in an energy efficiency way and we are old so we have the ac on, but not full blast, when are life and health is in danger, usually about one or two months of the year. Our monthly energy consumption is way below average rates. All the lights in our home are low wattage energy lamps.

My carbon footprint is probably a lot less than yours and only equal to some who live in India.

You say that nuclear is bad because of the seismic issues in Japan. Yet you continue to promote the use of Hydro electric.

Never directly mentioned hydro in any of my comments, but an interesting point, since in your new country, New Zealand, hydro generates more than 70% of its total power.

This is the perfect opportunity for the Japanese lawmakers to follow the lead requested by the scientists. To improve their nuclear capability and to improve their renewable capability.

There are actually many Japanese scientists and experts of various fields who are opposed to the use of nuclear energy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Zichi, you've previously mentioned that you support Hydro - have you now reversed your opinion?

Japan previously had 60% fossil fuels, 30% nuclear. Now it will have an extra 15% fossil fuels. Or an additional 25%. So it's safe to assume that a further 25% of people will die because of a policy that you promote.

*>Personal stuff? Let's see. Lived off the grid for about 20 years in total during which time I grew and produced most of my own food. I haven't owned a car for 35 years, since 1979 and I've never hired one. Less than 5 air flights in the last 20 years. Live in an energy efficiency way and we are old so we have the ac on, but not full blast, when are life and health is in danger, usually about one or two months of the year. Our monthly energy consumption is way below average rates. All the lights in our home are low wattage energy lamps.

My carbon footprint is probably a lot less than yours and only equal to some who live in India.*

But why, you've said that Japan adding a further 25% of fossil fuels will have no impact. Why on earth would you bother to do such a small, insignificant amount.

Zichi, you promote an anti nuclear policy, a policy that is guaranteed to kill thousands of people in Japan a year. Why do you feel comfortable with that?

And Zichi, yet again you throw an insult at me. Every single one of my posts has been researched and I can provide numerous links to support it. Yet you don't provide anything except waffle. No facts, just your opinion.

And as ever, you've failed to post a single point on topic. And before you say anything this is my first since yesterday that hasn't mentioned Japanese political policy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

zichi and Heda_Madness, please do not address each other any further on this thread since all you are doing is bickering.

@Hedamadness

With how many fatalities? Oh yeah, it's not important. Dear People of Japan...

Lovely long post - kudos.

Again: who pays? It's a fair question. This sector that you're promoting is passing off the costs (which are colossal) to someone else. Would you care to acknowledge that?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wipeout, but who pays for any of it? Do the electric companies pay for the added health related costs? Have they ever? The costs of nuclear are extreme if and when it goes wrong - as we've seen with Fukushima but the costs of global warming are equally extreme... it basically comes down to Risk Management. Had they managed Fukushima better and had a bigger wall this would never have happened.

I keep mentioning Hydro because of what happened in China in 1975 - Fukushima is miniscule compared to that.

Nothing is perfect - but you look at the risks and you look at the benefits. From a health point of view, from an environmental point of view it points to nucelar. And the risks are massively reduced with the new, modern reactors which should be part of Japan's future.

Unfortunately some people have read Enews and believe everything that's been written.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I keep mentioning Hydro because of what happened in China in 1975

We don't set our industrial standards to the level they were at in China in 1975.

I notice (it wasn't difficult) that you sailed right past the question again. Who's going to pick up the tab for Fukushima? It's a simple question. They are not costs that can just be brushed off.

And who's going to pay next time there is a nuclear disaster?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is vacant fill up election. none of candidates expressed recommendation of gas, oil etc. At least they are not as old as when Japan used charcoal hibachi and kotatsu for warming up. Face it. Nuclear Energy is out of dated. Solar Energy era for quite many years in even USA now. Of cause Sanyo, and Mitsubishi dominate solar energy panels and utility plants in Ca,if and other USA states, Hosokawa never mentioned about back to old coal time. LDP is busy flattering natural resource rich Africa. This is Tokyo Governor election to fill up gap after Inose resigned, Are there any candidates who are talking about Tokyo people's benefit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are also other major issues on the election agenda, like the Olympics and preparing the capital to withstand a powerful and overdue earthquake?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@zichi: I agree with you that there are other major issues on the election agenda. Kanto area had Kanto Daishinsai (Great Earthquake) once upon a time. Hope candidates will explain how they will prepare for earthquake if they are elected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

toshiko, they will probably be on the first helicopter away as its usual with high ranking politicos ;-)

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