politics

Japan softens commitment to nuclear power in draft growth strategy

19 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

There is nothing about nuclear that is green! The sooner Japan moves away from it the better!

With most rivers already dammed in Japan anyway they should put hydro at the top of the list as a green alternative for baseload power.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The power companies are decommissioning 23 reactors.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As much as I dislike LDP, knowing that the shooganai electorate will vote them back in again , Koizumi and Kono are the best of the bad bunch. Seeing who string pulling Abe suggested as potential PM ,s during his meeting with Suga a week ago...ie Motegi and Hakumura ..it makes me shiver. It would be all lights green for N- village.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

zichi - The power companies are decommissioning 23 reactors.

Yea! Because they are all out of date and unsafe. However, they are still trying to squeeze a few more decades out the other aging plants built with 1970’s technology.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Nuclear energy can run an aircraft carrier with 5000+ USA soldiers on board for 3 decades without refueling. No other form of renewable energy even comes close! ! !

Japan is an island nation with limit resources, we need all options on the table!

-Lets remember that Fukushima reactor was old. 1967 was built.

-Nuclear reactors evolve, get better, safer with time, smaller in size.

-If you compare the number of deaths from nuclear reactors with other forms of energy Nuclear is the safest by a big margin.

China building Nuclear Reactors by the dozen each year.

USA working on Small Modular Reactors or SMR. New generation of smaller size, safer reactors.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There will be another nuclear disaster in Japan even though Fukushima Daiichi is totally out of control with technology available to solve this immense problem.

when the next one happens, and it will, Japanese government will say, “its beyond our imagination”.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I’m all for renewables, but let’s be realistic. They aren’t reliable due to weather etc, and to compensate you need huge batteries, the manufacturing of which is awful for the environment. Nuclear can provide a stable, relatively clean supply of carbon-free power that can be supplemented by renewables.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Nuclear energy can run an aircraft carrier with 5000+ USA soldiers on board for 3 decades without refueling. 

Naval reactors use highly enriched bomb grade uranium and the cores last about 25 years, not 30. If they used the same grade of uranium used in commercial reactors they would have to refuel far more often. The other benefit of high enriched uranium is power density. It takes a lot of power to move a 100,000 ton carrier at the kind of speeds a Nimitz class can attain. A power plant using low enriched uranium would have to be physically larger and heavier to achieve the same shaft horsepower. The space and weight saved is available for carrying more ordnance and fuel for the air wing, and more armor for the reactor area. Using such high enriched uranium however requires a lot more care than with low enriched uranium used in civil reactors.

I think the eventual solution for civil power will be molten salt reactors. They may turn up on merchant ships combined with a generator as replaceable power packs, with the ships themselves driven by electric motors in Azipods. There is serious discussion of this in the maritime community now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

For the power companies, it's all about the money. There's ¥15 trillion in those idled rectors and they mean to have it.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It's a funny thing but dam failures have killed many thousands of people over the years yet we do not see the sorts of inchoate, knee jerk fear of dams that one sees of nuclear power. The public approaches dam projects in a more rational frame of mind. Should they? A big dam failing can obliterate a town or even a whole city. It has happened in the past. The greatest loss of life in one disaster in California was the failure of the San Francisquito Dam above LA. Over 450 dead in a couple of hours. Huge damage, towns washed away, major highways cut or buried. Worse happened with the Malpasset Dam blew out in France or when the Vajont Dam was overtopped by a 100 meter tall wave as a reservoir induced landslide, the very same thing that took out the San Francisquito Dam, displaced most of the reservoir and sent a wall of water over top of the dam killing 1910 people. The South Fork Dam failure in 1889 killed over 2200 and leveled towns in what is now called the Johnstown Flood. Over 171,000 were killed in 1975 when the Banqiao Dam failed during a typhoon in China. 171K dead. What a breathtaking number for one mishap. That is on the order of the number killed in both nuclear attacks in WWII (the range of figures for the number dead runs from a low of 129K to over 220K). Another thousand or more were killed when the Panshet Dam on the Ambi River near Pune failed circa 1961. Nuclear mishaps killed haven't anything close to the number of people killed by dam failures so which is more dangerous?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There has never been a dam failure here. They are firstly built to control the melting snow waters without the dams have wide flooding areas. But the country is at the maximum of dam hydropower so does not enter the equation of the power generation.

More scope for geothermal which could generate 20% of the power.

The nuclear disaster killed people during the mass evacuations, maybe 1,000. But it destroyed a vast area of properties and business with radiation levels putting them off-limits forever. The cost to date is ¥25 trillion which will increase to ¥80 trillion, and that7s just for a single nuclear disaster.

The people don't want nuclear power.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

It can happen. Of Japan’s damn failures over the last years, the one that stands out the most is Fujinuma Dam:

“ On 11 March 11, 2011, the dam failed 20-25 min after the Tōhoku earthquake as the nearly full reservoir overtopped the dam's crest. The flood washed away five houses while damaging others, disabling a bridge and blocked roads with debris. Eight people were reported missing yet only four bodies have been recovered.” -

Not a power generating dam, it was primarily for irrigation at just 18.5 metres. However, there are major concerns Japan’s overall infrastructure is increasingly deteriorating and they don’t don’t have the sufficient labour or resources to maintain the majority of it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Fujinuma Dam (藤沼ダム, Fujinuma Damu), was an earth-fill embankment dam in Sukagawa City, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan.

On 11 March 2011, the dam failed 20 to 25 minutes after the Tōhoku earthquake as the nearly full reservoir overtopped the dam's crest. Locals reported hearing a loud burst before seeing a flood. The flood washed away five houses while damaging others, disabling a bridge and blocked roads with debris. Eight people were missing and four bodies were discovered after searches began at dawn.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SanjinosebleedToday 07:42 am JST

There is nothing about nuclear that is green! The sooner Japan moves away from it the better!

Green energy in Japan = destruction of forests to build solar energy plants, and setup of wind farms on top of mountains, where trees have to be cut and roads bull for access.

Go to Chiba prefecture and you will see all that solar plants replacing trees. And that impacts all the wildlife.

Nuclear must be kept.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Extending NPP after 40 years is like eating smelly rotten sashimi.

At your choice.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Japanese nuclear industry was destroyed by the Japanese nuclear industry. They brought it upon themselves for not building safe atomic plants.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

with radiation levels putting them off-limits forever.

Are you sure? People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The atomic bombings and the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters are different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No way we go carbon neutral without nuclear. At least with current tech and even with feasible improvements to current green tech

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