politics

LDP wants 20% nuclear power in energy mix

27 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2015.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

Logistically, too, reviving nuclear to 20% is problematic. The Asahi said that it would require either building more reactors or extending the working life of the oldest reactors - something the new regulator has said would be very difficult.

IMO, that is the unsettling part of this proposal. The LDP wants to build new nukes even though the population is against nuclear power, or extending the working lives of some of the oldest reactors -- which anyone with half a brain knows is rolling the dice.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

It's time to clean house.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.""

So said Robert Oppenheimer.

Japan needs to be wary of tempting "Death" having suffered exclusively its reach.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The population has had plenty of opportunities it is to prove that they are against nuclear power. That the LVPD won the last election comfortably would suggest they aren't.

There's plenty of information out there to suggest why modern nuclear power plants are the way to go. But it seems that the contributors of JT don't care about the environment, they just want to keep burning fossil fuels until a point that there is sufficient renewable or until we run out. Guaranteed deaths and illnesses...more people will die because of the switch back to fossil fuels than from the nuclear incident. plenty of information around to show this.

But I will get marked down because nuclear is bad m'kay and no amount of overwhelming evidence will change that.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

The population has had plenty of opportunities it is to prove that they are against nuclear power. That the LVPD won the last election comfortably would suggest they aren't.

Not really. There literally was no viable opposition. Should the people be expected to choose opposition to make a point about nuclear power, at the sacrifice of absolutely everything else?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Is it not thrilling that Japan has decided to go backward instead of forward? This is fantastic news! Why waste time and money on clean energy sources like the sun, wind and waves, when you can create many more tons of nuclear waste and radioactive materials that have to be properly and very carefully disposed of? Good choice Japan, I salute you for this obviously wise decision!

7 ( +8 / -1 )

I always wondered is it old money like coal mine owners or oil magnates or nuclear power plant contractors and their lobbyists that slow progress in developing newer, better sources of energy or have politicians and scientists just completely buried in their heads in the sand about progress being needed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Isn't it both? The big company lobbyists convince the politicians to bury their heads in the sand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why can't these fossils get their corrupt fingers into the solar/wind/geothermal industries and get their kickbacks that way?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

People. Please forget about sun power. You get about 10-20 watts/hour Per square meter of solar panel. My small air conditioner unit uses 700watts/hour average. So I will need like 60 SQUARE METERS of solar panels to power my air conditioner.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I'm going to design a "money reactor" so the LDP can cut out the middle men and just start burning money to boil water to turn a turbine to generate electricity.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is it not thrilling that Japan has decided to go backward instead of forward?

Yes, why are we talking about using such outdated technology like splitting the atom when we could use cutting edge technology like windmills instead.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

" Japans ruling party wants wants a revived nuclear power sector " - not all the LDP members ,but the ones who get bribes (oh excuse the misunderstanding, I mean "political activities support " , " research contributions" etc.. ) from the power companies do.

Heda - " no amount of overwhelming evidence will change that " - thanks, but I think we have all the overwhelming evidence we need at Dai Ichi ( within a couple of hours leisurly drive from where I live ). How far are you from that debacle of a N plant again? What negates your arguments about the benefits of N-power generation in Japan specifically is that the country lies on the damn Pacific Ring of Fire and the next " unpredictable " earthquake / tsunami event is a matter of time only. This particular dominating risk factor is not present in most other advanced countries generating N-power.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The overwhelming evidence in Japan is that the greatest environmental catastrophe in the country's history was caused by a nuclear power station and an industry that refused to follow safety advice from international bodies in order to maximise profit. NPPs built on fault lines are clearly not safe, but the government doesn't care because of the amakudari relationships with the nuclear industry. They will re-open Hamaoka, knowing that the next big earthquake is forecast to be Nankai and knowing the NPPs there are dangerous. This is why people don't trust nuclear power here, yet they chose to elect the only party that was pro-nuclear in the last two elections.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Marcelito

Indeed. I no longer live in Japan but as you are aware my stance hasn't changed from March 11 when I was living there. My stance was the same when I was making regular trips to Fukushima and my locale shouldn't negate my opinion.

And yes, japan is on the ring of fire. Doesn't change anything about the fact that modern nuclear plants are Safer. Doesn't change anything about onagawa either.

And what is the overwhelming evidence of Dai I chi. When it went wrong nobody died and a smallish area of land is in liveable

Now just compare that to coal gas and oil. When it goes right people die and land becomes in liveable. Not to mention the radiation that it produces and spreads around the world.

There are any number of studies on the dangers of fossil fuels Dai Ochi will never come anywhere near that.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

once the oil and coal has run out what are you going to use?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heda "Dai I chi. When it went wrong nobody died and a smallish area of land is in liveable." (sic)

About 80 km x 100 km was covered with various radio isotopes... 8,000 sq km.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So of that 8000 Sq km, how much of it is uninhabitable?

the answer is a smallish area of land.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

There are probably enough nuclear plants around the country in safe areas (by safe I mean safe from foreseeable natural disasters) to get close to 20%. If the govt would clearly identify those which obviously aren't safe, and can never be made safe & get them permanently shut down that might help public opinion. Nuclear power is naturally unpopular here, but fossil fuel plants aren't the answer either.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

One wonders what the next govt will want to achive?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Demented and completely out of touch.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

while keeîng good working knowledge of nuclear power is absolutly necessary IMO, nuclear power use should be kept to minimal in risk areas

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Brian:

once the oil and coal has run out what are you going to use?

If only we could safely use the oil and coal there wouldn't be such a big problem. There's enough in the ground, especially coal, but we have to leave almost all of it in the ground if we don't want to drastically and irrevocably change the climate.

Heda:

There's plenty of information out there to suggest why modern nuclear power plants are the way to go.

Besides safety risks there's still the problem of nuclear waste. Even modern nuclear power plants don't have a solution for that yet.

Kiyoshi

People. Please forget about sun power. You get about 10-20 watts/hour Per square meter of solar panel. My small air conditioner unit uses 700watts/hour average. So I will need like 60 SQUARE METERS of solar panels to power my air conditioner.

If you're interested more comprehensive numbers: Average insolation (received sunlight) in Japan: 4.5 kWh/(m2 x day). With current panel efficiency of around 20%, production per m2 per year would be: 0.2 x 4.5 x 365=328 kWh. At a consumption per capita of 8000 kWh per year in Japan (source: Worldbank), you'd need 24.4 m2 per person. That would be 3050 km2 for the whole population of Japan, or 0.8% of the total surface area. It's also less than 4 times the size of the Fukushima exclusion zone declared permanently unfit for human habitation (800 km2). I don't think that's an unreasonable amount of land to set aside for the national power production. With the number of villages that are expected to be abandoned in the coming decades there's all possibility to achieve that kind of surface area. Of course in practice you'd need to mix in other like wind, but there's no reason to discount solar because of surface area.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ignoring the problem of fossil fuel waste you do realise that if the high level nuclear waste was stored end to end in the US it would cover one football field about 10 yards high. And as much as the anti nuclear groups would have you believe it's not a major problem. And the new, modern reactor are in a far better position to deal with it.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Nbcdnzr. Still you should know its impossible to compete in the current world if you go totally green. Solar power at night need batteries. Wind is not reliable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A panel of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Liberal Democratic Party approved a proposal in a closed-door session this week that would boost stable "baseload" energy supplies - nuclear, coal, hydroelectric and geothermal - to about 60% by 2030 from 40% now, according to reports in several major media outlets.

Actually not, it seems.

According to Parliament Member Kono Taro who is a ranking LDP member and a member of the said panel, the panel dropped the words "60% by 2030" from the proposal by Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry. This move by the LDP panel was unusual. The newspapers just assumed, because the session was closed-door, that the proposal by METI was passed without a change, and reported as "sources (METI) say". http://www.taro.org/2015/04/post-1591.php

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can the LDP guarantee no more major accidents involving nuclear power plants?

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