politics

Noda says Oi reactors must be restarted to protect economy, people's livelihoods

117 Comments

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda on Friday night said Japan must restart two nuclear reactors to protect the economy and people's livelihoods.

Speaking in a news conference broadcast live to the nation, Noda said the government has taken ample measures to ensure the safety of the two reactors at the Ohi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture.

All 50 workable reactors are offline for maintenance and safety concerns. Restarting them has been a public concern because of the Fukushima disaster last year.

Noda's government is desperately seeking to gain public support to restart the reactors to avert a summertime energy crunch.

Noda called on local authorities to allow operations to resume at the Oi nuclear plant.

"Reactors No. 3 and 4 should restart to support people's lives, that's my decision," Noda said. "Therefore, I ask for the consent of local governments."

"Nuclear generation is an important power source (and) energy security is one of the country's most important issues."

Noda said nuclear power would continue to play a long term role in Japan, which has virtually no natural resources and is increasingly dependent on Middle East oil.

"The question is not only the short-term power supply in the summer. If electricity fees go up due to an increasing dependence on fossil fuel, it would affect people like retailers, small- and mid-size companies and general households which are barely making ends meet," he said.

"If that leads to a hollowing out of business, it would decrease employment opportunities. The temporary operation of the reactors in summer would not secure our way of life.

"I promise, again, to secure the safety of nuclear power and continue making uninterrupted efforts to improve it."

A group of regional governors, long concerned about safety at the Kansai Electric Power Co’s two reactors in Ohi, last week signaled their agreement to the restarts as a “limited” step.

However, Fukui Gov Issei Nishikawa had remained unconvinced. During a meeting with nuclear disaster minister Goshi Hosono on Monday, he said that Noda has not satisfactorily explained to the public why it is necessary to restart the reactors. He questioned whether restarting the reactors was just a short-term measure or whether it was really necessary for the Japanese economy.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura said that Noda decided to hold the news conference in response to Nishikawa's request.

The final decision on whether to restart the reactors is likely to be made by the end of next week by Noda, Economy, Industry and Trade Minister Yukio Edano, Nuclear Disaster Management Minister Goshi Hosono and Fujimura.

Although, legally, the government doesn't need permission from local communities to restart reactors, Noda has repeatedly said he would like their approval. The Oi local assembly has already given its OK, and the government got a surprise boost when Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto reversed his stance last week and agreed to a "limited" restart.

The reactors at Oi are so far the only ones that are anywhere near gaining the necessary approval, but the process has become a kind of Mexican stand-off in which neither local politicians nor the central government in Tokyo has been willing to make the first move.

But increasingly alarmist warnings of summer power blackouts, with some estimates suggesting certain areas could see electricity supply fall as much as 20% short of demand, have added urgency to the issue.

© Japan Today/wire reports

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

117 Comments
Login to comment

Is Gov Issei Nishikawa from the same political party as the PM? Will PM discuss the issue by answering reporter's questions?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It is interesting to note that while the governors are talking about "temporary" permission to restart to alleviate any problems that may arise during the summer.

Noda is talking about the necessity from the point of national economy.

That doesn't sound like start 'em up a couple of months to me.

People Of Japan, it's time raise your voice Now!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Expect the reactors to start regardless of the opinion and concerns of the public.

Why?

The general public have no collective spirit or desire to stand up or protest. They are far more concerned about being branded as an outcast (trouble maker) amongst their friends, co-workers, neighbors and family.

So they will cowardly sit back, watch, and do nothing.... Safe in the knowledge that they are still liked as a person...

And no, a few thousand people demonstrating does not mean anything..... 10's of millions are against the reactors being fired up, and when just a tiny fraction get up and protest, this is proof that the nation is weak, cowardly and more concerned with self image....... Hence the country has been controlled by countless useless and corrupt old men for decades.... Nothing will change until the nation realizes they have a right to stand up and fight, or at least offer full support to those that do....

7 ( +15 / -8 )

if the reactors are started they'll run until the mandatory shut down 13 months later. They will also be followed by other reactors.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

This isn't a debate, and no one will be entitled to give their opinion -- television is the method chosen by Noda because it will give anyone the chance to object, and he can claim approval as a result.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Well, the safey cannot be confirmed when the reactors are built on known fault lines. So just hold up the envelope full of money you got from the nuke industry and that will suffice as your explanation.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

He's out of a job now.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@zichi, and after that they will be refueled and restarted again until they are 60 years old.

NISA has already resumed their efforts in approving extensions for the Mihama reactors to operate beyond their 40 year design limit.

In the light of what happened in Fukushima, with all the nuclear apologists stating that the only reason the disaster could happen was because of the ancient design. Does it really sound like a good idea to be aproving extensions at this point of time?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

all the world is a stage, and the politcians are merely actors.

unfortunately, this was always going to happen. with or without the publics consent, the reactors were going to be restarted before summer began. nothing really shocking about this news at all.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Noda's realistic judgment is good. Wealth of the nation depends on securing energies.

0 ( +5 / -6 )

SquidBert,

I don't think any reactors should be extended beyond the 40-years because the parts are just worn out and in fact the maximum should be the original 30-years.

Its wrong to restart any reactors before a new atomic safety agency is in first and can review the stress tests and the safety of the plants.

Like trying to put the cart before the horse thing?

Then there"s the problem of nuclear energy being

Cheap, safe and clean.

Another busted urban myth.

9 ( +11 / -1 )

Agreed, zichi.

I just reread my comment and realized it sounded slightly like I was blaming you for agreeing with the side of nuclear. That was of course not the way it was intended.

Reinaert Albrecht,

That was a good share, I think it shows the disconnect between bureaucrats/politicians and the people very well. I couldn't turn the sound up, so going by subtitles here. It is also interesting that she is stating that there is still smoke coming out of the reactors, I have heard others say the same.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

SquidBert

I didn't read it that way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about going to an insurance company and asking them to quote a price on business interruption insurance assuming the reactors stay offline. If the premium is small, leave them off and roll the dice.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Noda to discuss Oi reactors' restart

I think "announce" would be better than "discuss," since it takes two to tango, and there is just one at the news conference..

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I can ensure that such an insurance would be much cheaper than getting an International insurance company to do a full cover accident insurance for the reactors. No insurance company will even touch that. They tried, and that was when the expected time between failures was 10000years, a myth that we now know is thoroughly busted.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So I guess he spoke then,

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has called for the restart of the Ohi nuclear plant, saying it is safe and vital for people's everyday life. All of Japan's 50 commercial nuclear reactors are currently offline. The Ohi plant supplies electricity to the largely urbanized Kansai area in western Japan. The government has asked Fukui Governor Issei Nishikawa to agree to the restart, as it thinks rolling blackouts will be inevitable this summer. Nishikawa asked the prime minister to make a direct appeal to the public, saying it would help people to accept the restart. Now that his final condition has been met, the Fukui Governor is expected to approve the plant's restart as early as next week.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

When an industry which generates electricity from the heat given off from nuclear fission is allowed to run as any other, i.e. For The Bottom Dollar...

Don't. The consequences are just too dire.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

The general public have no collective spirit or desire to stand up or protest. They are far more concerned about being branded as an outcast (trouble maker) amongst their friends, co-workers, neighbors and family.

So they will cowardly sit back, watch, and do nothing.... Safe in the knowledge that they are still liked as a person...

And no, a few thousand people demonstrating does not mean anything..... 10's of millions are against the reactors being fired up, and when just a tiny fraction get up and protest, this is proof that the nation is weak, cowardly and more concerned with self image....... Hence the country has been controlled by countless useless and corrupt old men for decades.... Nothing will change until the nation realizes they have a right to stand up and fight, or at least offer full support to those that do....

Wow... you really have no respect for the Japanese do you?

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Squirtbert, don't know if you know how math works, but 10000years between failures is pretty damn accurate, even if it was a point and not gaussian distribution. 434 reactors in the world (lets assume that between new starts since 1986 and old reactors taken down before 2011 the number is an average of 400). 25 years have gone by since Chernobyl. Multiply the reactor number by total years for reactor years (which is how you measure failures). You end up with... 10000 reactor years.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Tokyokawasaki is unfortunately pretty much correct.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Noda said the government has taken ample measures to ensure the safety of the two reactors

So what are the measures they have taken?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

" Protect economy and people's livelihoods " - translation - protect the big energy company profits and cozy , overpaid amakudari jobs for the useless, corrupt oyajis.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

basroil,

Squirtbert, don't know if you know how math works, The name is SquidBert, thank you very much.

And You are all wrong. You realize that you just had 4 reactor failures in Fukushima right?

4 in Fukushima, 1 in Chernobyl + 1 Three Mile Island + 6 others of Ines level 4 since 1961.

If we (falsely) assume that all reactors operated the entire time that gives us something like 1800 years between failures The real number will be lower since the bulk of those reactors has been in operation much shorter time.

We can redo the operation with 54 plants and 4 reactor failures in Japan if you like, first criticality 1966. gives you something like 600 years between failures. Again the real number will be lower as the bulk of reactors were started later.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Think of all that imported oil we won't have to buy. All that pollution we'll avoid.

Just build thorium reactors already.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@moomoochoo,

Noda said the government has taken ample measures to ensure the safety of the two reactors

So what are the measures they have taken?

The gov't have not informed the public what measures were taken. We know there was a mandatory stress test on the reactors, which I think was mostly running a computer model to discover if the reactors could withstand an earthquake at the highest known level of a location. But reactors are much more than just the reactors. There's all the associated systems like power and water, electric pumps, switchgear, pylons carrying mains supply.

KEPCO stated the reactors passed the stress test without releasing any information or further details. There was also a second non mandatory test but we don't what it is or whether it was carried out.

We don't know which nuclear power plants passed the tests and which failed.

We do know that the head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, Haruki Madarame stated to the Diet Commission that the stress tests can't assure the safety of the reactors.

Dr Kenichi Ohmae, a previous nuclear scientist made an investigation into the reasons for the nuclear disaster and issued a very deep report and video's. His investigation is linked in this article he wrote. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120418a4.html You can go to the reports here, http://pr.bbt757.com/eng/

KEPCO was issued with a further three safety points, I think that info is available, somewhere.

Then there's a further eight points which KEPCO have stated will take 3-5 years to implement. KEPCO have also stated it will spend 200 billion yen on safety improvements at its NPP's.

You can find additional info on the safety improvements on the yearly report issued by the Federation of Power Companies. A good place for facts and figures. http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/electricity_eview_japan/index.html

the 2012 report. http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/electricity_eview_japan/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/04/06/2012ERJ.pdf

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Just build thorium reactors already.

easier said than done.. but I'm so with you on that

0 ( +2 / -2 )

First all I think this whole situation has been rushed. Secondly, the government didn't make any effort to promote other means of energy like solar panels. They can suggest to companies to make it cheaper so consumers would buy. Solar panels need maintenance and that would create jobs. Thirdly, add solar wind to create power and less depended on nuclear power. Maybe, we could reduce nuclear power plants. An earthquake prone country there is always a chance of disasters. Now, we know how dangerous is nuclear power plant is...

9 ( +10 / -0 )

Heda_Maddness,

the smog of Britain in the 1950's, you are pushing the bounds of reality there fella. The smog was mostly created because people heated their homes with coal fires. Once that was changed to coke and eventually stopped so did the smog even though coal fired power stations continued.

Modern coal fired plants can reduce pollution it creates by burning the coal at higher temps. Scrubbers can remove more than 50% of the greenhouse gases and filters can stop more than 90% of all particles.

Fly ash is not radioactive like highly irradiated spent fuel.

Power companies burn coal because its available and cheap but it should carry a green tax.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In 2010-2011, Germany generated 17.5GW of power from solar and 27.58GW from wind compared with Japan which generated 3.5GW from solar and 1.97GW from wind.

Prior to the 3/11 disaster, 35 nuclear reactors were generating about 40GW of power. I know that both solar and wind can't be used to generate the base power level, or the minimum level of daily power, which so far in Japan has been generated by hydro, coal and nuclear and a very small amount of geothermal.

Cell energy severs could be providing companies with 30% of their total power and can run on biogas, fossil fuel or wind and solar and because the fuel is never heated produces zero emissions. A large company would need a plant the size of a medium sized car park.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Why not give it a go? Get the politicians, public servants, talento, and above all AKB48 getting the whole country behind the idea of doing without the nuclear reactors for this summer. Do it for Japan? A ten percent reduction would probably be a cinch. But if we tried we could do it. And if people couldn't stand it, then maybe scientists and companies would go full steam ahead to develop the other sources.

But, if they turn them on this summer, I'd say it will be back to business as usual and more will come on, and contracts will be extended. Until there's another disaster somewhere.

Put it this way. With no nuclear reactors, things will have to change. The way we live, what we wear, the type of clothes stores make and sell, electronic equipment, etc etc. But, if we just go back to the same old, same old, then what? We just have to trust Tepco etc that this time they will do everything they can do ensure safety, plus hope against hope that there won't be another souteigai event?

Sadly, with all the money behind this, I don't think any party will be able to change, so Hashimoto and Noda and everyone falling in line isn't that surprising.

4 ( +7 / -2 )

nuclear had its time but it's done. Time to move on, rather than cling desperately to a by gone era.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

With the LDP responsible for the nuclear focus, and the DPJ denying recognition that Japan needs to move forward without nuclear I fail to see what the Japanese public can do but watch in frustration as politicians kneel to their corporate masters.

A massive disaster apparently was not enough. Not even that. So now what?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Really? So naive. All of you. Japan can simply NOT survive without nuclear power in the medium term. There is no debate to be had. Period. Hark at you all...you don't want to pay more for your power but you want to see an (unfortunate) monoploy collapse under its own weight. Seriously naive. There will be alternatives and Japan will cease to use Nuclear power but it is many years away.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

What's that you say? Solar can only provide 10% of Japan's power? Oh. And Geothermal can only provide 10%? Oh. Wind can only provide 10% too? Gee. We got 30% from Nuclear. But what if we did Solar, Geotherman and Wind together? The requirement for nuclear would be how much? Zero. Hmmmm....

It was probably inevitable that the government was going to insist on turning some of the reactors back on. But when in this discussion are the government or power industry going to start talking about how to eliminate the need for reactors at all?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Geothermal - typo and I can't edit it. Sumimasen.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well this news was predictable. Where there are pockets to be lined there will be agreeable government PIGureheads more than willing to put their wallets ahead of their people.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

energy security is one of the country’s most important issues

You first need a NATION in which to do that. You nearly lost the nation with just ONE power plant going melt through. Behave. Get real. Start a drive to green.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

My air conditioning will be set to max power. I want the plants to be turned on. When you got to go, go with a glowing smile.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Reinaert AlbrechtJUN. 08, 2012 - 04:17PM JST He most probably didn't watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watchfeature=player_embedded&v=hLYrZsCQsko

Wow.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japanese products are already heavily contaminated with nuclear radiation. According to several nuclear physicists it is impossible to decontaminate Japan. So might as well re-introduce the nuclear reactors since they can't do anything about the radiation problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M7tbe7lzSwI

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@thunderbird2, your comments areunfair. Lack of respect for the Japanese has nada to do with tokyokawasaki's post. He is only saying what most are thinking.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@zichi that's the problem.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

In a few years the Japanese will be vividly shown the consequences of nuclear pollution on a bigger scale-nuclear power is quite rightly doomed in Japan......

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Finally, some common sense by Noda.

Hopefully, this will pave way for more reactors to resume on-line so that the manufacturing sector of Japan can resume their operation at full capacity without the need for halting which will cripple the industry output.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Nuclear reactors are just silent killers.please do not accept them at any cost.for more details see the following web sites http://www.dianuke.org/koodankulam-official-experts-have-misled-people-on-nuclear-safety/ http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/02/kudankulam-nuclear-bomb-over-tamilnadu.html

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@thunderbird2, your comments areunfair. Lack of respect for the Japanese has nada to do with tokyokawasaki's post. He is only saying what most are thinking.

Just calling them sheep, eh? Or perhaps ostriches? Sorry, but I have Japanese friends and loved ones and I resent people from other countries calling them sheep, or childish or whatever...

A little less xenophobia would be nice in these threads.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

KEPCO's consumed power for last month, May, was 4% less than year-on-year with May last year. Total power consumed for 2010-2011 was the lowest this century. This is probably to do with less power for lighting with he wider introduction of low energy lights.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

"to protect (dead) economy and to protect people's livehoods by raising consumption tax (?)

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm guessing this won't be a popular post:

http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'm guessing this won't be a popular post:

http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686

I can hear the conspiracy brigade hammering their keyboards already.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Since the nuclear plants supplied a pretty significant proportion of the energy needs of the country, without having to import oil, and because no other alternative power generating systems were built to supplement or replace nuclear, the nation is stuck.

Until non-nuclear, non-oil consuming methods of power generation are brought on line to take up the slack that is left behind by nuclear power, the nuclear plants will have to be operated. Not all of them. The oldest ones should not be restarted and even among the newer ones, only the newest and most safely engineered ones. Geothermal needs to be exploited... regardless of what the resorts and spa industry whiners say. So too, tidal power, wind, solar, photovoltaic, everything needs to be expoited to the hilt to fill the nuclear power gap as quickly as possible. Maybe even burn cleaner technology coal.

Japan cannot just keep importing oil.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Heda_Madness

That article is just speculation and radiation has to be measured over decades. How can you predict the effects of radiation when the Fukushima disasters released MOX fuel, whereas Chernobyl didn't? You're dealing with two different types of radiation.

Here is a video about the various illnesses caused by the 2011 Japan nuclear disasters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpWOeKk1GUo

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Hmm YouTube or the international renowned science publication, 'Nature'. Who to believe? It's a tricky one isn't it?

As you are so quick to criticise the report why don't you contact the editor of Nature magazine to highlight the errors. The report which is gained from two independent reports into the Fukushima disaster and one which mentions Chernobyl but is no way a comparison to.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

“If that leads to a hollowing out of business, it would decrease employment opportunities. The temporary operation of the reactors in summer would not secure our way of life.

He makes it sound as if the whole of Japan is dependent on these two reactors. Ok, Noda-san, you say that safety measures have ben implemented. How about telling us what they are? He will never gain public support until he convinces the public the safety measures have been put into place and the reactors are safe from a repeat of 3/11/2011. Until he does, these grandstands and 'promises' are nothing short of political suicide for him and his party. Stating it is one thing. How about showing the public Noda-san?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The additional 3GW or so from these rectors will do a little for Kansai but nothing for the rst of the country.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

The general public have no collective spirit or desire to stand up or protest. They are far more concerned about being branded as an outcast (trouble maker) amongst their friends, co-workers, neighbors and family.

So they will cowardly sit back, watch, and do nothing.... Safe in the knowledge that they are still liked as a person...

And no, a few thousand people demonstrating does not mean anything..... 10's of millions are against the reactors being fired up, and when just a tiny fraction get up and protest, this is proof that the nation is weak, cowardly and more concerned with self image....... Hence the country has been controlled by countless useless and corrupt old men for decades.... Nothing will change until the nation realizes they have a right to stand up and fight, or at least offer full support to those that do....

**Wow... you really have no respect for the Japanese do you?

****Actually Thunderbird, her post was 100% spot on! Obviously you haven't lived here for very long or if you have, you have chosen to ignore the reality of this culture.

Noda would be a fool to turn on the reactors - seem to be doing okay so far without them!!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Thuderbird2: I fully appreciate your resentment. But if 70-80% of the population is against the restart of any NPP, how do you explain they will be restarted anyway? Something is wrong. Isn't it? Why is the Japanese people not voicing its choice? Japan is at a turning point of its history. I believe this is the - incentive, but not xenophobic - point from tokyokawasaki.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

HokoOnchi!

Since the nuclear plants supplied a pretty significant proportion of the energy needs of the country, without having to import oil, and because no other alternative power generating systems were built to supplement or replace nuclear, the nation is stuck.

Japan is a major importer of oil, and is about 46% of primary energy, that is, all energy but oil is not used so much to generate power, it's used to provide additional peak power. Oil only generates about 8.6% of total power.

Even if all the reactors were running it would not change much the amount of imported oil.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@disillusioned - exactly - just tell us openly what precautions have been taken, and how they guarantee safety.

And don't pull the 'unable to disclose due to security/ terrorism/ corporate intellectual property' line....

Just one example; an unmanned generator truck in a car park on the side of a hill, unconnected to the local NPP, does not inspire confidence in it's ability to provide back-up power to a system failure. How quickly can it be connected? Is there an operating manual at hand (there weren't at Fukushima NPP emergency control room)? Is there an operator (s) specifically assigned to the task? How long can the NPP system survive without the alternate source being connected, i.e. how quickly should it be connected.

Not exactly difficult questions, but necessary to be addressed...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

“The question is not only the short-term power supply in the summer. If electricity fees go up due to an increasing dependence on fossil fuel, it would affect people like retailers, small- and mid-size companies and general households which are barely making ends meet,” he said.

How about going a different route and tightening up some of the land owner and commercial space rental companies that are still running on feudal system ideals. This would ease up some of the financial hardships of small retailers and households. I'm sure the apman shops and the like could survive a small drop in profits.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The additional 3GW or so from these rectors will do a little for Kansai but nothing for the rst of the country.

http://www.kepco.co.jp/pressre/2012/pdf/0519_1j_01.pdf

Additional 10% output goes a long way when you consider that without it, so many variances could go wrong. (Equipment failure from thermal, increase temperature in the summer, setsuden goal not meeting expectations, failure of transfer of electricity from other companies, etc.)

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Too dangerous. They must not be restarted. It's over.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I don't believe that these reactors pose a significant safety risk at present, excluding an unprecedented natural disaster.

Fukushima was different, well known history of huge earthquakes and tsunamis... That was criminal neglect, as far as I'm concern.

People in the are depend on the power, people in the areas livelihoods are tied to the plant, and there has been huge investment made in these facilities.

So long as they can be run safely, they need to run, because nuclear is cleaner than coal, etc.

I bet it will take probably five to ten years to get the solar and wind capacity up to speed.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sorry, but you are choosing to misinterpret what people are saying, might I suggest you step off of that high horse?

Sorry guy but when push comes to shove, 10's of million of people would rather not have scheduled blackouts and have their AC turned off during hot days of summer.

-3 ( +5 / -9 )

Rather than spending money on "pie in the sky" alternative energy pipe dream, I'm all for spending that money on improving the safety features of NPP throughout Japan.

-4 ( +5 / -10 )

nigelboy,

Like I said, starting the reactors will do a little for KEPCO power and nothing for the rest of the country.

The political situation still has to be resolved, that is, the governor of Fukui agreeing or PM Noda deciding to go against the governor and giving his permission for a restart, but on that point, PM Noda would be walking a fine line and could send the wrong message to the other prefecture governors with NPP's?

Polically, nothing moves so fast, so it could still take one week to 10 days to resolve it.

Once permission is given, it will take KEPCO 6-8 weeks to reach full power. After every mandatory reactor shut down, the reactor fuel is replaced. The fuel in these reactors will be new and takes longer to reach full power. If that happens, it could be the beginning of Aug before full power of about 3GW is reached. The summer peak demand ends at the end of Aug.

So starting the reactors will help Kansai a little, and will do nothing mfor the rest of the country.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

nigelboy,

Sorry guy but when push comes to shove, 10's of million of people would rather not have scheduled blackouts and have their AC turned off during hot days of summer.

Who are the "tens of millions of people" you are referring to? There's 13.5 million people in Kansai, and possibly, people in Hokkaido who might have a power problem. Also, are you a spokesperson for these tens of millions?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

@Heda_Madness

Did you even read the article? The article, 'Nature' is just providing a summary of self-reported radiation exposures by Japanese citizens. Hardly reliable.

The actual report is not even half done. It will be released next year. Furthermore, cancers, birth defects, infertility and other health problems associated with nuclear radiation takes many years to develop. It's only been a year since the Fukushima disasters.

And the YouTube video is not just some random video. It's also reported by a renowned newspaper called Al Jazeera which is one of the most unbiased newspapers you'll ever read.

Just because the article you provided is from 'Nature' does not mean it is reliable. There are no results to be seen and they only used a sample of 167 workers who were well protected with anti-radiation medicines and protective gear.

The fact is that Japanese people have been receiving 40mSv of ionized radiation for about a year now. That's 100 to 1000 times the recommended limit of 0.1 to 0.01mSv/year. The maximum safety limit for workers at nuclear power plants is 10mSv/year.

People in Minamisoma, Namie and other cities miles away from the disaster still have levels above 10mSv. They're receiving 100 to 1000 times the recommended limit of 0.1 to 0.01mSv/year. Children and women have a higher susceptibility to ionizing radiation and thus have a lower tolerance limit.

Haven't you seen the videos of Japanese netizens who uploaded their Geiger counters which went past the threshold radiation limits and made the alarms go off? They measured 15 to 40mSv far away from the Fukushima disasters. Imagine the level of nuclear radiation at Fukushima.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Evidence that cities far away from the Fukushima reactors have nuclear radiation levels higher than the maximum safety limit of workers at nuclear reactors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M7tbe7lzSwI

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

nigelboy,

Rather than spending money on "pie in the sky" alternative energy pipe dream, I'm all for spending that money on improving the safety features of NPP throughout Japan.

The 9 major power companies on the mainland will be spending to improve the safety at their nuclear plants. KEPCO have stated it will spend ¥200 billion over the next five years. Chubu is spending billions building a new sea wall at Hamaoka. TEPCO too is building a new sea wall in Niigata.

These huge sendings on safety will also increase the cost of power from nuclear energy. The cost of the disaster will also increase the price of power from nuclear energy, at ¥1.6/kWh for every ¥1 trillion cost of the nuclear disaster.

The future of nuclear energy, according to the new energy policy of the gov't will be limited to 15% of total power.

One way or another, new energy will be needed.

2010-2011, Germany generated 46 GW from solar and wind, which is more than the total generated in Japan from nuclear energy, so I wouldn't call that energy "pie in the sky dreams".

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Like I said, starting the reactors will do a little for KEPCO power and nothing for the rest of the country.

I know what you said and that's why I'm countering your argument. If you don't agree with the numbers, make an argument to those numbers.

The political situation still has to be resolved, that is, the governor of Fukui agreeing or PM Noda deciding to go against the governor and giving his permission for a restart, but on that point, PM Noda would be walking a fine line and could send the wrong message to the other prefecture governors with NPP's?

Fine line? If I recall, it was the governor of Fukui that insisted the Noda take a leadership stance to assure the public that NPP is needed for the overall health of the economy.

"日本経済全体のために再稼働が必要だと首相が国民に直接表明することが安心につながる"

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/news/120606/plc12060607290009-n1.htm

Once permission is given, it will take KEPCO 6-8 weeks to reach full power. After every mandatory reactor shut down, the reactor fuel is replaced. The fuel in these reactors will be new and takes longer to reach full power. If that happens, it could be the beginning of Aug before full power of about 3GW is reached. The summer peak demand ends at the end of Aug.

Yep. I suggest Fukui and the local government get their asses moving.

Who are the "tens of millions of people" you are referring to? There's 13.5 million people in Kansai, and possibly, people in Hokkaido who might have a power problem. Also, are you a spokesperson for these tens of millions?

Those who didn't protest in front of the Kantei, Fukui Government Headquaters, and Oi Plant. Their "inaction" speaks volumes.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

nigelboy,

I would say, those for and those against nuclear energy are an even split. In a recent poll in Fukui, 42% opposed starting the reactors. That would be high for a nuclear community?

There's no unity in the ruling party, since on Tuesday, one third of PM Noda's politicians handed him a petition opposing starting the reactors.

According to BBC World, PM Noda has stated, he'll make a decision about the reactors sometime next week. I think the political wheel will turn slowly?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

The 9 major power companies on the mainland will be spending to improve the safety at their nuclear plants. KEPCO have stated it will spend ¥200 billion over the next five years. Chubu is spending billions building a new sea wall at Hamaoka. TEPCO too is building a new sea wall in Niigata.

Good. Let's start it .

These huge sendings on safety will also increase the cost of power from nuclear energy. The cost of the disaster will also increase the price of power from nuclear energy, at ¥1.6/kWh for every ¥1 trillion cost of the nuclear disaster.

Yes but that cost of 1.6/kWH yen is not applicable since the whole point of "spending billions" was to prevent it. Don't know why you put that figure.

The future of nuclear energy, according to the new energy policy of the gov't will be limited to 15% of total power.

To which I am against.

One way or another, new energy will be needed.

That's assuming that 15% is set in concrete.

2010-2011, Germany generated 46 GW from solar and wind, which is more than the total generated in Japan from nuclear energy, so I wouldn't call that energy "pie in the sky dreams".

If 46GWh is all they can achieve, it's "pie in the sky".

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It does make sense for Mr.Noda to authorize the restart of the two reactors at the Ohi nuclear plant. The original problem with the plants in question was not caused by the actual reactors but by the earthquake and ensuing tsunami. It does make sense that any country, not only Japan, should try and look into alternative sources of energy, in particular the more ecological ones. However, Japan requires far too much energy that cannot at present be provided other than nuclear. Surely the emphasis should be on making the current nuclear power plants safer whereby they can withstand future earthquakes better. I am aware of the fact that all sorts of other factors also influence the viability of the present plants(weather conditions, etc.) but these have not represented a problem before the massive earthquake a year ago. We need more information on the alternatives, I think.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Nigelboy,

You call the 3GW that the reactors can provide, important for the Kansai power situation but call the 46GW Germany generated from solar and wind, "pie in the sky". The 46GW would be about one fifth of the total power generated in this country, and more than the maximum KEPCO can generate with all it's power plants and 11 nuclear reactors, which would be about 35GW maximum. I'm sure KEPCO would be more than happy to have 46GW of power from free energy.

Recently, Germany broke a world record for solar power when in a single day it generated 20GW.

Yes but that cost of 1.6/kWH yen is not applicable since the whole point of "spending billions" was to prevent it. Don't know why you put that figure.

I gave the figures, because according to the recent expert government panel which released the data, the cost of the disaster will increase the cost of all nuclear energy, not just that generated by TEPCO.

In the near future, the cost of nuclear energy will increase because of the nuclear disaster and also because of the ¥billions to be spent to increase safety at the nuclear plants. Those increase in costs don't even consider the cost of the very long term storage of spent fuel.

The same panel also stated that by 2030, nuclear energy will cost more than renewable energy.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

2 Good Bad

zichiJun. 09, 2012 - 12:16AM JST

HokoOnchi!

Since the nuclear plants supplied a pretty significant proportion of the energy needs of the country, without having to import oil, and because no other alternative power generating systems were built to supplement or replace nuclear, the nation is stuck.

Zichi

Japan is a major importer of oil, and is about 46% of primary energy, that is, all energy but oil is not used so much to generate power, it's used to provide additional peak power. Oil only generates about 8.6% of total power.

Even if all the reactors were running it would not change much the amount of imported oil.

Oh. I see what you are getting at: Electrical power generation is not the key driver on oil imports. No. It is not the biggest part of Japan's oil imports. But burning oil accounts for about 50% of all electrical power in Japan and the demand for it to generate more power has been climbing upward as the nuclear power stations were taken offline. Nuclear powered electrical generation I think was at about 17+%.

But in the macro scheme of things, already, oil importation to generate electrical power has begun to climb up. It already is about 9% to 10% higher than before and is expected to climb as the hot weather continues.

As a basis for economic recovery and growth, it is in the national interest to have primary power generated with as stable a price base as possible. Something which oil, now days, is less able to do.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In the near future, the cost of generating power from nuclear energy will more than double, making it more expensive than LNG or coal and about the same price as oil.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

0 Good Bad

zichiJun. 09, 2012 - 03:58AM JST

HokoOnchi,

Check out this link it'll answer your questions.

http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/graphical_flip-chart/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2012/04/02/all_english.pdf

Oil is about 2 to 3 times more expensive than LNG or coal, so generally it's only used to boost peak time demand. Oil fired turbines can respond more quickly to LNG or coal turbines. Mostly, the loss of nuclear power has been taken up by LNG, imports up 30%, coal, imports up about 15%. Oil mostly ends up in cars and trucks.

If the reactors are not started or less of them are started, then the primary energy for base power will be LNG and coal.

Thanks for that.

Still, your resource shows that without nuclear power, the amount of imported energy/fuel increases by 16% which is not a small value. Agreed that Japan already imports oil, coal and LNG and must now import even more. This is not, in my opinion, a healthy economic trend.

My concern is the short-term (optimistically speaking), how much will it cost the national economy until alternative methods of power generation are online to replace the nuclear powered supply?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Japan is running so short of nuclear-waste storage that the entire industry risks shutdown within the next two decades unless a solution is found. You don't build a nuclear plant without finding a solution for long term storage of radioactive waste. If Japan seriously wants to stick to nuclear power, a second storage site would be needed. Japan's unstable geology and densely populated terrain mean that its challenges are far bigger.

If Japan decides to return to pre-disaster levels of nuclear power generation, the waste problem is now so acute that the facility will only buy Japan an additional decade or two before it has to have second site for more lasting solutions, such as permanent burial. If Japan fails to find a solution to its waste-fuel problem, the entire nuclear power industry could one day grind to a halt. Unlike U.S., Japan does not have much in the way of geologically stable and empty landscapes in which to bury nuclear waste for centuries. It certainly has nothing like the deserts of Nevada, where there is a burial chamber deep inside a mountain.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

sfjp330,

added to that it also the demand from the gov't tht the power companies stop the system of open pools for storing spend fuels and stop storing so much spend fuel at the NPP's.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

“I promise, again, to secure the safety of nuclear power and continue making uninterrupted efforts to improve it.”

If this were true, wouldn't we have an independent nuclear supervisory authority already?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Your claim

Did you even read the article? The article, 'Nature' is just providing a summary of self-reported radiation exposures by Japanese citizens.

From the article

Few people will develop cancer as a consequence of being exposed to the radioactive material that spewed from Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant last year — and those who do will never know for sure what caused their disease. These conclusions are based on two comprehensive, independent assessments of the radiation doses received by Japanese citizens, as well as by the thousands of workers who battled to bring the shattered nuclear reactors under control.

So what is hardly reliable is your claims. What actual report is not done? The one by the WHO or the one by the UNSCEAR? As both reports were being discussed lat week. As you would know if you'd bothered to read the article, because it's clear you haven't.

Secondly, yes I'm well aware of reported high figures elsewhere and have been to Minami Soma on many occasions. Our Geiger counters produced nothing surprising. Have you?

The fact is that Japanese people have been receiving 40mSv of ionized radiation for about a year now

That's not a fact. That's just your conjecture. Which Japanese? All of them? Is it just the Japanese? You really should get in touch with Nature and let them know that their reporting so is so badly wrong. I'm sure that they'd put you in touch with the relevant authorities and you can you compare your studies.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I wonder if the legal system provides an avenue for those opposing to prevent or at-least delay a restart? I mean clearly some laws are being broken here.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Economy > Safety of people?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not starting the reactors will add $2 billion/month to energy imports.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Zichi, would you mind explain that number a bit?

btw, $2 billion/month, according to my calculations is something like $15 per month and person. Assuming the costs would all be forwarded to the public. This wouldn't be the case as much of it would be used for producing exported products.

And of course we would also need to consider the saved nuclear operating costs and fuel import costs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SquidBert,

Those are the figures predicted by the financial experts for increased imports of gas, coal and oil used to generate the power lost from not using the nuclear plants. Some even put it at $100 million/day. Imports of LNG are up 30%, coal and oil about 15%. There's a price to pay if the reactors are not started.

There's little difference in running costs of a nuclear plant in shut down or when it's generating power. Even in shut down the plant has to be maintained and staffed. The cost of nuclear fuel won't reduce the overheads by very much. Nuclear power remain dangerous until they are decommissioned and all nuclear fuel removed.

The cost of decommissioning about about 50 reactors in about 18 plants will be massive and would take many decades.

The power companies are now required to spend ¥billions to increase the safety level at their nuclear plants. KEPCO will spend ¥200 billion.

It's the duty of all private companies to protect the investments of its shareholders and are required to pass on all costs and overheads to its customers.

The cost of the nuclear disaster will increase all nuclear energy by ¥1.6/kWh for every ¥1 trillion cost of the disaster which will reach more than ¥30 trillion, and some experts have put it at ¥50 trillion.

There's also the problem and cost of long term shortage of spent nuclear fuel.

Unfortunately, nuclear power was easier to start than it is to stop.

For the next 20 years or so, the country will need to run some of the reactors, the gov't puts it at 15% of total power, until renewable or new energies can be put in place.

Germany closed 8 aging nuclear plants but it will take another 10 years to close the remaining 9, and Germany is ahead of the curve with renewable energy while Japan would be starting from ground zero.

But in the near future, the cost of nuclear power will at least double to the same level as oil, and there's nothing like profit and loss for pushing changes.

Japan can't start from a position of not using nuclear energy, and the danger at the nuclear plants will also remain.

I would like to see the end of nuclear energy but it won't happen over night.

I think your quoted figure of $15/month per person works out to ¥1.75 billion/month, which is near enough to the figure I quoted?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They're saying reactors must be restarted in order to ((( protect the economy ))).

But in fact, its the nuclear power plants that are ((( ruining the economy ))).

Meltdowns ((( which can not be avoided ))) and ((( can't be stopped, once they start ))) ruin the land, sea, air, animals, and children. And their parents. And friends.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Noda should spend a few months up in Fukushima instead of hiding in Tokyo

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Governor of Niigata criticizes Prime Minister for his explanation of the need to restart [Ooi nuke plant], says PM is "taking the people's living hostage"

Governor Izumida pointed out, "It was a limited 'declaration of safety' that 'the plant won't have an accident even if the earthquake and tsunami that struck Fukushima strikes Ooi'. But if it is a different kind of earthquake, such as an epicentral earthquake, they will be able to make an excuse of 'beyond expectation'."

His concern for an epicentral earthquake seems well justified. Two university researchers just released their studies on June 8 that raised the possibility that Ooi Nuclear Power Plant is (also) sitting on top of an active fault. The NISA chief immediately issued a statement denying the possibility.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/e-japan/surprise/20120608-OYT8T00814.htm?from=popin

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Apart from any faults directly underneath, are these reactors really safe now?

Read this from Wiki about Oi (Ohi) and decide for yourself:

"To improve the safety at the plant an action plan was designed with a total of 91 possible measures. On 9 April 2012 of this only 54 were already implemented: the earthquake resistance of the power transmission towers was improved, satellite telephone communication was installed, seawater could be taken in to cool the systems. But an earthquake-resistant office building was not to be completed before April 2015. Until that time the assembly room close to the central control room would act as emergency-management office. Because this place offers only accommodation for some 50 people, experts had doubts about this place. Venting systems to release steam from the containments with filters to remove radioactive isotopes were planned to be built in 2015. The dam that would offer better protection against tsunamis was to be finished around March 2014."

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Germany just passed making 50% of its power from Solar & renewables. Japan's Feed in tariff start July, which will pay home owners $0.70 kWh to harvest solar energy.

This FIT will make many homeowners very rich and wipe out the need for big utility companies.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If every person opposed to nuclear power would install 10 solar panels in 2012 Japan could be 100% powered by solar by 2014. Stop. Think. Save Japan from nukes. Take direct action now. Buy one solar pNel today. Stop Noda.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The atomic utilities are afraid of the July rise of home owners getting paid to harvest solar energy. The Feed in Tariff will make nukes unnecessary.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No Zichi.

I'm not interested nor awed by a large GW that solar achieved on a perfect sunny day in Germany. Nor am I interested in the high subsidized solar energy cost that they have to buy on that perfect sunny day. (Free my a$$)

I gave the figures, because according to the recent expert government panel which released the data, the cost of the disaster will increase the cost of all nuclear energy, not just that generated by TEPCO

.Link please. You are basically stating that the other 8 companies must subsidize their income earmarked for TEPCO.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

@Heda_Madness

It seems like you haven't even read it yourself. The actual scientific report hasn't even been written yet. And the sample size is just 167 workers who had access to anti-radiation medicines and protective gear.

There are reports that the nuclear radiation hotspots aren't really related to geographic distance. For example, there is much much more contamination in Fukushima city than some areas close to the Fukushima nuclear reactors. Fukushima city has 60 miles from the nuclear reactors, yet it has some of the worst contamination.

The Ibaraki, Iwate, Miyagi, Yamagata and Aomori areas are also highly contaminated. The Kanto region has moderate levels of nuclear contamination.

By the way the workers at the nuclear reactors were subject to acute doses of nuclear radiation. Long term effects over many years have not been study yet. Even in Chernobyl, workers were rotated in order to expose the workers with minimal radiation as possible and to keep it short term.

The nuclear radiation in Japan won't be disappearing. The long term effects have not been studied yet. Nuclear scientists only have access to medical data on acute cases, not long term cases. The type of nuclear radiation in Japan is also much more dangerous than in Chernobyl. This is because the Fukushima reactors use MOX fuel which is basically Plutonium, which is far more dangerous than other nuclear materials.

In Chernobyl, there is thought to have been at least 100,000 extra cases of cancer. Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear scientist, predicts Japan will have at least 1 million extra cases of cancer. In addition, he also predicts higher rates of birth deformities and genetic mutations which may make future generations infertile or physically malformed due to genetic abnormalities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItPra2Y0M7Q&feature=g-vrec

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I was going to give a long and detailed response to your inaccurate claims but you mentioned Arnie, so jt's pointless

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/06/arnie-gundersen-going-international.html

Suffice to say that the conclusions are based on two comprehensive, independent assessments of the radiation doses received by Japanese citizens, as well as by the thousands of workers who battled to bring the shattered nuclear reactors under control. And The UNSCEAR committee’s analyses show that 167 workers at the plant received radiation doses that slightly raise their risk of developing cancer. The general public was largely protected by being promptly evacuated, although the WHO report does find that some civilians’ exposure exceeded the government’s guidelines. “If there’s a health risk, it’s with the highly exposed workers,” says Wolfgang Weiss, the chair of UNSCEAR. Even for these workers, future cancers may never be directly tied to the accident, owing to the small number of people involved and the high background rates of cancer in developed countries such as Japan. In particular, it scoured anonymized medical data for 20,115 workers and contractors employed by the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which runs the plant. It found that 146 employees and 21 contractors received a dose of more than 100 millisieverts (mSv), the level at which there is an acknowledged slight increase in cancer risk

20,115. Not 167.

Though it's pointless having any discussion with anyone who has such a myopic approach to the subject.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Your claim

By the way the workers at the nuclear reactors were subject to acute doses of nuclear radiation.

From the report:

It found that 146 employees and 21 contractors received a dose of more than 100 millisieverts (mSv), the level at which there is an acknowledged slight increase in cancer risk

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Thunderbird2 - Wow... you really have no respect for the Japanese do you?

What? You misunderstand me. I live here (12 years now), I work here, my mixed race (Eng/Jpn) daughter goes to school here. I pay tax, insurance and everything else as required... I love and hate many aspects of life in Japan..

But, with the utmost respect the thing that bothers me the most, is how nearly every Japanese person I have met has complained or shown real concern about the reactors being turned back on. How many actually do something about it or voice their opinions in public???

Exactly, they are more afraid of being seen as 'trouble'.... This also applies to many other aspects of life in Japan. I am amazed at the resolve of the public at large, in that they seem to constantly demonstrate (through any lack of action) their amazing ability to not get (or show) disappointed.... Their cultural fear of shame, prevents any collective action....

The government is fully aware and abuses the lack of public spirit, and they use it to their advantage to get away with... Well fill in the blanks here __

Deep down I wish the public would gather in mass outside the diet and government buildings, armed with banners megaphones and stones. Shout, scream, smash a few windows, get arrested cause a massive uproar which just might cause a chain reaction of civil unrest across the country. Then maybe just maybe the government might realize that they are reportable/accountable to the public and not just themselves....

But, this is never going to happen. Why? Read my original post...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well these reactors have now been declared offically "safe" by the government.

Although I was given a minus point above by someone who perhaps did not read the whole quotation in my post, may I just point out quickly that the new tsunami seawall will not be ready until around March 2014.

As of April 2012, this year, "Venting systems to release steam from the containments (with filters to remove radioactive isotopes) were planned to be built in 2015".

Perhaps they are as safe as can be within and of themselves. (Assuming no adverse external factors.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And yet tokyokawasaki, like most Japanese he or she encountered , just stays home and bitch and whine about the INACTIONS of others.

Like I said in my previous post, their INACTIONS speaks volumes.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

You know nothing about tokyokawasaki or any other reader, so please refrain from making remarks like this, which only reflect badly on yourself.

Just been reading up on J news snippets here and there.

Not only have the Oi reactors now been declared safe but the final OK for the restart should be given this coming Saturday.

Noda has made it clear that this will not be a limited restart just for this summer.

The mood is that this will then signal a general start-up of idled reactors all over Japan.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@tokyokawasaki - gotta say I share your sentiments about the J- public ..sometimes I also wish they pro actively stood up and made themselves heard more, otherwise the J -politicians will never stop screwing them so blatantly... Btw, not to worry about nigelboy- trolling boy...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The photo above illustrates how he holds the people as he 'screws them so blatantly', as you put it, marcelito.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Nigelboy, look up the phrase, 'Owned'. Drop it mate, you haven't posted any facts, stats or truths that hold.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

nigelboy:

Nor am I interested in the high subsidized solar energy cost that they have to buy on that perfect sunny day. (Free my a$$)

At least it's cheaper than the cost of nuclear.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Nigelboy, look up the phrase, 'Owned'. Drop it mate, you haven't posted any facts, stats or truths that hold.

"Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment, to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times......

......For the average family, this would amount to an additional charge of about €200 a year, in addition to the actual cost of electricity. Solar energy has the potential to become the most expensive mistake in German environmental policy. "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/solar-subsidy-sinkhole-re-evaluating-germany-s-blind-faith-in-the-sun-a-809439.html

To repeat what I said, "Free my a$$"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The nuclear industry received more than ¥500 billion in 2011, and have received large gov't subsidies since 1974.

2010-2011, Germany generated 46GW from wind and solar, that would be more than 3% of total power. That would be about 17% of total power.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The cost of the nuclear disaster will cost in excess of ¥30 trillion, some experts state, ¥54 trillion, over the next 30 years. More if it takes longer, and it will. How much renewable technology could you buy for those figures?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

2010-2011, Germany generated 46GW from wind and solar, that would be more than 3% of total power. That would be about 17% of total power.

According to GWC, "Wind energy generated 37.3 TWh of electricity in 2010, which accounted for 6.2% of the country’s power consumption" Hence, 3% added from solar power comes out to less than 10%.

Along with the high price associated with solar plus the volatile nature of wind power output, I'd say it's not as "rosey" as you point it out to be. In addition, due to the volatile nature of those two energy sources, Germany has to rely on other countries power generation as a "stable" source which includes mostly nuclear power generated French sources. Hence, comparing Germany which could import electricity from her neighbors versus Japan which cannot due to the fact that they are an island nation, leaves very little flexibility in expanding such alternatives at scale of Germany.

The cost of the nuclear disaster will cost in excess of ¥30 trillion

No it doesn't.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

nigelboy Jun. 13, 2012 - 03:22AM JST Hence, comparing Germany which could import electricity from her neighbors versus Japan which cannot due to the fact that they are an island nation, leaves very little flexibility in expanding such alternatives at scale of Germany.

One reason for this inevitability is the age of Japan's nuclear plants. Built in the 1970s and 1980s following the oil shock, most plants will approach the end of their planned technical life in 10 years. As these reactors are decommissioned, new plants will need to be built in their place, but it is hard to imagine where these new plants would be housed. Many regions in Japan would probably oppose new nuclear power plants. A further reason is the fact that nuclear plants are becoming economically unviable. The replacement of old nuclear power plants by new ones would be extremely expensive, in comparison with power plants with renewable energy sources and with electricity efficiency development, independently of safety reasons.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nigelboy,

German utilities say solar power reached a new record level in May when it produced about 10 percent of the country’s overall electricity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/solar-power-in-germany-hit-new-record-high-in-may-producing-10-pct-of-countrys-electricity/2012/06/08/gJQAz3b3NV_story.html

In 2011, solar accounted for 3 percent of the country’s total electricity generation. This year, Germany set a new record for solar power. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

Wind energy generated 37.3 TWh of electricity in 2010, which accounted for 6.2% of the country’s power consumption. 

In total, 17% of electricity was generated from renewable sources in Germany in 2010, with wind being the single largest contributor. http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=129

In 2011, Germany got roughly 20% of its electricity from all renewable energy technologies.

Under Merkel’s plan, 80 percent of Germany’s energy will come from renewables by 2050, according to the German Advisory Council on the Environment. Studies by the council show that 100 percent renewable power is a realistic goal for Germany.  http://www.nationofchange.org/germany-swaps-nuclear-solar-and-wind-power-1339165028

 In 2010 nearly 17% (more than 100 TWH) of Germany's electricity supply (603 TWH) was produced from renewable energy sources, more than the 2010 contribution of gas-fired power plants.

Germany is a net exporter of electricity even to France. http://www.renewables100.org/news/news-article/clearing-up-the-facts-about-solar-in-germany/63c5496cb8366c3a1141358412968218/?tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2012&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=02&tx_ttnews%5Bday%5D=16

The private research institute, Japan Center for Economic Research put the entire cost of the disaster, including compensation and decommissioning the Daiichi plant’s six reactors, at 40-50 trillion yen – a figure that approaches the bill for cleaning up the US subprime banking meltdown in 2008/9.31 http://www.japanfocus.org/-David-McNeill/3707

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is the only industrialized nation in the world that is 100% "Nuclear Free"!. Let's create a new, growing economy with improving (Wind, Solar, Ocean Tidal, and fuel cell technologies. Japan could be the new world leader!, (Our Children deserve a better choice!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Sales by 10 major power utilities in July dropped by 6.3% due to a decline in demand, the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan has revealed.

But while efforts to cut down electricity use by households and the business sector are paying off, some say the numbers prove that last month's reactivation of two reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.'s Oi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture may have been unnecessary.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

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