Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you support the restart of nuclear reactors in Japan?

48 Comments

Do you support the restart of nuclear reactors in Japan?

© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

48 Comments
Login to comment

I am not saying nuclear power should not be extremely tightly monitored for safety reasons, but those who fear it more than the other major methods of generating power, need to educate themselves on the facts vs riding various bandwagons of fear mongers and those looking for a catchy headline.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sure burning non-renewable resources slowly deteriorates our environment, but just 1 accident at a nuclear plant is permanent damage of the most extreme and wreaks havoc world-wide, aside from rendering a large region permanently uninhabitable. Therefore I support the use of non-renewable resource in the meantime while we focus on increasing wind-turbines, increasing hydro technology and the availability of other renewable resources.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just not the one a few km's up the road.......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As said... cute speech (kinda commy somehow) and that's all. No land ho so far.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Kato_KoshiroJul. 31, 2014 - 10:01PM JST Untill the development of a real economically more viable clean alternative, the nuclear power is still the most fitted for a country like Japan.

No, it isn't. Japan suffers frequent earthquakes, any one of which could damage several critical systems. Japan is saddled with a pro-industry government that issues "guidelines" instead of regulations, so the nuclear industry just ignores them. Japan is the last place in the world that should have nuclear power.

As for waiting hopefully for clean alternatives, they won't happen until AFTER nuclear power is shut down. The reasoning is simple. If the plants are still around there is simply no reason for power companies to spend millions on developing new clean power sources.

These are companies that won't even spend money on replacing outdated nuclear power plants or regular maintenance. You're living in a dreamland if you think they'd spend money on clean power sources unless they have NO alternatives.

A "necessary evil" so to say. The passionate talk about changing all to solar power, wind power et cetera may be cute but as same as Marie Antoinette's "if there's no bread, let them eat cake" if not presented in a way that not alter the bill for the final consumer, a whole country.

Firstly, Marie Antionette never said that. Second, apart from TEPCO the rest of the power companies are making plenty of money... actually, TEPCO is also making money if you took the time to read their financial statements, although not as much as they would like.

You and I are the ones paying to clean up TEPCO's mess. You and I are paying more for coal and other dirty power sources so that the power companies make their government-supported huge profits. You and I are the ones who will die when there is the next nuclear accident.

The power companies have plenty of money, but simply CHOOSE not to spend any more than they're forced to on clean power sources. They won't until the public stops making lame excuses for them and starts INSISTING on them doing what is right.

Wake up!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Untill the development of a real economically more viable clean alternative, the nuclear power is still the most fitted for a country like Japan. A "necessary evil" so to say. The passionate talk about changing all to solar power, wind power et cetera may be cute but as same as Marie Antoinette's "if there's no bread, let them eat cake" if not presented in a way that not alter the bill for the final consumer, a whole country.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Absolutely, yes. Even with the many potential problems of nuclear it's still far safer for our health than how we are doing it with the reactors stopped.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

NessieJul. 30, 2014 - 12:54PM JST Every single large river is already dammed and generating hydropower. The next wave is micro-hydropower, but there are diminishing returns. You can't say Japan has not invested in hydro, and hydropower has environmental problems of its own.

With all due respect Nessie, you are only half correct. While there are dams across most of the rivers only a few are generating power, courtesy of the government's penchant for awarding contracts to dodgy individuals who half-finish the project, run into "additional" costs which they milk until the government gets tired of the delays, and then abandon the project unfinished.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan has many large rivers, which should be generating hydroelectricity.

@Disillusioned

Every single large river is already dammed and generating hydropower. The next wave is micro-hydropower, but there are diminishing returns. You can't say Japan has not invested in hydro, and hydropower has environmental problems of its own.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Seems to me that Japan showed to the world that they are incapable of running nuclear plants safely.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The wife of PM Abe does not support restarting the reactors or the future use of nuclear energy?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Pretty sure "restart" means "with TEPCO at helm". So, no.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Perhaps I am biased: I assisted in testing ways to mitigate pool swell and hydraulic shock from the operation of GE Mark I & II BWRs.

I do not trust them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Wha' boweevil said above. I loathe ALL things nuclear!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Daniel NeagariJul. 28, 2014 - 02:25PM JST Well... instead of assuming that, wouldn't then be better to push for the Nuclear plants not to be treated as "business as usual"?

Except that the government now owns a massive stake in the nuclear power plants. And people tend to defend their investments. You can't have government acting as referee while placing side-bets on the game.

If people keep quiet, then coal or LPG or what ever is going to be used and be keep using it until the next crisis.

No, it won't because it is unprofitable and the price is rising all the time. The sooner we stop dangling the possibility of the nuclear reactors restarting in front of them the sooner the power companies will adjust to the new paradigm and shift to cheaper green power sources in order to maximise their profits.

One does not manage humans by hoping they'll magically change their natures and suddenly stop chasing profits, instead one changes the landscape so that maximising profits coincides with pursuing green power.

There is no white (keep the plants off) or black (turn 'em on)... the use of the nuclear plants has to be done under commitment and to ensure that commitment people should push so new energies are implemented.

You're asking the leopard to change its spots. That doesn't happen.

Saying "NO" without a solution is the same as saying "YES" and keep using the Nuclear Plants.... either way the problem is still there and left for "latter"

The solution is to say "no" to nuclear power loudly, clearly and unequivocally, then increase tarrifs on coal and LPG and funnel that money into subsidising green power development. The big power companies will rapidly realise that the money is in green power and won't need someone standing over them with a stick beating them into green power, they'll run towards it with open arms and they'll think it is their idea.

Once you embrace the idea that big companies are full of profit-centered, selfish asses then manipulating them becomes child's play.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The problem is that the government here cannot be trusted to regulate the power companies, and the power companies cannot be trusted to place safety over profits.

It's not only in Japan.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The Fukushima disaster will eventually bankrupt Japan. No sane person would restart a nuclear plant under the natural hazard conditions in Japan.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Thunderbird2.. It only takes one big quake though. That could happen anytime. So never mind the record since the 60s that is irelevant.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I said unsure, but until an alternative , effective and affordable method of powering a modern industrialised country is found then I think they have to restart the power stations. 2 accidents related to quakes since the 60s is a pretty good record for a country plagued with earthquakes.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Japan is well served with abundant sunshine that even 'gloomy' Germany uses to good effect. The hand-in-glove relationship between politicians and power companies is the reason we do not see the back end of nuclear power in Japan .....

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The problem is that in Fukushima, for example, years after, it is still not "contained."

The terra underneath Japan is not very firma.

...

Nuclear energy is really not a good idea in Japan.

I do agree with your last sentence, but not for the reasons of your first sentence. I think the issues with building on an earthquake prone area can be overcome. The problem is that the government here cannot be trusted to regulate the power companies, and the power companies cannot be trusted to place safety over profits. So it's not the terra being non-firma that is the problem, it is the culture being non-firma that is the problem.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No, No, No! Lessons learned surely???

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Nuclear power is bad everywhere, not only in Japan. I find funny people think it's bad only for this country. Living in Italy, when I was a kid I lived Chernobyl disaster, since it influenced a large part of Europe. I don't want to live another nightmare like that.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The economy needs these started for now at least. Importing fuel is hurting the recovery and making things more expensive in Japan. There are risks connected to almost all methods need to generate power. Until safe and cheap alternatives are available Nuclear power is the best option for Japan.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

We discovered recently that Chubu Electric, the owners of the Hamaoaka atomic plant which some experts have called the most dangerous in the country, they had a secret ¥200 million slush fund used to persuade politicians to support nuclear energy,

Now it revealed by a top official from the Kansai Electric, Chimori Naito, 91, it had a nearly 20 year history of doling out huge cash donations to prime ministers. For 18 years seven prime ministers received ¥20 million each.

These stories are the tip of an iceberg showing corruption in all aspects of the nuke village run deep.

Since the nukes of hazard, and the formation of the new NRA, how can we be sure these levels of corruption have stopped?

According to an Asahi Shimbum poll, 59% were opposed to restarting the Kyushu reactors.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Understand the aversion to them. I would judge each on it's individual safety vs. need to meet demand. 100% behind safer methods to produce power if realistic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Brian Wheway

I think that were going top have to do something quickly and soon , as fossil fuel is running out fast!

Uranium too, its not renewable!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Strangerland,

As long as it is contained, it is not polluting the environment.

Exactly.

The problem is that in Fukushima, for example, years after, it is still not "contained."

The terra underneath Japan is not very firma.

There are some rather large plates moving in different directions that make the problem of containing hugely lethal substances like plutonium rather difficult.

A huge amount of energy is simply wasted. Much could be saved without inconveniencing people's lives. And sustainable energy production is vital.

Nuclear energy is really not a good idea in Japan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Nuclear is good because it is not burning oil. I would like to see some more research put into those off-shore wave power generator thingies.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I think that were going top have to do something quickly and soon , as fossil fuel is running out fast!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Frungy

Well... instead of assuming that, wouldn't then be better to push for the Nuclear plants not to be treated as "business as usual"?

If people keep quiet, then coal or LPG or what ever is going to be used and be keep using it until the next crisis.

There is no white (keep the plants off) or black (turn 'em on)... the use of the nuclear plants has to be done under commitment and to ensure that commitment people should push so new energies are implemented.

Saying "NO" without a solution is the same as saying "YES" and keep using the Nuclear Plants.... either way the problem is still there and left for "latter"

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It could be argued that coal is clean if it is contained. So, its kind of a moot point to say that radioactive isotopes that are toxic for a hundred thousand years or so are a clean energy alternative-because there is absolutely no way to guarantee containment for that length of time. 'Clean for the moment' may better define it. There is also no reason to believe it will remain that way.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Where do they get the adjective 'clean' from to describe nuclear energy anyway? What's clean about radioactivity?

As long as it is contained, it is not polluting the environment. The same cannot be said for coal, which is dirty no matter which way you look at it.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Nuclear plants will be seen by future generations as asbestos is seen by the present generation.

Where do they get the adjective 'clean' from to describe nuclear energy anyway? What's clean about radioactivity?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Nuclear power is clean and efficient with the exception of...

Precisely!

We're forced to consume Big Oil and Big Nuke with their attendant risks not because alternatives don't exist, but because the markets - or rather those at the top who so selflessly support our politicians - would be threatened.

Germany is on target to achieve 35% renewables by 2020, with wind and solar already generating 17% of its needs (Wiki), whereas Japan has less than a tenth of that. Do we have less wind? Less solar gain? Fewer engineers?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Daniel, the problem with allowing the reactors to restart is that once they're restarted there is absolutely no incentive for reform. Once the crisis is past it'll be back to "business as usual". Sometimes you need to eat the frog.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

For the time being they are necessary. Japan (I am going to limit this to only Japan), needs a lot of energy. At the moment since no nuclear plants are working, all energy is coming from hydroelectric generation and fossil resources (gas, oil, coal) plants, being this fossil plants the major source of generation (there are wind, solar, micro-hydro and garbage disposal generation but the production of these ones are limited).

The burning of more fossil fuels will (is?) gave a ecological impact and also economical impact.

Nuclear plants will need to be used (under security measures) for a while until other power generating facilities are built. Such as a Mega solar generation, Wind farms, Tidal generation and Geothermal generation, all these forms (and others) can be developed all them needs a lot of time to be implemented.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

No.

Nuclear power plants need constant attention, 24/7 monitoring, stable power supply, stable water supply, stable seismic and weather conditons to remain safe. So the number of variables that must conform to an 'all things remainig equal' paradigm is far too high to ensure even a reasonable level of safety if just one of these variables should change.

Nuclear power plants can easily be weaponized by terrorists or warring factions. Strike with a coventional shell or missile and it makes its own nuke.

Waste, which for all intents and purposes, may as well be eternally toxic.

It is quite possible that future generations, having developed safer non-toxic, forms of energy, will look back at present generations with contempt, for the latter being so focused on their own immediate economic self-gratification and leaving the former with billions of tons of toxic waste from a filthy antiquated technology.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

.I am opposed to restarting the plants as they are.

If they converted to thorium though, ensuring no more meltdowns in a disaster (we got earthquakes and tsunami here in Japan you know!) then I could at least be lukewarm about nuclear power.

But TEPCO and friends are sticking with plutonium and MOX. Obviously, they don't give a shite about Japan or her people. They only care about profit, and safety digs too deep into profits for them

1 ( +3 / -2 )

No. Shut them down, bankrupt the companies that have been exploiting a credible and trusting public by running nuclear power plants in Japan well past their agreed safe operating life spans. Confiscate their assets and use the money to build safer and more sustainable power sources.

Simply and clearly the power companies in Japan are criminal. When the reactors were built a "safe" operating life span of 40 years was agreed. Every single power company is operating at least one reactor that is beyond the safe operating life span (http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/2012/09/reactorage.jpg).

This is a massive betrayal of public trust and given the loss of life and property damage that a reactor failure could cause the only sensible course is to revoke these companies' licenses, confiscate their assets and prosecute their directors.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

No! I'm against nuclear power not only in Japan, but in all the world.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

In a country with the seismic activity of Japan, nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen.

And getting rid of the waste just creates a problem for future generations.

Instead of spending untold trillions on "defence" against "them" who are spending untold trillions "defending themselves against "us," we could pool our resources and create a sustainable energy production system.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The loss of business and the costs of dealing with the nukes of hazard will run into hundreds of trillions of yen before its over.

The nuke village was one of the most corrupt industries in the country and just not sure how much it has been cleaned up. Chubu Electric had a ¥200 million slush fund for politicians to promote nuclear energy. Days of many brown envelopes.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

There are two main problems with nuclear power. The first is the waste, of course. Nobody really knows what to do with it. And, the second problem is, the cost of an accident. The Fukushima disaster will end up costing Japan more than it cost to build all of the reactors in the country. Japan has many large rivers, which should be generating hydroelectricity. Japan also has large geothermal areas that should also be producing electricity. Japan only uses 3% alternatives. That means, at present, 97% of Japan's electricity is coming from fossil fuels. That is shameful for a so-called 'developed' country.

I had to have a little chuckle about the comment stating the environmental impact of hydroelectricity. Have you been to Fukushima lately? Of course you haven't. Hydroelectric power is one of the least environmental impacting forms of power generation. It also creates large water reserves. Yeah, you may lose a valley or two, but there is no CO2 released and it does not produce nuclear waste.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Like the chairman of the NRA stated, achieving absolute safety in nuclear power plants may be pie in the sky. The NRA can't guarantee the safety of any reactors or their atomic plants.

There's a lack of safety culture at the NPP's.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

H3LL NO.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I say, cull the outdated plants, strengthen the newer ones so they are more resistant to quakes and tsunamis, and turn them on. Then begin to decommission the old ones, all the while implementing more solar and wind power. It is the only way.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

Nuclear power is clean and efficient with the exception of the radioactive fuel and more importantly the waste. We do not have safe reliable disposal of the spent fuel. This was always my concern. We keep generation more of it and not safe, secure disposal.

So, I say I am not sure. Cleaner than fossil fuel and less environmental impact than hydro dams. I would have hoped worldwide solar research would improve Solar and made widely available at reasonable price.

5 ( +6 / -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