• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Three-quarters of Japanese Firms Oppose Nuclear Power

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
I found the article below, coupled with this article ( Japan's hotter weather to boost power demand) pretty alarming as to how the Japanese people are going to get through this energy crisis. What are your thoughts on nuclear and this crisis in Japan in relation to the US and rest of the world?
Nearly three-quarters of Japanese companies support abandoning nuclear power after last year's Fukushima disaster, although a majority set the condition that alternative energy resources must be secured, a Reuters poll showed on Friday.

The poll offers fresh evidence of the deep public distrust of nuclear power, the role of which the government is reconsidering after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that wrecked the Fukushima nuclear plant, triggering a radiation crisis that caused mass evacuations and widespread contamination.

All of the country's 50 nuclear reactors are now off-line, with those halted for maintenance checks since Fukushima prevented from restarting as a result of public safety fears, and shortfalls in power supply are being met by the use of costly fossil fuels and energy-saving steps.

The government is struggling to finalize a revamp of Japan's energy program, which previously called for an increase in the use of nuclear power to meet 50 percent of the nation's electricity needs. The figure stood at about 30 percent before the crisis, and options in the revised policy are seen ranging from zero to 35 percent by 2030.

"Companies are already coping with the situation where all nuclear reactors have gone off-line so the survey's result seems to reflect such reality," said Taro Saito, director of economic research at NLI Research Institute in Tokyo.

"We could live without nuclear power if we wanted but we would then have to rely on thermal power until alternative sources are found. The question is whether companies are ready to put up with higher costs and lower growth."

Until alternative resources and safety are secured, Japan should not seek to make a straight choice between pursuing nuclear power or abandoning it, Saito added.

ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES

Japan's biggest business lobby, Keidanren, has voiced worries that a rise in electricity costs due to abandoning nuclear power could prompt Japanese companies to relocate overseas, costing jobs and growth. Potential power shortages could also undermine Japan's fragile economic recovery.

The latest poll, taken alongside the monthly Reuters Tankan survey, suggests big companies are less wedded to nuclear power than Keidanren's position suggests.

Critics of Keidanren, including Hiroshi Mikitani, president of virtual mall operator Rakuten Inc, accuse the business lobby of protecting the utility firms.

Twenty-seven percent of respondents were opposed to the idea of ditching nuclear power while 18 percent fully supported ending it. A 55 percent majority backed abandoning nuclear power as long as alternative energy resources were secured.

"We'd want to see stable electricity supply other than from nuclear power, and for low-cost and environment-friendly sources to be secured quickly," a metal product maker said in the poll of 400 big firms, of which 286 responded during May 7-21.

MISTRUST OF UTILITIES

The government has asked companies and consumers in western Japan, where Kansai Electric Power Co was the most reliant of any utility on nuclear reactors, to cut power use by at least 15 percent this summer from 2010 levels, and by a lesser degree in other regions to cope with shortages.

Highlighting public mistrust of Japan's regional monopoly power companies, only 11 percent of those surveyed approved of utilities' efforts to secure power supply and just 12 percent trusted their projections for electricity demand.

Forty percent saw efforts by power companies as "insufficient" and 29 percent saw their power demand projections as unreliable.

Critics accuse utilities of exaggerating potential power shortages in order to win public support to restart off-line reactors, beginning with two at Kansai Electric's Ohi plant in Fukui.

The poll also showed 70 percent of firms are prepared to cooperate on power saving to the same degree as last summer, with 24 percent willing to cooperate to a lesser extent.
 
Last edited:

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
There are problems with all kinds of energy generation from nuclear and Coal and Hydroelectric. They have both earthquakes and dangers of floods with these reactors. We have similar problems in the USA from Hurricanes, Floods from large rivers, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. There are all kinds of problems with the chance of some of these events causing havoc with nuclear facilities. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we can operate them safely all the time. However, if we can look at how they placed several reactors together or right next to each other, that is something that we should avoid like the plague. If something goes wrong then it contaminates the area of the other reactors. The problem arises from the concentration of large numbers of population with no where else to go. So when something goes wrong there really is a problem with nowhere to evacuate to. That is why in the USA we often locate power plants in less populated areas when possible. There is still a problem of power loss over power transmission lines.

So what is left for power generation?
Large geothermal plants in desert areas?
Large Windmill Farms (Visit Northwest)
Large solar power plants?
Methane from landfills?
More Hydro-electric Power?
Wave motion Generators?

Maybe the Sea is that great untapped sourch of power? Water is relentless the and waves are an unending power source. I remember seeing some photos on BING on a very large underground sewer system. I think it was in JAPAN.

Try looking at this?

http://www.oneinchpunch.net/2007/08/30/amazing-photo-study-of-tokyos-underground-sewer-system/
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,999
1
81
Japan is such a lol factory.
Hey let's have a super fucking high population so nuclear is the only power source we can use! Hey let's also stop using nuclear power!

I can't wait to see what kind of giant coal or oil powerplant they try to build. They don't have a big country like USA to spread that over, so it would be extremely dense pollution for the entire island.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
The ocean water should be cool maybe they could pump it into a cooling system. They have plenty of Sea water. Maybe they need to expand their methods and engineering.
 

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
There are problems with all kinds of energy generation from nuclear and Coal and Hydroelectric. They have both earthquakes and dangers of floods with these reactors. We have similar problems in the USA from Hurricanes, Floods from large rivers, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. There are all kinds of problems with the chance of some of these events causing havoc with nuclear facilities. I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we can operate them safely all the time. However, if we can look at how they placed several reactors together or right next to each other, that is something that we should avoid like the plague. If something goes wrong then it contaminates the area of the other reactors. The problem arises from the concentration of large numbers of population with no where else to go. So when something goes wrong there really is a problem with nowhere to evacuate to. That is why in the USA we often locate power plants in less populated areas when possible. There is still a problem of power loss over power transmission lines.

So what is left for power generation?
Large geothermal plants in desert areas?
Large Windmill Farms (Visit Northwest)
Large solar power plants?
Methane from landfills?
More Hydro-electric Power?
Wave motion Generators?

Maybe the Sea is that great untapped sourch of power? Water is relentless the and waves are an unending power source.
Hopefully water will be the next great untapped energy source, but are there any impacts globally in terms of messing with the flow of currents, or are power plants way too small in scale to have any impact?

If you or anyone is interested, I remember listening to a TED talks lecture in which Bill Gates discussed some of what you brought up, the goal being zero carbon emissions by 2050, thought it was interesting.
 

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
The easier solution would be to not keep your backup generators below sea level.
Yea the engineers that designed that plant seriously fucked up. Just a quick search shows a couple of nuclear plants close to the San Andreas fault line, does anyone know if these plants are in serious danger if a similar sized earth quake hits California?




 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Nuke power has always been a taxpayer funded cancer giving scam. Anyone remember when they said building these huge cancer leaking plants would provide electricity "Too cheap to meter!" And cleanup of sites would be negligible? Just the cleanup of Fuku alone can very well send Japan into third world status, and that's just one site in a low populated area.

A lot of experts point out that it was Chernobyl that actually sunk the USSR economy.

We have plenty of options -nuke was never a rational power source, but more of a subsidy for the weapons industry, the most dangerous collusion of cronyism between govt and big energy with consequences of 10,000s of thousands of years.

Nuke power is slow genetic suicide of the human race, even Einstein pointed out the madness of using such a convoluted process to boil some freaking water.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,779
3,305
126
Perhaps Japan will lead the rest of us into discovering just how valuable energy is. Don't miss it until you lose it.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Perhaps Japan will lead the rest of us into discovering just how valuable energy is. Don't miss it until you lose it.
Nuke power is barely even a third of the US's power, it has never been a economical power source. Here in CA we are doing fine without one of two nuke plants.

Common sense says if we shut down our old plants now, we save ourselves at least the inevitable fuku sized cleanup cost of a old plant crapping out. Use this investment for infrastructure upgrades and the move away from all carbons and nuke.

The cost of a aged nuke site going up is not worth economy/land destroying long term negative. To me this is common sense.

If we upgraded to smart grids in an effort like we did in the 30s for the electrification of the whole USA we would save the energy put out by all currently online nuke plants.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4213223

I was reading about these on my last visit to the east coast. Some folks are looking at the feasibility of enough power from stronger parts of the Hudson River. It is enough power to shut down Indian Point nuke plant with spare change.
 
Last edited:

chris9641

Member
Dec 8, 2006
156
0
0
Nuke power is barely even a third of the US's power, it has never been a economical power source. Here in CA we are doing fine without one of two nuke plants.

Common sense says if we shut down our old plants now, we save ourselves at least the inevitable fuku sized cleanup cost of a old plant crapping out. Use this investment for infrastructure upgrades and the move away from all carbons and nuke.

The cost of a aged nuke site going up is not worth economy/land destroying long term negative. To me this is common sense.

If we upgraded to smart grids in an effort like we did in the 30s for the electrification of the whole USA we would save the energy put out by all currently online nuke plants.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4213223

I was reading about these on my last visit to the east coast. Some folks are looking at the feasibility of enough power from stronger parts of the Hudson River. It is enough power to shut down Indian Point nuke plant with spare change.
Awesome article thanks. So almost three years later are these on the way to being built and implemented sometime in the near future? Many scientists are claiming a point of no return, do you see our power infrastructure drastically changing in the next 10 years? Is it our own hubris, or big interests groups that are causing us to act so slowly?
Or is it alarmist over reacting?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Nuke power has always been a taxpayer funded cancer giving scam. Anyone remember when they said building these huge cancer leaking plants ...

Nuke power is slow genetic suicide of the human race, even Einstein pointed out the madness of using such a convoluted process to boil some freaking water.
Snicker, Snicker. Guffaw! Sorry, I could not help myself. I really tried to not laugh at you.

Did you know there is a higher dose of radiation from the asphalt in the parking lot of the grocery store than there is outside a nuclear powr plant? Seriously, take a radiation survey meter and check it out for yourself. I actually have performed surveys inside the primary reactor areas, inside the secondary areas, inside the non-plant areas, and in the parking lots. You will be surprised...
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I like how the destruction of a 40 year old power plant that was hit by a disaster 10 times stronger than it was designed to handle is proof that nuclear power is inherently unsafe :\
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,591
2,569
126
Nuke power is barely even a third of the US's power, it has never been a economical power source. Here in CA we are doing fine without one of two nuke plants.

Common sense says if we shut down our old plants now, we save ourselves at least the inevitable fuku sized cleanup cost of a old plant crapping out. Use this investment for infrastructure upgrades and the move away from all carbons and nuke.

The cost of a aged nuke site going up is not worth economy/land destroying long term negative. To me this is common sense.

If we upgraded to smart grids in an effort like we did in the 30s for the electrification of the whole USA we would save the energy put out by all currently online nuke plants.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4213223

I was reading about these on my last visit to the east coast. Some folks are looking at the feasibility of enough power from stronger parts of the Hudson River. It is enough power to shut down Indian Point nuke plant with spare change.
nuke plants only get expensive when you continue to run 50 year old designs. the great irony is that it is significantly safer to build new plants and decomission old ones. but instead, NIMBY's stop the construction of newer, safer, better-designed nuclear facilities.

and regardless, the electric grid will need to be upgraded sooner or later.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,624
1
0
I like how the destruction of a 40 year old power plant that was hit by a disaster 10 times stronger than it was designed to handle is proof that nuclear power is inherently unsafe :\
Feel free to move next door to a nuke plant and then I'll take your comments more seriously.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,175
4,238
126
I like how the destruction of a 40 year old power plant that was hit by a disaster 10 times stronger than it was designed to handle is proof that nuclear power is inherently unsafe :\
Personally I'm all for more research and deployment of nuclear power plants, I don't think there's a lot of other viable options.

Saying that, your statement just says that its very difficult to adequately plan for disasters and that the consequences to this are dire. So basically you are saying that nuclear power is inherently unsafe in the real world.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,925
9,587
136
Nuke power is barely even a third of the US's power, it has never been a economical power source. Here in CA we are doing fine without one of two nuke plants.
That would actually mean something if CA wasn't a huge importer of electricity from the rest of the US.

Replacing a 100+ gigawatts of of generation with a capacity factor a third higher than any other source is not a trivial matter, as Germany has figured out now.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I like how the destruction of a 40 year old power plant that was hit by a disaster 10 times stronger than it was designed to handle is proof that nuclear power is inherently unsafe :\
Not only was it 40 years old, it was many years past the end of its expected lifetime.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Personally I'm all for more research and deployment of nuclear power plants, I don't think there's a lot of other viable options.
Agreed. Add to it that we need to have several pre-approved plans for plant design. If we did, millions would be saved on safety reviews...since the plans have already been reviewed. Parts would be cheaper since they would be off the shelf and not individualized parts made to order.

Saying that, your statement just says that its very difficult to adequately plan for disasters and that the consequences to this are dire. So basically you are saying that nuclear power is inherently unsafe in the real world.
What he is saying is that almost every man made object is inherently unsafe in the real world. Did you see the houses wash away as the tsunami came in? Bridges vanishing, cars acting like balsa wood...

Unless we build everything to be a hardened bunker, nature wins.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY