Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Kan vows nuclear-free future for Japan on 66th anniv of Hiroshima atomic bombing

National Aug. 06, 2011 - 04:30PM JST ( 32 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

32 Comments

-3

wontondAug. 06, 2011 - 01:30PM JST

Politicians will say anything given the right circumstances.
2

ka_chanAug. 06, 2011 - 01:46PM JST

pachi pachi ... hmm, when is eventually?
0

NattoTodayAug. 06, 2011 - 02:08PM JST

Does this mean that Japan will revise its 3 anti-nuclear principles with the added fourth amendment (promotion of nuclear power)?
-4

gaijinfoAug. 06, 2011 - 02:36PM JST

Another politician taking any opportunity he can to spout nonsense in hopes in increasing his power base.
0

AsagaoAug. 06, 2011 - 02:38PM JST

So the guy who is living on borrowed time promises this, even though the nuclear industry has extensive ties with politicians.
-2

yobi00Aug. 06, 2011 - 02:40PM JST

Just can't shake the feeling that Kan is playing on public knee jerk reaction to stay longer in office.

"I will reduce Japan's reliance on nuclear power, aiming at creating a society that will not rely on atomic power generation," he added.

Wasn't he supposed to resign as soon as pressing matters were taken care of? And it's still probably "only his personal opinion", having noting to do with the policy of the current government.
6

NattoTodayAug. 06, 2011 - 03:00PM JST

According to a recent Asahi poll, nearly 80% of Japanese people want to get rid of nuclear power.
-4

The Munya TimesAug. 06, 2011 - 04:01PM JST

"I will reduce Japan's reliance on nuclear power, aiming at creating a society that will not rely on atomic power generation," he added.

Then rely on what? And who will reduce it, you Mr. Kan? Personally? And how, if I mask ask? With what else would you replace it and at what cost? And who's gonna pay it? blah blah blah

Double bluff, smokescreen. I wanna hear, intelligent things. We replace nuclear energy with ............. that would cost you.......... and pollute the environment at the rate of............ .

Easy to promise will I kill the bad guy but please elaborate what comes after that.
0

smithinjapanAug. 06, 2011 - 04:06PM JST

Why are people saying he's "just politicking" or "taking advantage of the situation" when Kan's made this goal quite clear numerous times, while others in his party say they'll continue it, and the LDP saying they'll start up the halted plants ASAP (meaning, when they get in)?

My only question is why Kan promises this and at the same time Japan agrees to resume sales to OTHER nations?
-1

NattoTodayAug. 06, 2011 - 04:06PM JST

We replace nuclear energy with ............. LNG that would cost you.......... less than the costs of nuclear and pollute the environment at the rate of............less than the long-term storage costs of nuclear, by the way, when will we eat produce from Fukushima again?
1

yobi00Aug. 06, 2011 - 04:21PM JST

According to a recent Asahi poll, nearly 80% of Japanese people want to get rid of nuclear power.

Four months ago a similar poll produced only about 40 % in favor of steering away from nuclear power. I usually take to such polls with a grain of salt, and public opinion tends to be highly fickle. And who honestly believes that public opinion always knows best.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that a lot of people do want to get rid of nuclear power. But really, the Fukushima accident is still not contained and people can't get back home, constant news about contaminated food and gross malpractices in the nuclear industry. Emotions are running high, and the average person is probably not able to make an objective decision. Now is not the time to make hasty decisions about throwing away decades worth of technology when there's no real information on viability of any of the alternatives. If there was a real effort to reevaluate Japan's energy policy, and the conclusion was that nuclear has to go for the benefit of Japan, then fine, so be it. But Kan just talking off the top of his head sure sounds a lot like Hatoyama with his now forgotten 25% emissions goal.

Instead, why not take care of what really caused the accident? First severing "cosy relationship between regulators and nuclear industry", as Kan himself has commented, revising security regulations, the lot. Something like this would actually bring tangible benefits.
-1

The Munya TimesAug. 06, 2011 - 04:27PM JST

@Natto Today

You're so optimistic.

If you replace nuke with LNG, than LNG prices will skyrocket in no time.Not mentioning that the availability of all natural energy carriers are more limited and are less accessible than nuclear energy and they are getting short pretty soon if we replace nuclear energy with them. Also buying them can create more political dependence.

Whatever fossil energy carriers they use it will pollute the environment the same way as nuke if they handling it as carelessly as nuke fuel was handled at Fukushima.
3

cleoAug. 06, 2011 - 04:36PM JST

the Fukushima accident is still not contained and people can't get back home, constant news about contaminated food and gross malpractices in the nuclear industry

I think that's your clue as to why emotions are high and people don't think nuclear is a good idea any more.

there's no real information on viability of any of the alternatives

Some things, like nuclear plants that contaminate half the country with unseen, never-fading nasties, damage the country's agriculture and industry at home and abroad and are a liability to unborn generations (cf storage of spent nuclear waste), are so bad an alternative in themselves that getting rid of them is top priority. None of the alternatives offer anything like the same level of undesirability. Until now, nuclear was good because it was supposedly cheap. Now we know it isn't even that, it's a non-starter. Or would be if there weren't still some people in high places (cough#LDP#cough) who do very well out of perks and backhanders from the nuclear power industry thank you very much.
0

NattoTodayAug. 06, 2011 - 04:38PM JST

Four months ago a similar poll produced only about 40 %

It would have been a much higher rate of dissatisfaction if people knew that secret taxes were put in their electric bills to fund the nuclear industry -- nuclear is not not much cheaper than mainstream alternatives as we were told.

But Kan just talking off the top of his head

Jiminto party representative often make this claim, as has the Keidanren. And setting aside preferences and scars from the 3/11 disaster, nuclear power is not economically viable for Japan in the future: take for example: 1) The reprocessing plans in Rokkasho are decades beyond schedule and bankrupt (save the continual bailouts) 2) Monju (the technological heart of the 2050 energy goals): decades beyond schedule, still a prototype reactor, and currently the relay device that broke off and fell into the reactor can not be recovered at huge costs to the taxpayer. 3) Nuclear reactors in Japan can not withstand large-scale earthquakes and still safely function. There has been sufficient evidence of this before, but it took Fukushima to get this published.
2

cleoAug. 06, 2011 - 04:39PM JST

Whatever fossil energy carriers they use it will pollute the environment the same way as nuke if they handling it as carelessly as nuke fuel was handled at Fukushima.

You seriously believe an explosion at a fossil-energy plant would create the mayhem Fukushima is now creating throughout the country??
7

OrangeW3dgeAug. 06, 2011 - 04:58PM JST

I don't care what you say, I like Kan more and more. It will take someone speaking up to get things done no matter if it's no nukes or better education. That is the spirit needed to get things going again. Like it or not, being brave in the face of adversity is what sets us apart.
0

The Munya TimesAug. 06, 2011 - 05:12PM JST

You seriously believe an explosion at a fossil-energy plant would create the mayhem Fukushima is now creating throughout the country??

No, don't think in terms of accidents please. Fossil is a sly, creepy kind of pollution, it goes silently without being noticed for long time. They have to handle millions of tons of toxic byproducts, waste, that might be disposed or stored illegally, the same way as the spent fuel rods at Fukushima, increased carbon dioxide emission etc. And where do you get LNG or other fossil energy carriers from? Exploit from the seabed? There comes Chine, knocking on the door, hey we are here too!! Going into war? Buy from Russia, they raise the price as soon as you get dependent on LNG. Pay for delivery transport?

I'm scared of nuclear energy, but to post it I need to switch on my PC and buy electricity.

Yet, I think nuke energy can be good if safely handled. It is cheap and the cleanest.

It's not about the nuke energy it's about the way it handled. That's the real disaster.
2

NattoTodayAug. 06, 2011 - 05:27PM JST

It's not about the nuke energy it's about the way it handled. That's the real disaster.

A good point. One month after Fukushima, former Tepco president Shimizu addressed the public and mentioned that the accident was ”想定外” or "beyond expectations". He wasn't being flippant, Tepco was in compliance (save a few infractions) with NISA regulations, and the IAEA had no problems with Fukushima's facilities ability to withstand a large-scale earthquake. But then again, the safety regulations were not adequate, so now they are being revised. This is not the first time safety regulations have been revised, in fact they are revised again and again with each new experience of what is to be expected. For example: (2007 http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/regulation/nuclearsafety/nuclearpowerreactor/topics/chuetsu/chuetsu.html)
3

櫻井宏幸Aug. 06, 2011 - 07:37PM JST

Go Naoto Kan! and Please Kick Ishihara Shintaro's Butts.
-2

sswayAug. 06, 2011 - 08:51PM JST

Wow. All it took was for the entire Honshu and above portion of Japan to be destroyed for the Japanese government to consider actually doing something. Idiots, the bunch of them.
0

globalwatcherAug. 06, 2011 - 09:37PM JST

PACHI,PACHI, PACHI, PACHI!
0

globalwatcherAug. 06, 2011 - 09:43PM JST

My only question is why Kan promises this and at the same time Japan agrees to resume sales to OTHER nations?

smith, I think money always wins over the principal in Japan. Japan is a money hungry country as you know.
0

Rob RobertsonAug. 06, 2011 - 09:45PM JST

This lively discussion must never end, or the importance of keeping equipment safe.****
-1

globalwatcherAug. 06, 2011 - 09:47PM JST

Fukushima accident is still not contained and people can't get back home

@yobi00, Fukushima accident WILL NEVER BE CONTAINED and people WILL NEVER BE ABLE to get back home.
Does anyone in Japan know the truth?
3

amerijapAug. 07, 2011 - 03:24AM JST

“I will reduce Japan’s reliance on nuclear power, aiming at creating a society that will not rely on atomic power generation,”

What can specifically do for the people at this moment? Preaching the rhetoric of doom? Nuclear freeze campaign!? And, this is the reason he still remains in the PM office to take the opportunity for the peace ceremony?
1

アメリフセインAug. 07, 2011 - 07:34AM JST

According to a recent Asahi poll, nearly 80% of Japanese people want to get rid of nuclear power.

But how many of them is willing to pay more for electricity? Let's face it, nuclear power is cheap. The reactors at Fukushima were old and poorly managed, the crisis could have been avoided.
0

AylerAug. 07, 2011 - 10:58AM JST

just not going to happen. sad but true.
-1

Rick KisaAug. 07, 2011 - 05:36PM JST

Kan all the way.....for the doubting thomases, think about this. The catasphophies are increasing in intensity and frequency by the day. Nobody thought that an earthquake of such magnitude could strike Japan. Indeed the safety measures put into place were for a lower risk level. This only means we do not know exactly what is in store for the future. For instance should we plan for an earthquake of 20 on richter scale or what? Before we even think of the ravages of the Tsunami, have you ever imagined that an earthquake can happen that will overturn the whole nuclear facilities, pouring over all the facility contents and their back up stuff? The best is just to think of alternatives and this should not only be for Japan but a global approach. We have all the power sources we need for this world needs. What we luck is enough power to cover all the needs of the greedy and selfish
2

NattoTodayAug. 07, 2011 - 05:46PM JST

nuclear power is cheap

No, even setting aside the costs of long-term storage of spent fuel --which haven't been calculated into the cost of nuclear fuel, it is not much cheaper than the current alternatives. Did you see some of the reports on the Japanese news: it has been discovered that the purported rate of 5 yen was inaccurate (it did not include subsidies and hidden charges in your electric bill). Nuclear is more like 9 yen (still not including long-term spent fuel storage)
0

CrickyAug. 07, 2011 - 08:25PM JST

It has become clear to the masses that Nuclear option is NOT as great as pro ported. The pay for support system works...when the system works! System collapses and we are left with the offal that remains.
0

SquidBertAug. 08, 2011 - 10:04AM JST

@アメリフセイン

Let's face it, nuclear power is cheap.

and

The reactors at Fukushima were old and poorly managed
0

SquidBertAug. 08, 2011 - 10:09AM JST

@アメリフセイン

Let's face it, nuclear power is cheap.

It is not that cheap, not if you include all the hidden costs, that are conveniently excluded today.

The reactors at Fukushima were old and poorly managed

Fukushima had just started to pay for it self, that was one of the reasons they were so unwilling to use seawater to cool it down. It was one of the few plants actually making money. Now I ask you, if it takes till the plant is old and ready to be decommissioned, for it to start making money. How can nuclear be a viable economic choice?