Maehara says reactors can restart if watchdog gives OK

Gee, who could have imagined that the pro-US Maehara would have agreed to restart the reactors, especially after it was revealed that the the Obama administration pressured Noda to drop the phase-out of nuclear power.

http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2012/10/nikkei-obama-administration-expressed.html

It has been revealed that the United States government was strongly urging [the Japanese government] to reconsider its policy of "zero nukes in 2030s" which was part of the energy and environmental strategy of the Noda administration, as "President Obama wishes it".

Another accident at a 40 year plant and Japan's unstable tectonics would mean disaster for this country.....

Another accident at a 40 year plant and Japan's unstable tectonics would mean disaster for this country....

With over-reliance on expensive imports of foreign energy, Japan is already facing disaster. If the plants aren't safe, don't restart them. If they are, do restart them. It's not rocket science.

With over-reliance on expensive imports of foreign energy, Japan is already facing disaster. If the plants aren't safe, don't restart them. If they are, do restart them. It's not rocket science.

Unfortunately, the question as to their safety has become influenced by political and commercial (the nuclear industry) interests so that the rigid application of safety assurance is questionable. Would that it was as objective as rocket science.

There is no such thing as 'safe nuclear power', especially in a country that sits on the edge of the Pacific plate.

It should also be noted that, the meltdowns at Fukushima had nothing to do with the structural integrity of the buildings. They were caused by failing backup electrical systems after the tsunami swamped the generators and shorted out all the electrics in the plant. This scenario can happen at any plant because the ignorant twits have failed to acknowledge and/or rectify the danger of an electrical failure. They are just snow-jobbing the public with structural tests. They are justifying their lack of preparedness by stating the March 11 quake was an unprecedented event. Yes, it was unprecedented, but it should have shown them it can and does happen and they were in no way prepared for it. They were actually very lucky. If there was a full meltdown and explosion in all four reactor buildings it would have made Chernobyl look like a fart in a bath due to the population density.

Wake up Japan! You are like a four-year-old kid playing with a loaded shotgun!

But procedures for going ahead with restarts remain unclear

Shocking. The resolution to a major issues in Japan is "unclear", and no one wants to take ultimate responsibility. Welcome to modern-day Japan and why decades are just slipping by.

Once the plants are started serious study needs to be done to replace them. I like geo-thermal and a law needs to be passed so they can be built. Source, why Iceland who is the expert. This would help both Iceland and Japan. Clean unlimited green energy.

While I agree that Japan has a deeply rule based bureaucratic leadership style and has controlling vested interests pulling the strings,I do not believe that Japan will not change. The reason is that Fukushima is not a temporary problem-it is long term. The effects of the disaster cannot be hidden as all life is and will be irrevocably changed for generations to come.Deaths from the disaster and causal links to radiation are being denied by the government at present. In part there is institutional corroboration here but then numbers are still too low. Hospitals refuse to admit or even treat symptoms of radiation poisoning.Doctors in Fukushima are resigning in uncannily high numbers and leaving. NHK won't report these stories nor will the general populace hear about them until the numbers of deformed,sick and dying are just too great in number to ignore then we will see a movement that is truly democratic to end nuclear power.

There's already an expected increase in deaths due to power generation from fossil fuel, to the tune of over 5000 a year. This guy probably just went through the numbers and made the logical and economical choice to use less fossil fuels.

saidaniOct. 06, 2012 - 08:34AM JST

Unfortunately, the question as to their safety has become influenced by political and commercial (the nuclear industry) interests so that the rigid application of safety assurance is questionable. Would that it was as objective as rocket science.

Questionable safety is better than known danger. Coal, oil, and even gas are KNOWN to be dangerous, to the tune of over 15 excess deaths per TWh, for gas alone. Coal is up at 75-150, and oil is 36 excess deaths. Normalizing to oil generation, we have well over 100000 extra deaths because of fossil fuels by 2040, which is unacceptable. Compared to an estimated 250 excess deaths over 70years for Fukushima, it's not rocket science to see how much more harm comes from power companies using fossil fuels.

In a way, Basroil has a point, although I don't think Basroil is getting it. Nuclear power as well as coal, oil, and gas are short-term solutions. Non-polluting, endlessly available solutions are the only long-term solution. Meanwhile, sadly, a lot of people are going to be victims. The only questions are, "How long will it take to accomplish?" and "How many dead litter the wayside?".

I love nuclear energy. I think it's just so cool that humans are only one step away from mastering the ultimate energy source of the universe - nuclear fusion. It's really awesome how such a small amount of matter is able to provide us with so much energy. The lack of pollutants is just the cherry on top. When we finally crack the nuclear fusion question, it will truly be a great day for all of humanity, and especially for those nation states that had the foresight to invest in such research.

So turn on those power plants! Because to me, they're more than just power plants.... they're symbolic of our advancement as a civilization. When I see a nuclear plant with it's big white plumes of water vapor coming out of the cooling towers, it makes me so damn proud to be a human, and a citizen of my country.

Compared to an estimated 250 excess deaths over 70years for Fukushima, it's not rocket science to see how much more harm comes from power companies using fossil fuels.

So the actuarial tables say that the Fukushima deaths are merely acceptable losses. Along with the land lost for generations and the livelihood of the survivors.

You have not given any source for your deaths from fossil fuels, but one would hope it is actual historic data from workers in the industry and not simply projections based on the climate change agenda in which case you seem too willing to roll the dice for a lot of people you don't know based on unproven claims.

Ranger_Miffy2Oct. 06, 2012 - 10:42AM JST

In a way, Basroil has a point, although I don't think Basroil is getting it. Nuclear power as well as coal, oil, and gas are short-term solutions. Non-polluting, endlessly available solutions are the only long-term solution.

Engineering and current scientific limitations wise, fossil fuels are short term (20-30 years), nuclear is medium term (40-50 years), and yet to be discovered energy sources are long term. We should work to prevent as many casualties as possible now, and work towards the future one step at a time.

How many people realize that the poisons released by fossil fuels, including dioxins and mercury, last FOREVER. It's not 7 days, not 30 years, not even 100000 years. It is until the end of time (or bacteria evolve to eat it, which takes millions of years). Fossil fuel plants create enough poisons ever year to kill the human population several thousand times over. And they lead to thousands of deaths a year in Japan alone.

Fossil fuel plants create enough poisons ever year to kill the human population several thousand times over.

And, yet, the earth just topped 7 billion people. So that means the potential and the reality are two different things. And this can be true for a myriad of reasons. The plain reality would appear to make your statement useless except as fodder for your agenda.

Do members of the Noda cabinet ever speak to each other? It seems that Maehara and Edano are proposing and pushing two totally different strategies and policies...

Do members of the Noda cabinet ever speak to each other? It seems that Maehara and Edano are proposing and pushing two totally different strategies and policies...

They each have the same political ambitions which means they have to make themselves seem unique and innovative. Of course, all Japanese benefit from this, right?

so the nuclear power plant thread gets 27 comments and the foreigner playing guitar on a train gets 67.. wow this country frightens me.....

Basroil - If all four reactor housings at Fukushima did go into meltdown and exploded showering half of Japan with deadly doses of cesium potentially killing 40-50 million people would that be enough to say nuclear power is worse than fossil fuels? It was only the grace of whatever god that stopped this happening and it is the same grace that is stopping it from happening in the future because they still have not addressed the issue of electrical failure due to a tsunami. Yeah, fossil fuels do attribute to a number of deaths. However, fossils fuels are predictable. You cannot say the same for nuclear power. Nuclear power is good when it is good, but it is catastrophic in a failure.

DisillusionedOct. 06, 2012 - 03:39PM JST

If all four reactor housings at Fukushima did go into meltdown and exploded showering half of Japan with deadly doses of cesium potentially killing 40-50 million people would that be enough to say nuclear power is worse than fossil fuels?

There isn't enough radioactive material for that to occur in any reasonable time period. Perhaps effects over 5-10 thousand years, but not within a year. Cesium is by far the least of anyone's concern if the explosion is enough to shower half of Japan with significant doses, as there is a good chance a meteorite fell in a westword direction or a similar high energy explosion happened. Wind patterns are generally west to east, south to north in that area, so you have to fight against that, which is not easy.

Yeah, fossil fuels do attribute to a number of deaths. However, fossils fuels are predictable.

Ever seen a fuel refinery fire? There have been about a dozen in the last two years (major ones, smaller fires occur much more frequently) with total death toll over 200. In fact, the Cosmo oil fire in Japan right after the quake caused up to 6 deaths already, and it was twice as far from the earthquake.

Then add the effects of oil spills, mercury poisoning, and other "unpredictable" things. If you think Japan hasn't faced FAR WORSE issues, look up Minamata disease, which can be caused by oil and coal plants, especially if the tailing ponds ever collapse, like they are likely to do in a major earthquake. We'll likely never know exactly how many the Cosmo Oil fire alone killed, likely to be in the dozens over 70 years.

Unfortunately, the question as to their safety has become influenced by political and commercial (the nuclear industry) interests

You could turn that around and say that opposition to restarting nuclear power stations is also political. It's not because particular plants are unsafe, it's that people are simply opposed to nuclear power.

Maehara says reactors can restart if watchdog gives OK

I think there's a typo here, isn't there?

Maehara says reactors will restart when watchdog gives OK, once all the brown envelopes have been counted.

There, that's better.

Within months, there'll be a general election, and most likely a new LDP gov't. We don't know the intentions of the LDP on the future of nuclear energy but clearly, looking at their history of always supporting business before anything, it will continue to use nuclear energy, unless the public pressure continues.

Well said, Zichi. What kind of people are really supporting the LDP these days? Men? Women? Retired? ...

zichiOct. 06, 2012 - 06:31PM JST

The new Apple Data center in North Carolina is a good example of what can be achieved with renewable energy. The center will draw 20MW at full capacity.

That "renewable" energy system took down more than 200 acre of young forest. It actually causes the entire system to be a net CO2 producer even if they manage to keep the cells for 30 years instead of 15. Not to mention it will have taken nearly 5 years worth of energy production to build.

The number of 84 million kWh a year is also highly suspect, as it requires the system to operate at nearly 10% above the average insolation in the area. The average is about 5.25 kWh/m^2 a day, which gives you, assuming nameplate capacity, 76 million kWh at best. Normal max is at most 80% nameplate capacity for fixed or tilt systems, so even less energy would actually be produced.

Japan also does not have the flat space needed for this type of installation, nor does distributed power make any sense in any large scale system. And the biggest thing is that Japan simply cannot make significant panel production due to the lack of power generation. As ironic as it sounds, it takes a lot of energy to make energy, and Japan does not have the ability to spare that amount. For every 1TWh you want to have from solar, you need to put in about 3-4TWh into production, so for even 1% of energy from solar, you need to spend 3% at least on making solar. Then you would need to worry about the effects it would have on all the other industries like aluminum, silicon, copper, microchips, etc.

zichiOct. 06, 2012 - 09:32PM JST

since you are also opposed to the "deadly use of fossil fuels" but then you also think trains are dangerous and should be banned?

Renewable sources in conjunction with a clean source of baseload power is a good idea, far more so than coal/oil/gas (in the order they need to go). Pumped hydro and other potential/kinetic storage systems can piggyback the base load and smooth out ripples from other less reliable sources. However, you need that base load generation, since producing five times more energy than you need simply to ride out the lulls isn't cheap or even possible right now or for the next three decades.

As for trains, they are one of the safest methods of transportation, quite reliable, but do have a tendency to be under regulated considering how many lives can be put at risk. If sarcasm/arguing to absurdity in saying they should be banned was not obvious enough, now you know. Interestingly though, without a clean baseload power supply, trains in Japan should switch back to gas turbines since it produces far less CO2 and will save several TWh and billions of yen a year.

Tomari should be a top priority for this watchdog group though, without it Hokkaido will have a difficult time providing enough power. Winter peak is usually 10-20% more than summer peak, and summer peak was already 95% use.

Better if Japan burns no fossil fuels or limits their use. We have to import them from unreliable sources. Use the natural gas for ground vehicles in the countryside. One day not even out there You will be amassed how lovely our skies will become. Also there will be a lot less lung and heart issues. Try and think of clean air in our cities and how much better health will become and the standard of living.

Oh before you hit the negative think about the day we no longer need the atomic plants. The day we have a balanced eco solution with the gas plants as backup only. Perhaps not even that, Japan needs to make this a country goal and put all of our effort behind it being done. Think of unlimited clean energy, we can do it!

Actually, the earthquake, not tsunami, caused the collapse of Fukushima's reactors:

http://enenews.com/hiroshima-univ-historian-dont-believe-tepcos-lies-fukushima-meltdowns-caused-quake-tsunami-white-smoke-loss-coolant-radiation-spike-collapsed-walls-all-before-wave-hit-video

Cached version of the article published in The Atlantic :

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:74GpJncvYisJ:www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/39541/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

You should read: "Maehara says reactors can restart if The Simpsons gives OK!"

@Basroil: obviously fossil fuels are anything but good, this does not justify NPP in an earthquake prone country. Agreed that renewable energy is still at its development stage, but energy saving - which is the easiest energy - is unfortunately not supported as it should. Why?

Open MindedOct. 08, 2012 - 11:23PM JST

obviously fossil fuels are anything but good, this does not justify NPP in an earthquake prone country. Agreed that renewable energy is still at its development stage, but energy saving - which is the easiest energy - is unfortunately not supported as it should. Why?

Japan is already among the most energy efficient nations. A good deal of the energy use comes from the manufacturing side, which simply cannot achieve major reductions without cutting production. That would be a death sentence for the country, as it depends on exports. While some systems can be converted at immense cost, usually those get converted to fossil fuels, like changing an induction smelter to pure coal (rather than adding smaller amounts directly), or changing electric forklifts back to propane.

Believe it or not, many fossil fuel accidents cause more deaths than expected from Fukushima (a bit over 200 over 70 years), and of course negative externalities during NORMAL operations is in the hundreds of excess deaths per year per 1% total energy produced through fossil fuels.