Noda says reactor restart necessary once safety is assured

By Kentaro Hamada and Linda Sieg

Politics May. 31, 2012 - 01:50PM JST ( 92 )

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

92 Comments

-9

noriyosan73May. 31, 2012 - 07:45AM JST

Finally, the correct decision is made in the best interest of the people. The demand is too high to return to other fuels to generate electricity unless higher prices are acceptable for common, every day food, shelter and clothing. Protesters should just stay home and save the fuel and cost of producing energy for them to ride the trains, buses, subways, etc.
-3

Matthew SimonMay. 31, 2012 - 08:03AM JST

At least someone decided something.
4

ProbieMay. 31, 2012 - 08:06AM JST

He better get some mirrors so he doesn't fall over while he's doing all that back-peddling...
4

NetNinjaMay. 31, 2012 - 08:12AM JST

Well, there you have it folks....bought and paid for by Big Energy and Deep Pockets. Not even a day into the hot summer and they're ready to turn back to nuclear energy.

Money talks, common sense walks.
12

kurisupisuMay. 31, 2012 - 08:40AM JST

If there were to be another nuclear accident with radioactive release what then?

Would the people be evacuated promptly and informed? Would there be treatment and testing for all? Would all people be accepted for tratment and testing? Would there be another campaign to export and promote consumption of radioactive food? Would there be another tax payer funded campaign to downplay the fear of irradiation? Would there be another bout of food contamination and incineration that would further spread contamination all over Japan? Would another nuclear disaster just be passed off as a baseless rumour?
10

FightingVikingMay. 31, 2012 - 08:47AM JST

The government has been struggling to win support from local authorities for the restarts

How about getting the support of the people first? What ever happened to the expression "Once burnt, twice shy"? I believe most of us are willing to cut down as much as possible on the electricity (can't afford to pay for it anyway...) since we'd all rather be safe than sorry...
6

Bob SneiderMay. 31, 2012 - 08:48AM JST

Nuclear energy is safe if regulated......except in Japan. We're living on a volcanic island here, noone should have approved nuclear energy in the first place. Expect another nuclear accident in the near future. This country's politicians won't learn until japan becomes an uninhabitable wasteland.
7

marcelitoMay. 31, 2012 - 09:01AM JST

"Once safety is assured " - it all comes down to that one phrase. Since so little has changed since last March, by what speed of light measures will the reactors magically be "assured of safety " against a mega-quake level event in the next few weeks before summer arrives?...Yeah , exactly...none.
3

tmarieMay. 31, 2012 - 09:11AM JST

Tax and increase and restarting the plants. Two things the public are against. Great. LDP back in power by next election. Damn it.

Or... perhaps he's doing the little "safety dance" and knows these places will never be up to snuff with regulations??
-6

2020hindsightsMay. 31, 2012 - 09:29AM JST

Sensible and needs to be done. The alternative will not only cost Japan too much for energy, it will pump carbon into the atmosphere.
3

ScroteMay. 31, 2012 - 09:49AM JST

Safety cannot be assured if the government are relying on the same flawed regulatory regime as existed before the Fukushima fiasco. Noda should first establish an independent nuclear power regulator then let them decide what requirements need to be met to ensure safe operation. Only once those requirements are met should any power stations be restarted. Unfortunately, Noda is so useless that he has done almost nothing to set up the new regulator.

No matter how many times Noda tries to win people's "understanding", the fact is that Noda is not an expert on nuclear power and is not qualified to say whether the stations are safe, or not. Nor will he be able to take any responsibility for his decision, since he will be gone in a couple of months.
3

NetNinjaMay. 31, 2012 - 10:06AM JST

@Scrote He's not trying to win the people's "understanding" at all.

He is doing what influential lobbyists are pushing him to do. He's not even scared of the LDP. He knows if he does this nuclear power will buy all the votes his party needs. Everybody lives comfortably from TEPCO and Deep Pocket payouts.

The politicians and all those in favor of Big Nuclear will get more money than the residents of nuclear affected areas combined.

Raising the price of household utilities and also consumption tax has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with compensation for the displaced unemployed resisdents that are suing TEPCO. In fact, the money is more for the payoffs and political favors required to stay out of jail and go back to the way things were.

You might be in favor of raising taxes to speed up Japan's recovery but that money is going to lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians. Thus we have yet to see any of TEPCO's top execs brought up on criminal charges.

Big Nuclear has a framework set in place that is near rock solid. There are acolytes in the political system that will do anything to defend it.
5

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 10:10AM JST

The article above, taken together with the following JapanTimes article; http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120531a3.html

It would seem that a restart is inevitable, unless the Japanese People make their voice heard so loud and clear that there can be no doubt that a restart is political suicide.

And I guess even then, it will only be proven that Mr. Noda is nothing but a lamb to be sacrificed on the altar in the temple of nuclear worship.
2

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 10:17AM JST

tmarie,

Or... perhaps he's doing the little "safety dance" and knows these places will never be up to snuff with regulations??

That would be a very Japanese way of handling the matter. It is said that the last thing to leave a human is hope..... But my bets are still on the sacrificial lamb theory above.
4

SushiSake3May. 31, 2012 - 10:25AM JST

"Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, keen to restart idled nuclear reactors to avoid a summer power crunch, said on Wednesday it was necessary to start those reactors ........"

The govt. is terrified that the longer all the reactors are turned off, the sooner it will dawn on the public that the entire nuclear program is not critical after all.
1

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 10:25AM JST

Here is that link again (click-able this time?):

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120531a3.html
3

NetNinjaMay. 31, 2012 - 10:26AM JST

The people have no power. BOW

There is NO will or backbone in these people. BOW.

The day Japan stops bowing and they see eye to eye is the day the people will have their own voice.
5

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 10:28AM JST

"Once safety is assured?"

I wonder how Noda will know that? Following the 3/11 disaster, the power companies were required to make a mandatory stress test using a computer model based on probabilities and not possibilies. There was a second non mandatory test but I don't kow which power companies completed that?

The KEPCO reactors passed the stress test but the gov't issued them with a further 8 safety points which the power company said would take 3-5 years to complete. KEPCO are comitted to spending ¥200 billion on the plant to improve safety.

The head of the Nuclear Safety Commission, Haruki Madarame stated to The Diet Commission investigating the nucllear disaster, that the stress tests couldn't assure the safety of the reactors. According to the Law of the Costitution, the gov't is required to act on the advice of the NSC.

The plant may be restarted in June, now there's a conditional agreement from the Union of Kansai Governments.

The Union of Kansai Government (headed by Governor of Hyogo Prefecture)released the statement on May 30 that said, "[Our] evaluation of safety is provisional, and we strongly urge (the national government) to decide appropriately that the scope of the restart is limited". With the statement, the Union has effectively agreed to the restart, provided that the plant operates only during the summer.(ex-skf blog).
0

SushiSake3May. 31, 2012 - 10:28AM JST

The psychological impact of restarting even 1 reactor would far outweigh the contribution of that 1 reactor to the nation's power supply.

Because it would underline that the reactors - and by extrapolation - Japan's entire nuclear industry - are necessary.
1

Ewan HuzarmyMay. 31, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

The government has been struggling to win support from local authorities for the restarts, although their permission is not legally required.

So their support isn't required ? Sounds like they can do whatever the bloody Hell they want. What about the general public, don't they have a voice?
3

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 10:34AM JST

In a recent Asahi newspaper poll, 42% of people in Kansai supported restartiing the reactors, while 50% opposed it.
3

DisillusionedMay. 31, 2012 - 10:34AM JST

Will this safety assurance be given by the same mob that has been assuring the Japanese public for the past 30 odd years? As stated by Greenpeace, none of the safety recommendations have been implemented so how can they give an assurance of safety and restart them? We all know that once they are restarted they will not touch them again.

would ease worries about power shortages among firms in the region, including struggling electronics giants Panasonic Corp and Sharp Corp

Eh? What does this have to do with the restarting the reactors? If the companies are struggling they should be conserving their energy use anyway, right?
9

cactusJackMay. 31, 2012 - 10:40AM JST

Safety was assured at the TEPCO Fukushima NPP and look what happened there.
-1

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 10:49AM JST

In other news, it seems there has been a possible recriticality at Fukushima, according to EneNews which I usually don't link to, but since it seems this info is originally from an article to appear in a future issue of Asahi I'll make an exception.

http://enenews.com/tepco-email-possible-re-criticality-in-reactor-no-2
1

buggerlugsMay. 31, 2012 - 11:12AM JST

The problem is that the muppets in charge can't guarantee the safety of the reactors and actually have no idea about their functions. Noda has even less idea and he's only an old puppet that's about to be discarded. Until the baaajin stand up nothing will change in this communist state sorry freedom country of Japan.
2

Thomas AndersonMay. 31, 2012 - 11:14AM JST

Would the people be evacuated promptly and informed? Would there be treatment and testing for all? Would all people be accepted for tratment and testing? Would there be another campaign to export and promote consumption of radioactive food? Would there be another tax payer funded campaign to downplay the fear of irradiation? Would there be another bout of food contamination and incineration that would further spread contamination all over Japan? Would another nuclear disaster just be passed off as a baseless rumour?

These are good points. "Once safety is assured?" The country hasn't even decided on what to do when there's a nuclear disaster. How can they even begin to to guarantee their citizens safety? Just hope and pray that there won't be a nuclear disaster? Again?
3

Nancy FoustMay. 31, 2012 - 11:29AM JST

Now we know who really runs Japan. Public utilities should never be given to private companies to run.
4

TheBigPictureMay. 31, 2012 - 11:32AM JST

There's no such thing of "assured safety" with nuclear plants. The world must stop using them. Time to move on.
2

smithinjapanMay. 31, 2012 - 11:51AM JST

Convincing local authorities (most likely via promises and/or money) is a far cry from convincing local residents. My only hope is that the current resistance to the restarts being rather adamamtly displayed by people is enough to scare said local authorities, and it would be nice to see it go even further and local residents let it be known that if the authorities restart against their will, said authorities will not be reelected.
2

arssebMay. 31, 2012 - 11:52AM JST

Once safety is assured ?!?!?!?!? I thought it was assured BEFORE the tsunami !!!!!
-3

FoxieMay. 31, 2012 - 12:07PM JST

Don't be fooled! First he was considering that we will not have elecricity in summer between 6 and 8PM in order to make up for power shortages, now the reactors will work again once safety is assured. These reactors are actually more dangerous when they are not in operation. Then ask yourself, why would the government buy up most of TEPCO and never use it again? Why would anyone buy something to throw it away? Scaremongering at its best. Just get over it and put them back on again or dismantle everything but don't let them just be there dormant.
2

nandakandamandaMay. 31, 2012 - 12:35PM JST

SquidBert, the English translation in your link above is so poor that it is impossible to say if there has been, or there might be, recriticality.

Whoever found that article has rushed it through machine translation, ruining any meaning it once might have had.

Now, if we could get hold of the original Japanese article things might start to make better sense...
-1

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 12:43PM JST

Japan will never start a nuclear reactor again! 90% of the population is against nukes.
July 1, the best Feed in Tariff in the world starts in Japan, which will pay 30 million home owner who have solan panels on their roofs $0.90 cents kWh to harvest solar energy and feed it into the grid.

This will equal the power of 10 nukes. Nukes have been phased out by solar power and the Feed in tariff. This is exactly how Germany shut down its nukes.
-2

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 12:45PM JST

Everyone in Japan is installing solar panels as fast as they can!
3

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 12:48PM JST

The price for solar is now the same per kWh as nukes, when you compare all costs created by nuclear accidents.

Solar is always safe.. Nukes are never safe. Never.
0

sf2kMay. 31, 2012 - 12:53PM JST

said he would make a final decision once local authorities have made up their minds.

Finally, a real chance of avoiding restarting
0

sf2kMay. 31, 2012 - 12:55PM JST

the same tech that makes LCD TV's makes solar panels. Note that even before you get to expensive technology there are lots of things on the thermal angle that Japan can do. Japan could go for it and not need nuclear. This is an opportunity to bring the nation together, work towards a positive future, and get off the sauce.
1

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 01:00PM JST

PM naoto Kan is leading a march Sunday against restarting any nukes. Kan is the hero of Japan's green movement!
4

sf2kMay. 31, 2012 - 01:02PM JST

Noda couldn't guarantee the safety of a door handle, and the nation is going to go along and pretend that he can make nuclear assurances???

This is a good time to protest Japan. The corporate muppets are sending you their orders but you don't have to take it.

I was talking to some Japanese friends today and they were appalled at the lack of vision. Nuclear had it's day, and it is no more. All that colossal money to build 54 reactors was a waste and everyday they are supported further is a yen taken away from Japan's future.

Japan is ready to turn the page on nuclear. It will take work and a re-assessment of what is practical and what is not. But it is possible. The money can then be put towards real action on change. I'm rooting for a nuclear free Japan!
0

SerranoMay. 31, 2012 - 01:05PM JST

"once safety is assured"

That's impossible, nuclear power plants are inherently unsafe. Still, Japan may have no choice but to restart some nuke plants and operate them for another decade or so until alternative power sources can take over. Assuming that's possible...
-2

NetNinjaMay. 31, 2012 - 01:13PM JST

@sf2k

Please....spare us....would you? These people have no spine, no grit about them. They'll do nothing but take it.....with no vaseline. I'd love to see the end of nuclear energy. We are supposed to be more efficient at this day and age but GREED is good is still par for the course.

This country wastes countless amounts of energy.

Most importantly until you can convince the women to give up their queen like lifestyles it's never going to work. Most of them will be pro-nuclear in a minute should they walk into Louis Vuitton and find it too warm.

The people here ALL want to live glamorously. A bit too posh for my tastes. They want max energy for themselves and their businesses but they want the PEOPLE to suffer.

Anyway, lets hope and pray that we have a monster earthquake soon. It's amusing to see people who don't learn their lesson the first time.
3

CrickyMay. 31, 2012 - 01:23PM JST

15% overload on 1 or 2 days during summer...with NO N- power. It's not a disaster. The disaster is this idea they can not be replaced, according to the industry.
-1

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 01:44PM JST

Decentralization is the way to go.
If every house has 10 solar panels, then they harvest energy where they use it.
Plus they sell surplus on the grid.
Some farmers in Germany make $60,000. a year selling solar.

See the YouTube movie "here comes the sun Scheer".
0

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 01:48PM JST

Japan is due to have a monster quake if they restart one nuke. That's karma. If you have solar, you still have power after a quake knocks out a nuke.
1

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 01:56PM JST

@nandaAmandaKanda

SquidBert, the English translation in your link above is so poor that it is impossible to say if there has been, or there might be, recriticality.

Agreed, I think people should better ignore that post, sorry!

Unless, as you say, someone locates the original it is difficult to say what is going on. As I said I usually avoid enenews. We will see on the 8:th perhaps, it seemed like the Asahi article will be out then.
0

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 02:00PM JST

Sorry, I think I scrambled your name a bit there.....
0

showmethemoneyMay. 31, 2012 - 02:31PM JST

Thorium...now.

Siesta time...now.
3

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 02:48PM JST

Japan's government says it hopes to announce the restart of Ohi nuclear plant as early as next week.

Noda weighed into the controversy this week by saying he would take personal responsibility for the Ohi restart.
3

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 02:51PM JST

Thorium....now.

Nah, Thorium is so last century.

All the hip kids are doing LENR (What scientists call cold fusion, when they don't want to be stamped as crack pots) with nickel hydrogen.

http://ecat.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Cat

Even NASA joins in and says;

"1% of the nickel mined on the planet each year could produce the world's energy requirements at the order of 25% the cost of coal."

http://futureinnovation.larc.nasa.gov/view/articles/futurism/bushnell/low-energy-nuclear-reactions.html

Mitsubishi also wants in on the deal, but for some reason they decided to base their solution on LENR with cesium. No link, you will have to Google this one.

Personally I think Solar, Geothermal, Wind and Tidal is way cooler, but still.
3

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 03:20PM JST

I wonder if it is wise to restart when researchers say a major quake is due of the Boso Peninsula.

If Noda says he will take personal responsibility, does that mean we can use his body to plug any reactor leaks?
-10

basroilMay. 31, 2012 - 03:36PM JST

@Paul Kangas The reason people with a lot of space in very clear low latitude areas is because utilities are forced by the government to accept that electricity at a very high premium AND government subsidies on the panels themselves. If you were to use the same things in Japan, each extra kWh would net the person about 100 yen, and then 100000 yen tax rebate per panel installed. The country would go bankrupt (faster), and electrical bills for everyone else would double or triple (I'll laugh when you see your electrical bill go higher than your rent). Not to mention that a good engineering estimate requires about 1000sq. km. of solar panels to offset just nuclear (that is about a quarter of the land used for crops) without excess supply (meaning blackouts between 6pm and midnight)

Nuclear is the only way for Japan, solar/wind are too space consuming (and ugly), geothermal and hydro don't work due to earthquakes, and tidal is an engineering nightmare since it breaks down much faster than anything else. Japan just needs to restart half the reactors, then replace the rest with new Gen IV reactors that are so passively cooled that they get cooler in emergency shutdowns than regular shutdowns.
5

Rick KisaMay. 31, 2012 - 03:47PM JST

Noda says reactor restart necessary once safety is assured

No. Noda is wrong. What is necessary as of now is to reinvigorate renewables which Germany has perfected since it closed most of its nuclear plants. It has come up with a time table for elimination of nuclear electricity and developed a gadget that produces electricity from renewables equivalent to 20 nuclear plants! It has hence fst-tracked elimination of nuclear energy! <http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/61b7431c-aa68-11e1-9331-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1wLS3mhKf >

Therefore, the restart of nuclear plants will not be because Japan government cannot come up with alternatives, it will be because corrupt money hungry technocrats and companies are bent on prolifirating nuclear pollution at the expense of the masses who have already rejected nuclear electricity. Shame!
6

SquidBertMay. 31, 2012 - 03:55PM JST

@Basroil,

If you are saying that a low latitude and clear weather is beneficial, then Japan should get cracking right away on building those solar plants.

Mainland Japan is further to the south, and has more sun shine hours on average than Germany. As for space there are 53,890,900 housing units in Japan, each of them has a roof I think. Plus the we both know there is lots of land area available for solar as well if we want it.

Travemunde(Northern part of Germany) 53.9667^ N, 10.8667^ E

Munich (Southern part of Germany) 48.1333^ N, 11.5667^ E

Germany has 1738 sunshine hours annually and approximately 4.8 sunlight hours for each day.

Tokyo (Smack in the middle of Japan?) 35.6833^ N, 139.7667^ E

Japan has 2020 sunshine hours annually and approximately 5.5 sunlight hours for each day.

Now what are the reasons that Japan couldn't produce at least as much solar as Germany again???
-5

Thunderbird2May. 31, 2012 - 04:08PM JST

A lot of people are saying once the reactors are back online there will be megaqauake and "BOOM!" another disaster.

Fukushima was it... the only meltdown after a quake/tsunami in how many decades?
In all the years since atomic/nuclear power was harnessed for fuel and reactors built has there been a disaster after an earthquake in Japan other than Fukushima?
2

the_edgeMay. 31, 2012 - 04:28PM JST

@Basroil @SquidBert

Just a footnote:

"Solar power generation world record set in Germany"

"German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity – equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity – through the midday hours of Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank has said......"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/28/solar-power-world-record-germany
7

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 04:39PM JST

Basroil,

Nuclear is the only way for Japan, solar/wind are too space consuming (and ugly), geothermal and hydro don't work due to earthquakes, and tidal is an engineering nightmare since it breaks down much faster than anything else. Japan just needs to restart half the reactors, then replace the rest with new Gen IV reactors that are so passively cooled that they get cooler in emergency shutdowns than regular shutdowns.

I guess you don't live in Japan?

"geothermal and hydro don't work due to earthquakes" is just plain incorrect. The Korobe Hydro Dam in Nagano, a place with many earthquakes, has been generating power for KEPCO for many decades. Geothermal power could be generating 80GW of power which is twice as much as nuclear before the 3/11 disaster.

Geothermal should be the base energy for the country and take the lead in the renewable energies but in a energy policy with 50% of total power being generating from renewable's there's a place for solar, wind, tidal, biomass, and wave. Off shore wind plants could be used to produce compressed air instead of electricity, which is stored in bags on the seabed. The compressed air is released during daytime power peak demand to generate power.

The country needs to move away from the idea, and monopoly that only the major power companies can generate and supply power. More use of local generated power is need, and the energy used would be the best one for the location.

Because of the power company monopoly we pay 50% higher power charges than in America, even though they consume more than twice as much.
3

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 04:46PM JST

Thunderbird2

A lot of people are saying once the reactors are back online there will be megaqauake and "BOOM!" another disaster. Fukushima was it... the only meltdown after a quake/tsunami in how many decades? In all the years since atomic/nuclear power was harnessed for fuel and reactors built has there been a disaster after an earthquake in Japan other than Fukushima?

The TEPCO NPP in Niigata was damaged by an earthquake in 2007 which leaked radiation.The plant was closed down for 2 years.

But it's not correct for people to state that the reactors will be restarted and followed by another powerful earthquake. But the reactors need to operate at the highest safety levels possible and the minimum standard must be that in the event of an earthquake the reactors shut down and the cooling of the nuclear core can be maintained no matter what.
3

Steve McgrewMay. 31, 2012 - 05:51PM JST

zichi no matter how many backup or safety systems are put in place ther can still be the possibility of a reactor catastrophically failing. the difernce between probable and possible failure is the worry for sure..It is one heck of a foolish gamble for Japan to restert any NPPs while the current failed plant is still in such an dangerous state of disrepair... Another plant failure is a possibility, no way around that, I wonder if Japan could survive as a country both physically and fiscally should Japan be faced with two ongoing NPP disasters????????????? Firing up NPPs in japan again is a major gamble..
-1

Thunderbird2May. 31, 2012 - 05:55PM JST

This is from a Report issued after the 2007 quake about the plant in Niigata. People will no doubt say it was much much worse than this report says, but hey.... The report was produced in 2007 by "Global Risk Miayamoto"

Moderator: The URL will suffice.
4

CrickyMay. 31, 2012 - 06:08PM JST

Last " incident" was close enough, really don't want the same sick helpless feelings again! Looking at my family knowing I can't protect them...once was enough and no amount of talk will convince me N-power is the only reliable option, it's 2012 for goodness sake.there are alternatives there is always a way. No AC fine...no family not on.
3

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 06:44PM JST

Thunderbird2,

what your quote don't mention is that TEPCO built the world's largest atomic power plant on a known fault line which it admitted to after the construction. That in itself is illegal.
2

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 06:50PM JST

Steve Mcgrew,

I would go down the road of no nuclear energy but this past week the gov't have stated in their nre energy policy due at the end of July, that nuclear energy wll still be used to generate 15% of total power, which I think will need about 25 of the reactors.

If reactors are to be restarted, safety must be at the top of the agenda.
0

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 09:18PM JST

The world is out of oil. The world is out of uranium. It is inevitable that the world must convert to solar and renewables. Germany was smart enough to have written a feed in tariff to show the world how to move Rapidly to solar. China is moving rapidly to solar. China believes solar panels are the new money. Germany will be at 100% solar first, about 2033. Japan could match Germany. Everyone who wants an end to nukes should install 10 solar panels.
2

HowardSternMay. 31, 2012 - 09:25PM JST

"winning understanding"
-3

Thunderbird2May. 31, 2012 - 09:37PM JST

Germany will be at 100% solar first, about 2033. Japan could match Germany. Everyone who wants an end to nukes should install 10 solar panels.

It'll take Germany until 2033 and they are already doing the work... how long do think it would take Japan starting from near-scratch? 2038? 2040? What does Japan do until then? Subsist at low levels of energy? Japan needs power now, not wait ten or twenty years.
2

HowardSternMay. 31, 2012 - 09:39PM JST

Paul Kangas is not as nutty as he may appear (no offence intended).

Japan has a chance to redefine iteself in world as the leader in clean renewable energy. The public must stand up and demand this to happen as the powers that be will not do it.
3

Open MindedMay. 31, 2012 - 10:18PM JST

"Noda says reactor restart necessary once safety is assured": basically it means the reactors can never be restarted. Period.
1

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 10:37PM JST

Paul Kangas,

The world is out of oil. The world is out of uranium. It is inevitable that the world must convert to solar and renewables.

There will be more than 50 years of oil and more than 100 years of uranium if used in its current form. I do support the use of renewable energy but this country, all countries need a base power, which here in Japan was being provided by nuclear energy. The only renewable energy which can replace nuclear energy is geothermal. While solar panels have a part in an energy policy they are unable to generate the base power.

Germany was smart enough to have written a feed in tariff to show the world how to move Rapidly to solar.

I guess you don't live in Japan? For many years, people who install domestic solar panels sell the power to the power company.

China is moving rapidly to solar. China believes solar panels are the new money. Germany will be at 100% solar first, about 2033. Japan could match Germany.

I think both Germany and China are using more wind energy than solar?

Everyone who wants an end to nukes should install 10 solar panels.

In Japan, the price of a single panel is ¥1 to ¥1.5 million. That would make 10 of them, ¥10 to ¥15 million, which most people couldn't afford. Until recently people could get grants but it was stopped a couple of years ago. The gov't needs to reinstate the grants again.
4

zichiMay. 31, 2012 - 11:01PM JST

When we are discussing energy for generating power, we also need to look at the larger energy picture, that is, all the energy used by the country.

Prior to the nuclear disaster, nuclear energy only accounted for about 11% of the total energy cake. The biggest slices are oil, gas and coal. Renewable energy is the thinnest slice of the energy cake.

The country needs to find alternative energy for the gas, oil and coal. Coal could last more than 1,000 years but oil and gas could run out in the next 50 years or so.

Here in Kobe, some of the waste is turned into biogas which is used to run a limited number of biogas public buses. All public transport systems need to move toward using renewable energies.

The dirty combustion engine badly needs a replacement. New electric cars are on the edge of technology which can charge themselves, have no expensive and heavy batteries. The entire body of the car is the battery.

30 % of domestic energy is used for heating water which in many locations could be replaced with a mixture of solar heating and heat pumps which would reduce the energy consumed to less than 10%.

We need to reduce energy consumption without reducing the quality of life. I think 15% savings could be achieved.
-3

Paul KangasMay. 31, 2012 - 11:39PM JST

There are 50,000 houses in Japan. If each owner began putting up 10 solar panels today, all the roofs could have solar in 90 days. Stop waiting. China is installing a million panels daily.
-3

basroilMay. 31, 2012 - 11:44PM JST

@zichi I happen to both live in Japan and have a relevant ABET accredited engineering degree. Lets take the ideas one by one using real science:

1) Geothermal is a known fault-line activator, by introducing a large amount of high pressure water into a geothermal site (which is always already seismically active by nature), you end up both increasing stress and decreasing friction. The result is an increase in the frequency of earthquakes around the site. The reason why the California geothermal system was abandoned after a test plant was built was due to a massive (statistically speaking) increase in low energy earthquakes and water contamination. While natural source and closed loop geothermal plants (like those in Iceland) have lower risk of issues, they are fairly expensive and not really a viable option for Japan.

2) I think you meant to say Kurobe (not Korobe) Hydro, which has an annual capacity of 1000 GWHr on installed capacity of 335MWe . Onagawa nuclear produced 5283GWHr/yr on installed base of about 2200MWe (most of it underused and meant for peak demand). The main issues with hydro are two fold, first being that it requires a fairly high damn (which in turn requires you to change the local ecosystem and downstream system as well). The second is that the amount of electricity you can produce is both seasonal and highly dependent on the overall weather . What hydro is good for though, is as a black-start power supply, the energy needed to restart power plants after a complete system blackout.

3)Solar and wind require too much space to be practical. Solar is actually more efficient space wise than wind (though more expensive), and even with very unrealistic nearly perfect conditions, you are looking at about 180sq. km (more realistic estimates are about 1000 sq km) to replace the use of nuclear (but not the capacity). Of course, the cost of installing that capacity would be well over 100 trillion yen, which is practically impossible, even forgetting that the area needed would be even more expensive and probably impossible to find.
-3

basroilMay. 31, 2012 - 11:46PM JST

4) Offshore wind, or onshore for that fact, is impractical due to the frequent storms and on average fast gusts. There are actually very few viable sources for large scale farming. As for the air comment, not a viable engineering solution for large scale energy generation. It's like trying a trying to power a light bulb by blowing into your vacuum cleaner, it's possible, especially with a handheld cheap cleaner and a flashlight, but you wouldn't want to try powering a 500W worklamp that way.

5) Wave/tidal is a running joke (rest of post was not allowed) 6) The real reason why you pay 50% more is because it costs 75% more to produce.

7) Nuclear was over 30% of installed capacity and 24.5% of production before last year. 11% was in 1987.
-2

Jun. 01, 2012 - 12:07AM JST

Germany just installed millions of solar panels. It cost "nothing", because it actually made money for the millions of homeowners who installed the panels.
Germany reaped $1 Billion last year from the solar industry.
Solar created 300,000 new jobs in Germany in the last 3 years.
Japan could easily install millions of solar panels in 90 days once every home owners starts installing just 10 solar panels. This is not some abstraction.
Germany just did it.
China just did it. Spain just did it.
50 countries just did it.
What are you waiting for??? Nay sayers will try to stop all progress.
-5

Thomas AndersonJun. 01, 2012 - 12:11AM JST

3)Solar and wind require too much space to be practical. Solar is actually more efficient space wise than wind (though more expensive), and even with very unrealistic nearly perfect conditions, you are looking at about 180sq. km (more realistic estimates are about 1000 sq km) to replace the use of nuclear (but not the capacity). Of course, the cost of installing that capacity would be well over 100 trillion yen, which is practically impossible, even forgetting that the area needed would be even more expensive and probably impossible to find.

Germany can already produce 40% of its electricity demand from solar alone during its peak.
-4

Jun. 01, 2012 - 12:13AM JST

@basroil. What is your point? Do you want nukes?
-5

Jun. 01, 2012 - 12:15AM JST

France has 50 nukes.
Do the math. Humans are involved. Parts wear out. Bookies in London are now taking bets there will be a major meltdown in France in the next 13 months.
It is inevitable. Humans are involved.
-3

Jun. 01, 2012 - 12:24AM JST

The compelling reasons for rapid energy change can't be falling on deaf ears throughout the entire conventional energy industry.
This industry is faced with the decision of whether to artificially prolong the conventional system of toxic energy supply, or to play a role in shaping the clearly recognizable path towards decentralized and rational renewable energy.
The latter implies freely relinquishing its monopoly position and, of course, revenue losses.
In return, it will not be completely forced out of the market. Nor will it suffer a fundamental loss of acceptance if it switches to solar & renewables. The industry could transform themselves into holding structures for companies which operate independently at regional levels.
It is inevitable that solar will replace nukes in our lifetime.
Why hold back history?
3

Open MindedJun. 01, 2012 - 01:16AM JST

basroil; the best energy is the saved energy and the better shared energy. As many other posters said, the potential is huge on a worldwide basis (and especially in the US). Heating anything (water, home, ...) with electricity is ridiculous, maintaining 20ºC in open doors shop while it is 30ºC outside, ... aso). Energy is too cheap and we are wasting it selfishly. It is not a matter of eco-terrorism but just good sense. If all the zillion $ invested in dirty energy would have been allocated to renewable energy we would not be where we are now. We still have buffer time with fossil (nuclear) resources, but we need to act now toward more sustainable energy sources.
4

zichiJun. 01, 2012 - 01:21AM JST

The main energy used in Germany still remains coal and oil. A recent plan is to construct 26 new coal plants.

Prior to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany generated about 23% of total power from nuclear energy. Following the disaster, Germany immediately shut down 8 nuclear plants. Germany inyends to shut down the remaining nine nuclear plants by 2022.

Power generated from renewable enrgy increased from 6.3% in 2002 to 20% in the first half of 2011.

The total breakdown of renewable enrgy is: Wind 38.1%. Biomass 26.2%. Hydro 16%. Solar 15.6%. Biowaste 4.1%.

Oil remains the largest energy source at 34.6% making it the 5th largest consumer of oil in the world. Germany imports 2/3rds of its energy.

In 2012, Germany installed 7.5GW of solar power, which is about 3% of total power.

On my 26th and 27th, at noon, Germany generated a record breaking 22GW of power, which would be the equivalent to about 7-10 nuclear reactors, although a article in The Guardian claims that would be equal to "20 nuclear power stations at full capacity".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/28/solar-power-world-record-germany

Renewable power generation. http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/ren-Strom-D/index_e.php
1

Shivajirao TipirneniJun. 01, 2012 - 01:59AM JST

Noda knows that Nuclear safety is a Myth from the experiences of accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima particularly when an accident costs so much as to render a country fall into Economic degradation and ecxological destruction including critical public health problems.For more details see web sites from Google search Engine under "DiaNuke.org"
1

zichiJun. 01, 2012 - 02:26AM JST

basroil,

your original comment was,

Nuclear is the only way for Japan, solar/wind are too space consuming (and ugly), geothermal and hydro don't work due to earthquakes.

Which I questioned, beacuse like the Kurobe Dam which I mentioned has been producing power for decades, even though Nagano is a place of earthquakes. Dams in mountains are very important, the fact that some of them can generate power is almost secondary. I lived high in the Japan Alps for 8 years and both the melting snow waters in the spring, and the typhoon rains can be deadly when massive amounts of water coming down from the mountains. They can can also cause deadly landslides the results of which I've seen first hand.

Finland generates about 30% of it's total power from hydro even though it's also a nuclear energy country.

In Germany, in 2011, it generated 20% of it's total power from renewable energy, with the largest amounts provided by wind and solar. In fact, Germany just broke a record by generating 20GW of power at noon, from solar power.

Both Germany and Japan have similar land mass sizes.

Denmark generates 20% of it's total power from wind energy and plans to increase that to 40%-50%?

America and China are generating about 50,000MW from wind energy. Britain is also building large off shore wind plants.

While natural source and closed loop geothermal plants (like those in Iceland) have lower risk of issues, they are fairly expensive and not really a viable option for Japan.

The Japanese have been using the heat and water from geothermal for thousands of years.

Building geothermal plants won't cost as much as building an atomic plant nor will they create a disaster like the one in Fukushima, which will eventually cost more than 30 trillion yen to clean up.

Iceland generates 100% of total power and 90% of total heating from geothermal. Granted, it's a small country. Japanese geothermal experts have stated power from geothermal power can easily be increased from the current 2% to about 15% of total power. Others have stated, the increase could even be greater than that.

As for the air comment, not a viable engineering solution for large scale energy generation. It's like trying a trying to power a light bulb by blowing into your vacuum cleaner, it's possible, especially with a handheld cheap cleaner and a flashlight, but you wouldn't want to try powering a 500W worklamp that way.

A Canadian company have developed air bags which sit on the seabed which because of the high pressure, are small in size compared with the volume they can hold. Overnight power could be used to produce the compressed air, or it can be produced by wind and solar.

Nuclear was over 30% of installed capacity and 24.5% of production before last year. 11% was in 1987.

I stated that in Japan, nuclear energy was only 11% of the total energy used, with coal, oil and gas being the largest ones.

You stated on another post,

Considering Japan can't even power a hospital properly in summer anymore.

First I've heard of that?

At the time of the nuclear disaster, 34 reactors were running generating about 30% of total power. The government have stated the use of nuclear energy will be reduced to 15% which will probably need 20 something reactors, since they spend long periods in shut downs.
-2

mdepaivaJun. 01, 2012 - 03:03AM JST

I think the Prime Minister is taking the right approach. Lets face reality; Japan at the moment does not have a viable alternative to turn to. Until this happens, nuclear reactors will be needed. I don't see nuclear reactors being replaced not only in Japan but in other parts of the world anytime soon.
0

Arthur DumbolovJun. 01, 2012 - 03:59AM JST

Switch to Thorium, it's many-many times safer than Uranium, because it's liquid. If something will go wrong, fuel will be just flow down to special container and sealed. And it's operating with less temperatures than the Uranium and has more power and 3-4 times more fewer than Uranium.
2

globalwatcherJun. 01, 2012 - 04:50AM JST

I was frightened and felt helpless. You can't expect a nuclear expert to be prime minister or cabinet minister, so we need top regulatory officials to provide expertise and help us. We didn't have those people.

I have just read this listed above on JT.

I do not start my BBQ grill unless I have fire extinguisher sitting right next to the grill.
3

zichiJun. 01, 2012 - 05:54AM JST

Washington-based environmental think-tank the Earth Policy Institute in April estimated that Japan could produce 80,000 megawatts and meet more than half its electricity needs with conventional geothermal technology. http://phys.org/news/2011-08-quake-prone-japan-geothermal-energy.html
2

globalwatcherJun. 01, 2012 - 06:22AM JST

@sichi, thanks for the weblinks. Japanese has been taught Japan is a resource poor country. I never bought that. There are tons of engergy resources available if they want to. They just need to start thinking outside of BOX.
-5

FoxieJun. 01, 2012 - 11:08AM JST

I wonder if any of you have had any experience with solar panels? Mine are broken most of the time, if you are not an electrician it will cost you a bomb to have the broken cells repaired all the time. No sun, no electricity and no hot shower. Good in summer but not in winter. I used to be all for green technologies but there are too many problems with them. I am with zichi for the geothermal exploitation. Please spare us with propellers and solar panels!
0

nandakandamandaJun. 02, 2012 - 12:35PM JST

Just saw a J TV program last night showing that rather than making money by selling their surplus electricity, many households in Japan are now getting charged MORE per month by TEPCO etc. for their electricity bills than before they installed their solar panels!

The wife was flicking the channels so I didn't get to see why. Will check other news sources on this.
0

Paul KangasJun. 04, 2012 - 02:01AM JST

One world, one project. I have one prayer. We all cooperate to help Japan transition into 100% solar to save our blue, peaceful Pacific Ocean from radioactive pollution.
It would be different if GE was building nukes in landlocked Pennslyvania. But J is an island in our ocean. Any human error or quake kills all of us. People, plants and fish. Please let the rising Sun save us.
-1

Paul KangasJun. 04, 2012 - 02:06AM JST

@Foxie. Solar hot water heaters are cheaper, simpler and better than solar panels for hot water. I got mine on line. Cheap.
0

Star-vikingJun. 08, 2012 - 06:55AM JST

Washington-based environmental think-tank the Earth Policy Institute in April estimated that Japan could produce 80,000 megawatts and meet more than half its electricity needs with conventional geothermal technology.

And as far as I can find on the net, provided no explaination as to how they got that number.

"Geothermal power generation in the world 2005–2010 update report", by Ruggero Bertani, covering the World Geothermal Congress 2010, and published in the scientific journal Geothermics gives Japan as having the potential to generate 17 Terawatt hours of electricity per year - that's slightly over 2GW power output over the year. How do the EPI get 40 times what the professionals say? Pull it out of the air perhaps?