Abe says Japan cannot do without nuclear power

Picture expired. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe speaks at a news conference in Tokyo on Thursday night. AFP

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

  • 18

    thepersoniamnow

    This is his quote of hope on anniversary day?

  • 7

    AsianGaijinYesWeExist

    “Our resource-poor country cannot do without nuclear power to secure the stability of energy supply while considering what makes economic sense and the issue of climate change,” Abe told a press conference.

    Makes total sense, Abe-san.

    If one doesn't live anywhere near a nuclear power plant, that is.

  • 16

    Yubaru

    This is his quote of hope on anniversary day?

    Abe gave a rather long-winded speech last night at 6PM, it was broadcast live on NHK radio, don't know about TV as I was in my car at the time. They cherry picked his speech here to create controversy.

    The "hope" of Japan is that Abe steps down as leader, before he runs the country any further into the ground.

  • 8

    Black Sabbath

    Late last month three former executives of Tokyo Electric Power Co, the operator of the Fukushima plant, were indicted on criminal negligence charges over the meltdowns.

    We'll see what will become of the indictments. Nevertheless, can you imagine your government ever going after your countries' nuclear industry leaders?

    Neither can I.

  • 7

    Jandworld

    Former PM Kan from Yamaguchi perfecture says

    We can

  • 9

    Maria

    We have done with limited nuclear power after 03/11 and we managed fine.

    Incidentally, we did without PM Abe for a not inconsiderable length of time, and managed fine too.

    I know which I'd rather try and do without first, mind you, so if it's an either/or situation...

  • 13

    trouble

    How did Japan survive the last five years without nuclear power?

  • 7

    klausdorth

    “Our resource-poor country cannot do without nuclear power to secure the stability of energy supply while considering what makes economic sense and the issue of climate change,” Abe told a press conference.

    BS again! They or we were able to live without those nuke reactors for quite some time. If more money was invested in alternative energy like solar, wind etc. ...... it would also help the economy (creating jobs and so on). But "Dear Abe" and his buddies will never leave their own little world.

  • -14

    Schopenhauer

    Abe is right. We have to survive the global economic competitions. Fukushima disaster is a misfortune. Misfortunes hit human beings unavoidably and people learn lessons and improve. Those who cry to abolish all the nuclear plants citing a case of Fukushima is extreme.

  • 8

    katsu78

    troubleMAR. 11, 2016 - 07:50AM JST How did Japan survive the last five years without nuclear power?

    By importing fossil fuels to burn, thereby driving up CO2 emissions and increasing Japan's contribution to global warming.

    I've got no problem with Abe saying Japan cannot do without nuclear power now. We might have a difference of opinion but that's at least a defensible statement. What aggravates me is that he has made no concrete effort towards ending that state of affairs in the future. Japan sits on a treasure-trove of tidal, wave, and geothermal power while being a pretty good place for solar as well, and is doing so little to exploit them. The very energies that make nuclear power risky in Japan can be harnessed themselves to provide energy, yet Japan lags behind other countries for sustainable energy development.

    Like so many other problems plaguing Japan, Abe's response to Japan's energy needs is to plead that we accept the reality of the current situation while making absolutely no progress towards giving his descendants a better reality to deal with.

  • 12

    commanteer

    I agree. Especially with the economic crunch yet to come, buying that much foreign oil will be beyond Japan's means. For now, nuclear power is needed.

    The message was defensible. The problem is the messenger: Abe. He will give perfectly rational reasons for maintaining nuclear power for now, but those rational reasons are not his real reasons. He want's to support his cronies, pure and simple, at the expense of Japan's future.

    He uses a similar technique when talking about Japan's defense. He provides rational reasons to provide cover for his true intentions, which is to inhibit democracy and make sure his cronies stay in power so they can continue milking the country dry.

    In fact, it's hard for Japan to make progress on any issue when the people in charge are simply using those issues as angles to enrich themselves.

  • 2

    Jandworld

    In my local onsen this morning there was "Like it or not..."

    How much more fatalistic can it become?

  • 3

    Omninaut001

    Japan can do without nuclear power and not only generate enough power to supply all of Japan, but produce so much energy that it can be sold to China and South Korea. The answer: offshore hydrothermal vents. Unlimited cheap source of power.

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    Really? Seems to me it's only the pelicans with power companies in their pockets, and those companies themselves, that "can't do without it". Next he'll be telling us that the monk reactor and its trillions of yen for a mere few minutes of power was 'absolutely necessary', and 'economic', and 'safe', etc. You notice he did not mention in his speech how long it will take to decommission Fukushima? They're saying now it might be up to a century. Notice he didn't mention those costs, incurred by the government in part at least, when he spoke of economy? Notice he didn't mention that they'd already given up on cleaning forests and other areas around the plant because "It's too hard and expensive" in his rush to say they will speed up decontamination?

  • 6

    marcelito

    Japan seems to have survived just fine without N-power through the last couple of years of reasonable growth that are now behind us and unlikely to be repeated soon . With oil prices at decades low for now and the next year or so at least ,Japan can build up its supplies and move ahead full speed with a drive towards renewables. The fact its not doing that is a testimony to the inbread relationship LDP has with its N-village buddies.

  • 5

    BertieWooster

    If you look at the reality of these last five years, Japan spent two years without a single nuclear plant on line. There are now a few active reactors, but still, that's only a handful. These five years have demonstrated that we can secure enough power without nuclear plants.

    Naoto Kan, who was prime minister of Japan at the time of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and nuclear disaster, saying that Japan can do without nuclear power. (CNBC)

  • 10

    Aizo Yurei

    It's funny how this post is directly above the article about "Decontamination Troops exploited, shunned". Actually. It's not funny. It's sad. Japan is already on path for more disaster, this guy(Abe) wants to accelerate that.

  • 3

    Spanki

    Can't or won't?

  • 2

    Matt Hartwell

    I see a small island surrounded by water. Not much different to the U.K actually and look what the U.K is doing...A few lessons there perhaps.

  • 10

    cleo

    Not much different to the U.K actually

    Except that the UK isn't sitting on the edge of multiple tectonic plates constantly rubbing up against each other, and isn't riddled with active fault lines.

  • 1

    Citizen2012

    The last 4 years after 2011 are saying "WE did".

  • -2

    the_edge

    and the nuclear industry says Japan cannot do without Abe but in reality Japan cannot do with Abe...... that's twisted!

  • 5

    Bruce Miller

    Does China , in fact, have safer reactors? Has China modernized the original LFTR reactors of Dr. Alvin Weinberg, U.S.A.? Does China and now Russia have gas moderated pebble bed reactors that leave little waste of a benign nature and produce heat levels more useful to industry? Has the American moratorium on nuclear technology forced Japan to seek other, better, suppliers of reactors?

  • 2

    Disillusioned

    Abe insisted at the press conference that safety was the government’s “top priority.”

    Yeah, but they said the same thing before the Fukushima meltdowns and we all know how that worked out, don't we?

    Abe said, "They will reduce their dependence on nuclear power."

    This seems like a another flip flop and quite contrary to the headline. Since the disaster the private sector has shown a lot of initiative in developing and implementing renewable energy sources, especially solar. However, the federal government has done bugger all to promote renewables. All they do is complain about how much fossil fuels are costing and keep spouting off about how Japan needs to get 'all' the reactors back online. They also keep using the 'economic' plug to support nuclear power. The fact that, the disaster is going to end up costing a hundred times more than it cot to build all the reactor in the first place doesn't seem to be relevant to them. I've said it before, Japan has a chance to become a world leader in alternative and renewable energy sources, but instead, they are persisting in their quest to rely on nuclear power and become a laughing stock for the rest of the world. Even a little kid knows that, if you get burned playing with fire you don't continue to play with it, right?

  • -3

    Omninaut001

    Some of Japan's nuclear reactors use MOX fuel. The US military can dispose of its waste plutonium in Japan's reactors (or produce weaponized plutonium, as well, it goes both ways). The Pentagon wants Japan to have nuclear reactors, so Abe says Japan needs them.

  • 9

    clueless

    We have managed fine for 5 years without nukey.

    So what if the price goes up. I'd rather that than another disaster on our hands.

    Methinks Abe should pack his stuff and buy a house next to one of them and then maybe we will all take him a little more seriously.

    Fat chance of that ever happening.

  • 2

    badsey3

    By decentralizing the energy grid these energy companies would be giving up power at a time they need to pay for this disaster and to improve these nuclear facilities. =Not gonna happen when energy rates need to rise.

    =Get off the grid if you can or lower your energy use. Thankfully oil and coal is cheap now -that helps quite a bit.

  • 6

    CH3CHO

    2014 House of Representatives election LDP manifesto, http://jimin.ncss.nifty.com/2014/political_promise/sen_shu47_promise.pdf

    (page 7) 原発依存度については、徹底した省エネルギーと再生可能エネルギーの最大限の導入、火力発電の高効率化により、可能な限り低減させます。

    We reduce the dependency on nuclear power generation as much as possible, through thorough energy saving, maximum introduction of renewable energy, and enhancing the efficiency of thermal generation.

    Abe, keep your promise.

  • -7

    USNinJapan2

    Safe nuclear power program, reduced carbon emissions, and economic growth OR reliance on foreign oil, gas, and coal, ever increasing carbon emissions, and economic stagnation. Pick one.

    And before some of you start spouting off about renewable energy, sure, maybe several decades down the road when the technology makes it efficient enough, but this is about now and in the relative short term. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

  • 4

    nandakandamanda

    Quote: Abe, however, also said that the government was “going to reduce dependence” on nuclear energy.

    So why is this not the headline then?

  • -1

    CH3CHO

    USNinJapan2MAR. 11, 2016 - 10:50AM JST

    When a "station black out" happens to any NPP in the world, melt-down and explosion are inevitable. The wise learns from history.

  • -3

    USNinJapan2

    CH3CHO

    Then make sure a SBO doesn't happen by ensuring on-site generated emergency DC power is adequate. A melt-down is only inevitable if you don't take the necessary precautions. Nuclear power generation isn't inherently the problem; the programs and industry that manage and operate it is the problem. It's senseless to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  • 3

    Aly Rustom

    I think it just shows his complete lack of caring and sensitivity that he says something like this on the anniversary of the quake. I agree with sighclops. Abe and nuclear energy are the same: They are both useless, harmful, and cause more problems for Japan and her people than either is worth.

  • 1

    Wolfpack

    Abe says Japan cannot do without nuclear power

    There are two near to medium term choices for Japan to meet their energy needs. The first is to build ever more fossil fuel power plants. The second is to continue to use nuclear power. Now some day there may be some alternative source of energy that is safer than nuclear and pollutes less than fissile fuels, but those sources do not exist in a form that can scale to produce the amount of energy that a modern society requires. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world. Abe knows this and despite the dangers as demonstrated by the Fukushima reactor meltdowns has ruled out going the fossil fuel route.

  • -3

    YuriOtani

    The Americans do not have to breath the contaminated air that non atomic power means. The burning of coal increases the local level of radiation as well as mercury. The death rate from air pollution will spiral into the tens perhaps hundreds of thousands. Of course Japan could go to being a non industrial non electrical country. Already the rates of pollution have gone up over the top in Japan. There is no other means to produce electric than coal, natural gas or oil. Living in Tokyo is like smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day. The radiation increase is stronger with fossil fuels than atomic power.

  • 1

    Scrote

    Abe really means that the LDP cannot do without the bribes paid by the nuclear power station operators.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    YuriOtani: "The Americans do not have to breath the contaminated air that non atomic power means"

    Leave it to YuriOtani to take a thread about Japan and the leader of Japan talking about JAPAN's use of nuclear power plants and how using/not using them will affect JAPAN to bring out her baggage and hatred for Americans.

    tsk tsk, Yuri.

    "There is no other means to produce electric than coal, natural gas or oil."

    BS. There are all sorts of means, and if Japan starts investing in the technologies NOW instead of bailing out flailing companies insisting on NPPs, building NEW coal plants (because Aso remembers the good old days of how his family got rich), and paying MILLIONS a day on the Monju reactor which has never worked but for a few minutes, they will have a future to look forward to instead of 'having nothing', as you say. Who's fault is it they have little alternative? You going to blame that on the US somehow, too?

    They have a chance to wean themselves off of oil and nuclear power, and Japan could lead the world -- something you'd be proud of -- forward instead of leading it into the ground (something you blame others for), but they refuse. They have been given the lesson time and again, but simply refuse to learn. It is their fault, and theirs alone. Keep of nuclear power, cut off lifelines to the companies, and use that money for R&D into and construction of renewables.

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    BTW, i would invite the PM to read the quote of the day by a former (and MUCH better) PM.

  • -2

    Leila26

    My uncle Hiroshi was a genius, inventing all kinds of things in the silicon valley - California. Where are Japan's geniuses?
    His son was super intelligent, too. Another genius. I guess my uncle had not only brains, but determination.
    FIND your geniuses, Japan! They can solve these energy problems. I am hoping to find a little old house that is dilapidated in Japan. I want to fix one up. My husband and I can live there a little bit and learn more about my mother's culture. We enjoy remodeling.
    I think the ocean wave energy is a good idea, above. Making solar panels smaller - that has to be do-able. If computers were made so much smaller, so can solar panels be reduced in size. And wind power....ah....if anyone can make these adjustments and expand upon ideas, it is the Japanese!

  • 0

    kurisupisu

    Much if the tech is out there to be energy efficient yet it is not being utilized -ask yourself why there aren't wind turbines on the top of every high rise in Japan for example? If Abe wants an answer to whether nuclear power is right or wrong he should ask the children if a Japan with ever increasing thyroid lesions, not just in Fukushima but also in Kashiwa, Chiba.

    Radiation from Fukushima didn't just stay in one place.....

  • 3

    Peter Nozawa Thurwachter

    According to Shigeharu Aoyama, Japan has gotten by these last 5 years by using thermal plants that were supposed to be out of service. And it's deceiving that some energy companies have been turning a profit, but the reason is because they have had to forgo shutting down plants for expensive maintenance since they have been having to use these plants non stop. So the truth is, this is a stop gap measure, only meant to tide us over until we have a real solution, whether that be nuclear, conservation, what ever. If we keep this up, there will be an accident eventually. And although it may not be as scary as an explosion at a nuclear plant. The deaths will still be very real, and Japan will really be screwed when this donut spare tire blows out because there will be no other spare in hand. Right now Japan is trying to get by on the donut spare tire another day followed by another day, putting off the politically expensive decision of going to get a new tire from the nuclear village.

  • 2

    Jonathan Prin

    "Independent atomic watchdog": that is the issue. Japanese show they work everyday on a group system so independent , read individual opinions, are not always taken into account. Remember the engineer that was despised for his study saying wall was not high enough against tsunami for instance.

    I speak by experience and sorry cannot give sources.

  • 2

    Aly Rustom

    which may destroy the environment in a given area if things go wrong, which they almost never do.

    3-mile island, chernobyl, fukushima

    actually, here is a list

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_accidents

    Including one in France after Fukushima.

    No its not safe. At all

    And no one issaying we need to use fossil fuels. We're saying lets focus our energy and resources to improve renewables.

  • 1

    cleo

    here is a list of places being destroyed by coal. It's a little shorter though:

    -- The entire planet.

    The day we stop using coal is the day the environment begins to recover from the damage caused by our burning coal. We stop using nuclear today, and we still have thousands of years' worth of nuclear waste that needs to be stored safely - by people (our grandkids' grandkids) who will get no benefit from the power it generated.

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    Ok, and here is a list of places being destroyed by coal. It's a little shorter though:

    -- The entire planet

    So you think our choices are either coal or nuclear. Not very selective no?

    And nuclear power is very clean.

    Very. Just ask those poor kids who have thyroid cancer

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    What other options can support our current power usage levels?

    again, as I said before- solar panels on every house and building. wind farms- while they may not be able to produce ALL of our energy they will be able to take over from nuclear. Remember, its not like Japan was going 100% nuclear before the disaster. Its was about a third or a fourth of Japan's energy source.

    renewables could easily do that. again, solar panels on EVERY house, building, AND factory PLUS solar and wind farms.. It can be done. Nuclear is not the answer, and neither is coal.

    I'd rather ask those people who didn't get lung cancer in places that are powered through nuclear energy

    How about asking those people which they prefer:

    A. thyroid Cancer B Lung Cancer C. No Cancer

    If the answer is C go with renewables.

  • 0

    Peter Qinghai

    Reduce the demand for all forms of energy. How? Why is there a demand in the first place? Nobody want to see the White Elephant in all its glory. "There are too many penguins eating lunch, S#@t."

  • 1

    Aly Rustom

    No. They already use wind farms in Japan, but they don't produce nearly enough power

    You talk as if they were already 100% nuclear. nuclear doesn't either.

    Nuclear: has the potential to destroy a section of the planet, but almost never does.

    You don't need a disaster for it to destroy. There are constant leaks and emissions they don't tell us about.

  • 3

    Michael Werker

    With Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Typhoons and Tsunami, I think this island should not have nuclear power in the first place.

  • 0

    Brian Wheway

    Abe sans statement has proved my right, I ve said in the past that the nuclear reactors will be gradually switched on one by one, whether if you like it or not.

  • -1

    USNinJapan2

    Aly Rustom

    There are constant leaks and emissions they don't tell us about.

    Thank heavens you're here to tell us about them...

  • 1

    kurisupisu

    Since the cause of the nuclear disaster was a tsunami caused by an earthquake wouldn't any rational person not question the insanity of having nuclear power in Japan?

  • -1

    teesquared

    If nuclear power is to be used for power generation it should never again be allowed in the hands of the financial controllers or businessmen..

    The government should appoint a team of Japanese and International experts to form a governing panel that has the final say in all matters over and above the government vested interests when necessary.

    Then the scientific committee with the government lease the energy created to the companies like TEPCO. They become distributors only. Safety and money is an impossible to justify mix.

    There is also a safer form of nuclear power generation using Thorium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

    Japan should be developing these. Of course with thorium you cannot build a nuclear weapon. But Japan doesn't have any do they ...???

    We've got too much radiation All 'cos Tepco lost control A dark decision in the board-room Tepco leave those rods alone.

    (Set to the music of another brick in the wall)

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    Thank heavens you're here to tell us about them...

    Coal is killing people. Right now, right here. Nuclear isn't.

    Ok. Then YOU move your family close to the failed reactor. Woluld you both dare to do that? Put your money where your mouth is.

  • 1

    CH3CHO

    StrangerlandMAR. 11, 2016 - 02:24PM JST

    It's amazing how many people would prefer to use fossil fuel based power, which is known to destroy the environment everywhere

    Plants grow better with higher density of CO2 in the air. That is why European farmers add artificially made CO2 to the air when then grow plants. See "carbon dioxide enrichment".

    http://www.crophouse.co.nz/crophouse/pdf/CO2%20&%20Plant%20Growth%20-Nederhof-PH&G-may04-proofs.pdf

  • -2

    Aly Rustom

    There are constant leaks and emissions they don't tell us about.

    Then how do you know about them?

    I read.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclearpowerplant#Routineemissionsofradioactivematerials

    During everyday routine operations, emissions of radioactive materials from nuclear plants are released to the outside of the plants although they are quite slight amounts.[45][46][47][48] The daily emissions go into the air, water and soil.[46][47]

    NRC says, "nuclear power plants sometimes release radioactive gases and liquids into the environment under controlled, monitored conditions to ensure that they pose no danger to the public or the environment",[49] and "routine emissions during normal operation of a nuclear power plant are never lethal".[50]

    According to the United Nations (UNSCEAR), regular nuclear power plant operation including the nuclear fuel cycle amounts to 0.0002 millisieverts (mSv) annually in average public radiation exposure; the legacy of the Chernobyl disaster is 0.002 mSv/a as a global average as of a 2008 report; and natural radiation exposure averages 2.4 mSv annually although frequently varying depending on an individual's location from 1 to 13 mSv.[51]

  • 1

    zurcronium

    But a full cleanup of the site — including the extraction of melted uranium fuel from the damaged reactor cores — is expected to take at least 40 years according to the government’s timetable and a century by other estimates. In the meantime, officials acknowledge, Fukushima remains vulnerable.

    From NYT today

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    But the nice thing is, where I am now, I don't have to worry about radiation.

    Are you sure? You do know that the nuclear waste they are storing from the spent fuel rods is being distributed and stored all over the country. Where its being stored is something we are not told.
    And let's not forget that high levels of radiation were detected all the way to Shizuoka after the disaster.

  • 3

    Serrano

    "How did Japan survive the last five years without nuclear power?"

    How did Japan or any other country survive without nuclear power up to WW2?

  • 4

    commanteer

    With all the volcanoes here, Japan has an abundance of geothermal power they could use. So far, as I understand it, local onsens are putting a stop to that, as it might affect their business they think

  • 1

    Bobby Boogie

    Abe should be thinking about cleaning up the old mess in Fukushima before starting a new mess. The big problem is the Fukushima power plant is still leaking radioactive water and from what I hear won't be totally cleaned up and under control for another 4 to 5 years he should be giving out Government Sponsored Solar Cell to the people of Japan but as we all know you can't make $$MONEY$$ off the sun. Abe is old school.

  • -1

    lostrune2

    Even China says they cannot do without nuclear power.

    If it's good enough for China, it's good enough for Japan.

  • 1

    erlols

    Nuclear power is fine as long as monitoring things are done properly. They should put in charge someone who is against it to avoid the risk of bribery and the poor implementation of safety protocols.

  • -2

    Stuart hayward

    StrangerlandMAR. 11, 2016 - 04:13PM JST

    Ok, please show how this will:

    1) create an equivalent amount of power as nuclear energy

    "It's a fact that the amount of nuclear generated energy will NEVER be that of what it was before the disaster, not unless new nuclear plants are built. There are many households around the globe who actually create excess electricity and in some cases, are allowed to get credited or sell back electricity to their mandatory provider. Most cities and states require you to at least have a main power panel, though I do know some who completely off grid. Though it's taken me almost four years to accomplish, I use zero nuclear or coal engegy at my household. Proof that in time, alternative energy can reach the equivalent of present power sources."

    2) be cost effective

    "One thing we know for sure is that Nuclear energy is full of hidden cost and only appears to be cost effective on the surface. From the other article, No man nor robot can set foot at ground zero. We are all being taxed incredible sums of money for the clean up of just one disaster, and will remain doing so well into the future. Even under good conditions, we the tax payers will contribute to the cost dismantling old reactors. Pay for nuclear waist disposal and storage, the list goes on."

    3) be implemented

    "I'm already implementing it, so it CAN be done!"

  • 2

    Star-viking

    CH3CHO

    Plants grow better with higher density of CO2 in the air. That is why European farmers add artificially made CO2 to the air when then grow plants. See "carbon dioxide enrichment".

    Plants need more than extra CO2: water, nutrients, more sunlight.

    The 'CO2 is plant food ' meme is a hoax that serves those who deny the effects of global warming

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    Not entirely. But again, I know for sure that fossil fuel based power is affecting me where I live now. Nuclear radiation may be, but probably isn't

    It is.

    China needs it more than pretty much everyone. The fossil fuel based coal pollution in China is ridiculous. You can see the air in the big cities

    No one is saying we need to rely on coal and f. fuels. But mark my words, you're living in a pipe dream if you think they'll turn off the nukes once they get them going again. The reason solar is now starting to make headway in Japan is because the nukes are off. Once you turn them on again, they'll stay on.

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    I agree with you based on the absolutely nothing whatsoever to support that premise.

    except for the fact that high radiation levels were detected as far as shizuoka?

    If a cheaper clean power source can be found, there would be no reason to keep them on

    except for...money?

  • 2

    Aly Rustom

    That reply makes no sense.

    Let me spell it out for you. Nuclear energy and the turning on of the reactors means money for tepco and others. solar energy gives people financial autonomy over the energy in their home and takes the money from the vested interests. So of course when the nukes come back on they will stay on.

    get it?

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    Again, if they can find a cheaper clean energy source, then it's going to win by pure economics.

    Solar is already winning now. If we turn on the reactors they will stay on because TEPCO and its cronies are not going to make money off solar panels. We need the nukes off line so we can get to work weaning Japan off of dirty energy

  • 2

    Christopher Glen

    Japan can manage without nuclear power. For a country as geographically unstable, nuclear power cannot be the be all and end all. If March 11 taught us anything, it is this

  • 2

    Aly Rustom

    Except that it's not, because there isn't enough solar power to supply our energy needs. We would need to have millions of more solar panels in order to do so. And solar panels unfortunately are not that cost effective yet.

    So lets build them instead of spending money and resources on the nukes. As far as cost effectiveness, they'll cost less than fixing fukushima will.

    You may be right, but it's still better than burning coal.

    Really? We came VERY close to losing Tokyo. TEPCO wanted to cut and run. And you still want them to operate the plants?

    MOST if not ALL of the other plants are ALSO built over faults AND are seaside. What makes you think that a repeat disaster won't happen again?

  • 1

    Aly Rustom

    I just don't agree with burning coal just because some people are overly paranoid about nuclear.

    Well, the former PM who was in charge during the disaster said we almost did. Michio Kaku the nuclear physicist said we almost did. AGAIN, what makes think this can't and won't happen again?

    I would prefer tepco be out of it altogether. But that's not an option.

    Then neither is nuclear power

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    So to throw your question back at you, what makes you think that burning coal is good for our planet?

    I support green energy not coal and not nuclear. Show me a coal disaster the size of fukushima or chernobyl please

  • 1

    Aly Rustom

    And I support dragons. But back in the real world, green energy is not at the point where it can supply all of our current energy needs.

    And you know this because....you don't. We've never tried clean energy because nuclear was always there.

    Here are the facts: The vast majority of the reactors are old, are built on fault lines, AND are next to the ocean-like fukushima.

    The American Lung Association and the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) claims that 13,000 people die each year from coal pollution--down from 24,000 in 2004, when less pollution regulation was enforced. In addition to the premature deaths, CATF estimates that every year coal pollution is responsible for 12,000 emergency room visits, 20,000 heart attacks, and over 200,000 asthma attacks.

    Again, check out Michio Kaku, Helen Caldicott, and so many others. If the Hamaoka plant has an accident, that will spell the end of Japan. The concentrated plutonium is FAR worse than Uranium which is what is being emmitted from Fukushima. We're talking millions of people dead or evacuated. We came close with fukushima. WE need to learn our lessons. Obviously, you havent

    It's fine and dandy you want green energy - I do too,

    I thought you wanted dragons

  • 1

    Aly Rustom

    Fear mongering

    Denial

    When every house, every building, and every factory has solar panels on top of them then come talk to me about turning on the reactors.

  • -1

    Stuart hayward

    Stragerland: THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO USING COAL & NUCLEAR!

    Though there is no singular silver bullete, there needs to be a combination of excepted alternative energy sources. I started with a single fuel cell generator, and a year later added solar, then eventually added wind turbines.

    You seem be limited by thinking that we have to use only one thing as a source of energy. The problems you speak of will NOT be fixed or addressed by just using Nuclear, that in itself creates a new set of problems. I agree coal is destructive as well, that's why I combined multiple sources of alternative safe energy.

    For some reason you're having trouble excepting the fact that myself and many others have already made the effort to be independant from power companies. The solutions are already here, they just need to be excepted rather than suppressed.

  • 0

    Aly Rustom

    Stragerland: THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO USING COAL & NUCLEAR!

    Exactly

    You seem be limited by thinking that we have to use only one thing as a source of energy. The problems you speak of will NOT be fixed or addressed by just using Nuclear, that in itself creates a new set of problems. I agree coal is destructive as well, that's why I combined multiple sources of alternative safe energy.

    Exactly

    For some reason you're having trouble excepting the fact that myself and many others have already made the effort to be independant from power companies. The solutions are already here, they just need to be excepted rather than suppressed.

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    Much better to use the clean energy we have now, and then switch to even cleaner energy going forward.

    Please go to the displaced people who can't go home because of the nuclear radiation and told him how much cleaner nuclear energy is from coal. Also please put your money where your mouth is and go live close to a nuclear reactor before telling us that it is safe

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    I live in Japan.

    Ok. So where are all the people IN JAPAN dying of coal. Since you live in Japan, deal with the problems of Japan. People here suffered from a nuclear disaster. Not a coal disaster

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    Now please tell me how you justify burning coal that we know is killing our planet now, over using clean energy. And don't try to bring in clean energy, because we're dealing with the world as it is now, not how we want it to be in the future.

    The crazy thing is you thinking that nuclear is clean. It isn't. Again we nearly lost Tokyo because of your clean energy. Hats how I justify it

  • 1

    sf2k

    The premise that Japan is a resource poor country and must use radioactive materials to boil water is ridiculous for a nation sitting on the Ring of Fire. Geothermal is the ignored resource but there isn't a lobby group to sellout to, it's a natural local resource and wouldn't garner any international multinational. It would employ people across the country and would put proof to the notion that the world can live without nuclear

  • -2

    Aly Rustom

    Says the guy who is pushing for the emission of radiation

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    I'm just choosing the lesser of two evils, while you're pushing for the greater of two evils.

    You got that backwards

  • 0

    toshiko

    About ten yrs ago, rooftop solarpanels appeared in USA. Then Mitsubishi and Sanyo created solar energy farms for regional utility companies. Calf. and Western states utility companies do not use oils northern statesa people pay cheap utility cost. Check Wikipedia solar panel, Ca utility. Rooftop panels are out of dated. Sunshine is free and even in winter, ther is daylight. ,

  • 1

    erlols

    Strangerland is right. Aly Rustom, your logic is clearly flawed.

    In addition, after 3/11, safety standards and controls improved, making nuclear energy in Japan safer. On the contrary, coal will never improve.

    The only argument that can be made is that as long as nuclear energy is available, green energy's implementation will be delayed. But this is true for fossils too... Let's face reality, the only way green energy will substitute other sources is making it more efficient.

  • -1

    Christopher Glen

    Here are the other facts: in 40 years of running them, there was a grand total of one incident, from a once in a thousand years tsunami.

    A disaster that will take many more years, perhaps decades to resolve. There will be health consequences as well down the track, contaminated seawater. If TEPCO had built the plant on higher ground as advised - or even better - not built it at all - then Japan wouldn't be in the mess it's in now

  • -4

    Stuart hayward

    Stragerland:

    THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES TO USING COAL & NUCLEAR

    Not any viable ones right now??

    Viable: workable, applicable, possible. I have already proven the alternatives I mentioned are exactly that! I make a very modest living and now I'm not using coal or nuclear energy at my household, if I can do it, anyone can!

    It's fine to have a different opinion but rather than just shooting down alternative energies, you need to take action and change your ways little by little. You hate coal produced energy but you're doing nothing to change your dependence of it. Simply saying it's bad and nuclear is good, is no solution.

  • 2

    Aly Rustom

    Nuclear is a disaster waiting to happen stranger lan

    You said it's amazing how many people would prefer to use fossil fuel power over nuclear power. Everyone on this board has been trying to explain to you that nuclear power is not safe and you have been obstinate refusing to listen to other people and making silly arguments about how nuclear power is safe. We've been trying to tell you that we almost lost Tokyo. This is not fear mongering it's a fact. This has been backed up by various nuclear scientist and the former p.m. during that time. Now you can mouth of all you want about how nuclear energy safe, but when nuclear scientists them selves get up and say that it's not I think it renders your argument invalid. Unless you yourself are nuclear scientist switch I'm guessing that you're not. Well I'm not saying that Coal is a good long-term option, what I'm saying is that it's a better short-term option then having nuclear energy in the hands of an extremely inapt and secretive organization like Tepco.

    Other people on the board of been trying to explain to you how dangerous this is a new been childishly making silly counter arguments. This is not a joke. Let me repeat, we almost lost city of Tokyo because tepco wanted to cut and run. Nuclear energy to clean. In addition to that if it goes back on even temporarily it will be in the hands of a very stupid and inept organization.

    We need to keep using Cole while continuously making solar panels to put on every single house, building, and factory. When we do that we will greatly reduce the need for Coal through solar. In addition to that, you add solar farms and wind Farms. When you have that, you may still have to use a little bit of coal, but the need for it will be greatly diminished. I also think is very stupid and deeply insensitive to turn on the nuclear reactors when there are people who have not been able to return to their homes and are still homeless because of nuclear energy that you are toting. I told you before and I'll say it again for the third or fourth time, if you think nuclear energy safe live within 3 miles of a reactor. If you do that, I'll never open my mouth again about how dangerous nuclear energy is. And before you come up with more BS telling us about how renewables can't produce enough energy remember that before the earthquake Japan was not 100% nuclear. Nuclear energy only accounted for a quarter of Japan's energy needs. So the risk for exceeds the benefits anyway you look at it

  • 2

    Christopher Glen

    Yep. In one area of the world.

    The Pacific Ocean is not confined to one area alone. By TEPCO's own admission, they are dumping radioactive water into the sea as we speak. They are hopeful they will be finished cleaning up by 2020. Even with their hopeful estimate, that leaves another 4 years of radioactive water being pumped into the sea. The world's ocean. This is what happens when you build a nuclear plant on the coast, in a country prone to earthquakes (and the odd tsunami)

  • 1

    Aly Rustom

    Nobody's telling you that we have to use coal forever stranger land. The fact that we didn't lose Tokyo was lucky. Those nuclear scientists YOU speak for are bought and paid for by the establishment. We have been using coal forever. Now all of a sudden pepper like you scream that we have to go nuclear or we'll all die because of cancer is a joke. But there are people here, children in fact, who are homeless and dying of cancer because of your precious nuclear energy. To be toting nuclear energy around the anniversary of the disaster is just plain insensitive to these people

  • 1

    Aly Rustom

    The fact that we are losing our entire planet to coal is fact.

    It's fear mongering.

    And there are WAY more people suffering from respiratory illness and dying because of your precious coal energy. To be pushing for coal while these people

    And are these people at locating nuclear energy? I don't hear anybody doing that unless they report to the nuclear industry.

    People who are doing respiratory illnesses from coal are asking for more renewables which we do have. They're not asking to be killed a different way by nuclear energy

  • 0

    Leila26

    **The government should appoint a team of Japanese and International experts to form a governing panel that has the final say in all matters over and above the government vested interests when necessary.

    How absurd to think that government folks are pure and good. Do you not realize they are FIRED now and then? What about their motives? I worked for the government and can tell you ----- they are just ordinary people and some have problems. They were caught doing all kinds of things. And some were regulators of energy companies. And yet they were found using drugs in government cars. Or just using drugs. They had good positions making good money. PLEASE. Stop stereotyping people in the private sector.

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    Oh, so you're a climate change denier. I hadn't realized that. Now I understand your push for coal.

    I didn't realize you were getting paid by the nuclear industry. At any rate I'm not a climate change denier. I just don't think that radiation is a better choice that's all.

    The people you keep talking about, the ones who are dying from carbon monoxide poisoning are not advocating nuclear energy like you. They are advocating renewables. I've said to you time and time again, first put solar panels on every single roof in Japan -house -factory -building. When you've done that, and only after you've done that, we can talk about whether or not renewables can generate enough energy. I work at a school where they have solar panels on the roof. This is being done right now whether you like it or not. Again don't tell me that renewables cannot generate enough energy until we actually start using them 100%. again, nuclear energy was never 100% of the energy source of Japan. It was only 25% before the accident and look what we got for our trouble.

    And please refrain from ad hoc attacks. I would've thought you were about that

  • -3

    Leila26

    Where are people dying from coal? I've never known a single person who is dying from coal. I live on the West coast of the US.

  • -3

    Leila26

    Where are people dying from coal?

  • -3

    Leila26

    But does that link state WHERE IN THE US???????

  • -3

    Leila26

    No, I want to know WHERE IN THE US, since I have lived here all my life and NEVER heard of a death from coal. Is it in the east coast? WHERE??????

  • -3

    Leila26

    If you live in Japan and know NO ONE who has died from coal, wouldn't you wonder why the fuss?

  • -1

    Aly Rustom

    Stranger land, how much is the nuclear paying you? I am not a climate change denier. I believe in climate change. I just don't believe that the answers to kill ourselves with radiation instead.It's you who wants to deny that radiation is killing us just like climate change. You're the one in denial and think that the nuclear industry is safe. That's just as bad if not worse than climate change denial.

  • -2

    Aly Rustom

    You claim that the fact that coal is ruining our planet is fear mongering. You are denying that coal is a problem. Therefore you are denying that climate change, a direct result of burning coal, is real. Hence

    Same for you and radiation coming from nuclear energy

  • -1

    Star-viking

    Aly Rustom,

    Well, the former PM who was in charge during the disaster said we almost did. Michio Kaku the nuclear physicist said we almost did. AGAIN, what makes think this can't and won't happen again?

    Michio Kaku is a Theoretical Physicist, and PM Kan is, first and foremost, a politician.

  • 0

    Leila26

    Some Democrats have destroyed dams (which is safe power and economical) because it alarms the fish. The human race just can't win.

  • -3

    ghoneim mohamed

    Abe is right,his announcement is logic and realistic.What happened in Fukushima can happen anywhere in the world,it was extra ordinary disaster,no one can blame Japan for what had happened.Yes,Japan is source poor country,its true,thats why there is no option left.All developed countries are using nuclear power as main source of energy.

  • 0

    Christopher Glen

    announcement is logic and realistic.What happened in Fukushima can happen anywhere in the world,it was extra ordinary disaster,no one can blame Japan for what had happened.Yes,Japan is source poor country,its true,thats why there is no option left.All developed countries are using nuclear power as main source of energy.

    Not in the least. Entomb Fukushima, and spent the money currently being wasted on "cleaning it up" on renewable energy. Short term financial pain will lead to long-term financial gain

  • -1

    ghoneim mohamed

    CHRISTOPHER GLEN

    Renewable energy cant be an alternative to nuclear,otherwise STATES and EUROPE would have done it.A catastrophic disaster such as FUKUSHIMA is an exceptional thing can happen anywhere,no way to avoid 100%,its not the perfect solution,but most practical,and economic one,not theory.

  • 0

    Christopher Glen

    Supporting links please. Oh while I'm at it http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/13/almost-33-german-electricity-came-renewables-2015/ Germany is in the process of getting rid of their reactors. 16 percent of their power is now nuclear - a reduction of half. Abe wants to restart all the plants. If Japan was not so earthquake prone perhaps nuclear power would be safer, like in France. But to proceed with restarting all the plants - as things stand - would be lunacy

  • -1

    ghoneim mohamed

    I know about Germany,but that took time,and still to move to another sources,If Japan will do that,it needs long time for sure to replace other economic and practical alternatives.Establishing new different energy network and plant takes longer time and very high expenses,not that easy or fast,for time being its the best available.most of renewable energy sources,either very expensive or cant replace nuclear ones,may be can work in some fields,but not as nuclear.

  • 1

    tokyo@marsili.fr

    If one doesn't live anywhere near a nuclear power plant, that is.

    Define near. The radiations went quite far and radiated thingies cannot be quarantined. Fukushima was bad, but it can be worse. Scary thing.

    Can Japan be bold enough to be a progressive country?

  • -1

    Star-viking

    Tokyo@marsill.fr

    Define near. The radiations went quite far and radiated thingies cannot be quarantined. Fukushima was bad, but it can be worse. Scary thing.

    Near, I was about 100kms away. As for bad, 20,000 people died that day from an unexpected tsunami. The lessons have been learned. The contaminated areas are being shrunk, people can return to more areas. It would be worse to dump nuclear because of all the scare-stories we've all been fed.

    France is a good example of the best aspects of nuclear, it has the lowest carbon intensity in Europe, if not the world. It is also a good example of how foolish Green politics can be - they want to cut nuclear by a third, potentially upping carbon intensity.

  • 0

    genjuro

    5 years after the disaster, with numerous displaced lives and abandoned towns, it looks like Abe doesn't care if we end up seeing more ghost towns and tons of nuclear waste stored here in Japan.

    https://www.rt.com/viral/335719-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-tsunami/

Login to leave a comment

OR
Buy Organic Pasta Sauce on HealthyTokyo

Buy Organic Pasta Sauce on HealthyTokyo

HealthyTokyo.comHealth & Fitness

Japan’s year-round heaven on earth in Gunma Prefecture

Japan’s year-round heaven on earth in Gunma Prefecture

Jarman International K.K.Business Services

REAL Mount Hagen Organic Coffee!

REAL Mount Hagen Organic Coffee!

HealthyTokyo.comHealth & Fitness

Special Offers

Happy Hour in Beautiful Patio

Happy Hour in Beautiful Patio

Offer ends: Oct 31, 2016

Work
in
Japan

Search the Largest English Job Board in Japan.

Find a Job Now!

More in Politics

View all

View all

Find Your
Apartment
in Japan

10,000’s of properties available today!

Search