Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Japan Will Not Change Nuke Energy Policy  
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8297 posts, RR: 26
Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Good news from Tokyo at last - cooler heads have prevailed, and the central government is indicating there will be no major alterations to the country's energy policy, which centers heavily on nuclear power. At the moment, there are more than seven plants either under construction or in final planning stages.

Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku said Sunday that Japan will "stick to nuclear power as a national energy policy." He made the comment on a talk show on public broadcaster NHK.

While further seismic safety safeguards are necessary, the government has avoided the trap of answering the calls of protesters using emotionally-fueled psuedoscience to advance anti-nuclear agendas. This step will ensure that the shaky economy can at least be assured that reasonable utility rates are here to stay for the nation's residents and businesses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110508/..._re_as/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7982 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1647 times:

Good, learn from past mistakes, make adjustments, and drive on. I hope the rest of the world does the same, sigh...


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1631 times:

They have never even looked at alternative solutions, so they are simply devoid of deployable options this early after the Fukushima disaster.

Grassroots anti-nuclear initiatives are only just gaining steam on a very small scale.

It would have been an extreme surprise if the japanese government had declared a complete strategy reversal at this early point, with the intense and most likely corruption-supported interconnections between the nuclear lobby and the major political parties.

In Germany it has taken about three decades of political, technological and societal development to come to the point where the end of nuclear power is at long, long last now becoming reality. This is not something you can do overnight, even if the political will is actually there.

Japan has completely missed the boat on alternative energy, so they will have a much harder time clmbing out of their dependency on the nuclear industry.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7982 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1624 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):

What's wrong with nuclear energy? It's very efficient, clean, and safe (yes safe, events like these hardly ever happen.)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):

It would have been an extreme surprise if the japanese government had declared a complete strategy reversal at this early point, with the intense and most likely corruption-supported interconnections between the nuclear lobby and the major political parties.

I don't think corruption is necessary. There's a Japanese standard: shikata ga nai. "There is no other way."


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
What's wrong with nuclear energy? It's very efficient, clean, and safe (yes safe, events like these hardly ever happen.)
Hardly ever? meaning Three Mile Island, Tchernobyl and now Fukushima just in my lifetime, which is decidedly too frequent for my taste (the Mayak disaster was before my time).

Plus the pollution around Mayak, Hanford, Sellafield, La Hague and other processing sites. (So much for clean – it is worlds apart from it, really, once you bother to look at the entire complex.)

Plus a large number of near-catastrophic events in reactors all around the world which got dangerously close to getting out of control.

By the speed this is going, we'll have to expect a major nuclear disaster next to a major population center in Europe or elsewhere sooner or later. I'm living in one of the densely populated regions which would have to be evacuated in case one of the nearby reactors should go up. This is not just a theoretical consideration for me.

I think safe is about the last qualification one could attach to this technology in view of what is actually going on.

Efficient? Well, only if you completely ignore the massively expensive (both fiscally and energetically) de-construction, waste processing and storage problem.

We've seen major earthquakes almost all around the pacific Ring of Fire recently – except the long-expected californian one as of yet.

With California having several nuclear reactors which are not just not up to modern standards but which have major known weaknesses and several of which would probably have been shut down long ago if it wasn't for California's known power troubles (among them at least one of them directly exposed to a potential tsunami almost exactly as in Fukushima, others dangerously close to known fault lines).

Is complacency really the way forward after just having witnessed the events in Japan?

The entire nuclear complex promotes itself on nothing but the (as we now know vain) hope that it just won't get all that bad – the fact that no insurance is willing touch them gives a clue of how rational, independent risk assessment views this kind of hope.

Not kindly, in short.

And that is just the actual power production – the issue of nuclear waste is even worse than that with time scales involved which by far exceed the entire history of human civilization for a few short years of power production which could have been done without any persistent consequences otherwise.

I know there have been decades of lobby propaganda trying to cover up these obvious flaws and urging people to simply ignore the consequences with the support of well-greased political connections, but nuclear energy only looks like a simple solution for all of humanity's energy needs. In actual, real life, it is riddled with problems, shortcomings, unintended consequences and above all wide-ranging and near-endless environmental risks.

If something looks too good to be true, it probably is. And in this particular case we already know that for a fact.

Time to move on, even if it takes some additional effort.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
I don't think corruption is necessary.


One would think so – but it seems it follows the implementation of nuclear technology around wherever it goes, sometimes in its "milder" form of public/private collusion to get around mandatory requirements which would apply to any other industry.

Might have something to do with the massive public subsidies usually involved (directly and/or indirectly) and the political support required to block questions about risk coverage and liability for operation and waste storage.

[Edited 2011-05-08 11:57:54]

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8774 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1546 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Hardly ever? meaning Three Mile Island, Tchernobyl and now Fukushima just in my lifetime, which is decidedly too frequent for my taste (the Mayak disaster was before my time).

That is true, but it does not mean current technology has the same vulnerabilities as 50 year old technology. I personally believe unstable nuclear reactors should be destroyed and new reactors built.

But you have a good point about liability potentially making these plants not financially (or economically) viable. Maybe that means society does not want them.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

Well not totally correct Aaron747....   

As you will see in the SMH article.

There current policy of building reactors on fault lines is to be stopped.Its never a good look to be doing that sort of thing to start with, so I'm glad they've decided to shut this one down. Thank God

"In a television interview yesterday Mr Kaieda, whose ministry supervises power suppliers, asked Chubu Electric Power to accept the call by the Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, for the suspension of operations at the Hamaoka plant, south-west of Tokyo."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mi...plant-to-close-20110508-1ee7n.html



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1502 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
In Germany it has taken about three decades of political, technological and societal development to come to the point where

... anything even remotely involving nuclear energy creates public hysteria and rational discussion is not possible. Just pure emotions and perhaps even close to an official state religion.
Glad to see Japan has not chosen to go down that path.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1499 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 6):


One would think so – but it seems it follows the implementation of nuclear technology around wherever it goes,

Please name a similar institution that is NOT rife with corruption.

(I won't be holding my breath waiting for your answer)


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8297 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 8):
"In a television interview yesterday Mr Kaieda, whose ministry supervises power suppliers, asked Chubu Electric Power to accept the call by the Prime Minister, Naoto Kan, for the suspension of operations at the Hamaoka plant, south-west of Tokyo."

They would like to do so but today it remains unclear if they have the legal authority to do so. Word is that Chubu Electric, which is our regional provider, will do the required shoring up at their own expense, to commence ASAP.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
They have never even looked at alternative solutions

Several large Japanese firms are leading makers of eco-friendly technologies. As for large scale alternative energy solutions, I am not aware of any one technology that is a useful solution for a country that is more than 80% mountainous with limited agricultural land and sunlight. Wind power has expansion possibilities here, but does not provide the ROI to be widely deployed. It is actually quite shocking how many Japanese upper income homes and corporate sites have solar panels installed despite the poor ROI in a country with significant cloud cover much of the year.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21879 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
I think safe is about the last qualification one could attach to this technology in view of what is actually going on.

Compared to other energy sources available at the moment, yes, nuclear is pretty safe and clean.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Is complacency really the way forward after just having witnessed the events in Japan?

Complacency would just be going about things the way they did before. But that's not going to happen - you don't have to dismantle an entire energy infrastructure just because an event on an unpredicted scale caused an accident. You make changes to ensure that the infrastructure will be able to withstand such an event (and even one on a larger scale) and move on.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1431 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
What's wrong with nuclear energy?

Plenty, when it goes wrong.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
It's very efficient, clean,

Efficient yes, but clean, well not the by waste, that's not clean, and is evidenced by the fact that hardly any country wants to deal with it. or store it on there own land.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3):
(yes safe, events like these hardly ever happen.)

But when "events" do happen, WOW do they happen all right ,and we live with the aftermath for decades, if not longer.

Is that what you'd describe as being clean and green ?

Another 3 plants to close.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsun...cfm?c_id=1503051&objectid=10724078

While all three reactors at a coastal nuclear plant while steps are taken to prevent a major earthquake or tsunami from causing another radiation crisis.

Shouldn't this have been done when the reactor were built, I mean just look at Japan with its long history of earthquakes and Tusanmis

Bit like closing the gate after the horse had bolted really.

[Edited 2011-05-08 18:09:52]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Hardly ever? meaning Three Mile Island, Tchernobyl and now Fukushima just in my lifetime, which is decidedly too frequent for my taste (the Mayak disaster was before my time).

TMI was a non-accident. Some radiation was released and dissipated immediately.

Nuclear is scarier and the accidents messier, but the actual deaths per KwH are much lower than for coal.

I mean, a nuclear plant got hit by a 9.0 earthquake and then a 10m tsunami and the damage is quite impressively small.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1376 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
I mean, a nuclear plant got hit by a 9.0 earthquake and then a 10m tsunami and the damage is quite impressively small.

But how long will it be until the Japaneses can use any of the land surrounding the area in question.

Also, I read an article the other day about the sea/fish life in the area immediately around the Fukushima plant, scientists have concluded, that there has been so much run off from all the water pumped into the site that the seabed will remain contaminated for decades, there by contaminating how many fish in the mean time..... that people will know doubt eat in restaurants in Tokyo or some place else.

Sure coal is not good either, but its nothing like that.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21879 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
Sure coal is not good either, but its nothing like that.

Indeed - coal pumps out pollutants and contaminates wildlife with chemicals as a matter of day-to-day operations.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8297 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
there by contaminating how many fish in the mean time..... that people will know doubt eat in restaurants in Tokyo or some place else

The majority of fish eaten in Japan is bought in supermarkets and imported from the likes of Chile and Norway. What in the world are you talking about?



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1289 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 17):
The majority of fish eaten in Japan is bought in supermarkets and imported from the likes of Chile and Norway. What in the world are you talking about?

So all those Many Many many fishing boat we saw washed up all over the Japaneses coast, are they just there for show ?


What are you talking about ???



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8297 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1286 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 18):
So all those Many Many many fishing boat we saw washed up all over the Japaneses coast, are they just there for show ?

There is of course a domestic fishing industry, but much of it is for export, primarily to other Asian countries that don't have some of the cold water fish native to Japanese waters. Due to labor and other costs, domestic prices for fish caught in Japan are expensive enough that only specialty restaurants and hotels catering mostly to the wealthy serve them.

In any case, it's silly to suggest these radioactive fish will be served to the population. If anybody knows their local fisheries and associated migration patterns, it's Japanese researchers, and with the bans already put in place, I have every confidence they will monitor the situation to the appropriate extent. People outside Japan are generally not aware that there are eight primary fishing regions in the country, of which the Tohoku coast is but one.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3014 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1276 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
There is of course a domestic fishing industry,

Oh well excuse me then, not Tokyo restaurants, perhaps Bangkok, Hongkong or KL, who knows, maybe even Sydney ?

The fish caught, will end up somewhere then wont it, But I suppose what your saying is that so long as its not Japan then that's ok, is that it?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
If anybody knows their local fisheries and associated migration patterns,

I'm sure someone sitting down to a nice plate of fish dinner in Bangkok is very well versed as to the fishes exact origins?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
it's Japanese researchers, and with the bans already put in place, I have every confidence they will monitor the situation to the appropriate extent. People outside Japan are generally not aware that there are eight primary fishing regions in the country, of which the Tohoku coast is but one.

Well you seem to place a lot of faith in the Japanese system, the researches and the monitoring that will have to be in place for decades to come. Whether that is founded or not who knows, but I don't share your view to the same extent. Corruption is everywhere, even Japan.

Some contaminated fish will find its way out onto someones plate, at some stage.It will only be a matter of time and the clock is ticking.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7982 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1249 times:

Ok, well the only real nuclear disaster I can think of was Chernobyl--in the USSR a while ago (need I say more?)
TMI--technology advanced
This incident--it took a freakin 9.0 earthquake! I can see not building on a faultline, but other than that....

Yeah I knew waste would pop up. There's a downside to everything, but it's not like we just dump it on playgrounds or something. And who says it's waste forever? I'm sure with our rate of technology we'd be able to dispose of it soon.

Doesn't France power most of their country with nuclear energy? How are they doing with it? (a real question, not rhetorical or sarcastic)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21879 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 20):
Some contaminated fish will find its way out onto someones plate, at some stage.It will only be a matter of time and the clock is ticking.

Same thing for coal power. Except that the contaminated fish IS ending up on someone's plate, as we speak, on a regular basis, instead of just after extremely rare accidents.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1226 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):

But how long will it be until the Japaneses can use any of the land surrounding the area in question.

Probably a few decades, actually. Chernobyl this was not.


User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3077 posts, RR: 36
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1172 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 15):
But how long will it be until the Japaneses can use any of the land surrounding the area in question.

Alot depends on the exact contaminants. Is it's Iodine 131 it should be 2-3 years max for habitation, 5-6 for agriculture/ground water use. I-131's danger to humans is high due to thyroid uptake, but can also be mitigated with the use of iodine tablets, though that is not a long term option.

If it is Cesium 137... could be 100 years (Half-life ~37 years), though naturally will bond to potassium and sodium, so it would become soluable and would wash out of topsoils within a few years. Chernobyl has shown drastic drops in Cs-137 contaminated areas in as little as 18 months. Cs-134 only contamination should be reduced to safe levels within 5 years at most, though it is unlikely to be separate from Cs-137 contamination in this case.
Cesium 137 is only dangerous as a direct alpha/gamma source, so may be able to be cleared in limited areas with existing radioactive cleanup measures.

That leaves Strontium 90 as the only particulate dispersed radioactive source form Fukushima, and the levels released of that are known to be VERY low, though the exact number reported has varied considerably from what I've read, from 140bq to 1.2Mbq (compared to Chernobyl's ~1400Pbq). Strontium half-life is ~29 years.

Most of the soil detection to date has been of I-131, with some Cs-137 within 5km of the plant. I would see the exclusion zone shrinking at intervals for the next few years until it is within 5km of the plant, then that held for security of the plant site as much as anything until the plant is completely decommissioned.

Now the seafloor off the plant is a different matter, heavier elements may settle there, Plutonium, Uranium, Thorium all last loong times (Pu-239 half life is ~25000 years, Uranium half-lives stretch into the Billions of years). However that concentration will be buried or dispersed by sea action and should not pose a major risk to humans on shore.



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
25 AustrianZRH : It's a 20-km-radius around the plant where 3 reactors went berserk at the same time. In Germany, way more space was cleared of people to mine for bro
26 connies4ever : California has two nuclear stations, Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. If you use deep geological storage, it is basically bury and forget it. France, Sw
27 AustrianZRH : Indeed. A 1-GW-coal power plant releases - using the average concentration of U and Th in coal - 5200 kg of uranium and 12800 kg of thorium per year;
28 Mir : Don't forget mercury. That finds its way into fish really easily. -Mir
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Dodd To Announce He Will Not Run In 2010 posted Tue Jan 5 2010 23:22:08 by NIKV69
Japan Will Delay Decision On Okinawa Base Move posted Mon Dec 14 2009 21:39:40 by Aaron747
Canadians: MacLeans Vs. Islam... Will It Change? posted Thu Jul 9 2009 19:53:23 by Boeing744
Ariz. St. Will Not Give Obama An Honorary Diploma posted Fri Apr 10 2009 13:33:08 by D L X
China Has A Real Energy Policy posted Wed Mar 11 2009 15:39:34 by Dreadnought
Commercial We Will Not See Anytime Soon In USA posted Thu Jan 29 2009 18:23:12 by Luv2fly
McCain - Energy Policy? posted Fri Sep 5 2008 23:55:23 by Baroque
Obama: "The Surge Will Not Work"! Wrong Mr Obama! posted Mon Jul 28 2008 14:41:58 by Platypus
Jessica Simpson Will Not Attend Cowboys Game! posted Wed Jan 9 2008 18:04:36 by FXramper
Obama If DEM Nominee - Will Not Become President posted Mon Jan 7 2008 09:26:31 by Bmacleod