• Japan's new government to review nuclear power phase-out plans
    31 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20850416[/url] [quote=BBC News][B]The new government in Japan has announced it will review the planned nuclear power phase-out proposed by the previous administration.[/B] Trade and Industry Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said that reactors would be restarted if considered safe by the nuclear authority. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has promised bold measures to revive the economy. The stoppage of nuclear power use by 2040 was ordered following last year's Fukushima disaster. However, the failure of the previous Democratic Party to put an end to years of economic stagnation led to an overwhelming poll victory for their rivals earlier this month. Backed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, the newly-elected Liberal Democratic-led cabinet took office on Wednesday endorsing Mr Abe's economic reform plans. Veteran trade minister Toshimitsu Motegi, who is also in charge of energy policy, made it clear that the government would not allow its plans to be hampered by higher energy costs. "We need to reconsider the previous administration's policy that aimed to make zero nuclear power operation possible during the 2030s," he told a news conference. Mr Abe, who was also prime minister in 2006-07, focused his election campaign focused on more public spending and a looser monetary policy, in what some analysts called "Abenomics". "A strong economy is the source of energy for Japan. Without regaining a strong economy, there is no future for Japan," Mr Abe said after taking office. The prime minister had also said that he would allow nuclear energy a bigger role, despite last year's disaster. Japan, which relied on nuclear power for almost one-third of its energy supplies before the incident, shut all its 50 nuclear reactors after the leaks, but recently restarted two of them. The move has resulted in higher energy costs, and many big businesses want Japan to return to using nuclear power. The shutdown of the nuclear reactors has also seen a rise in Japan's imports of energy sources such as oil and natural gas, widening its trade deficit. Public support for nuclear energy has dwindled and there were large protests when reactors were restarted.[/quote]
Japan isn't really the best place for nuclear reactors.
Yeah I'm fine with getting rid of nuclear reactors in Japan - as long as they build or let build new ones somewhere else where there aren't daily earthquakes.
It wasn't the earthquake that killed the Fukushima plant, it was the tsunami. The best thing do do would be to build them on higher ground, or on stilts
[QUOTE=Arsonist;38992493]It wasn't the earthquake that killed the Fukushima plant, it was the tsunami. The best thing do do would be to build them on higher ground, or on stilts[/QUOTE] On floating islands on inland lakes. Should help against most types of Japanese disasters short of massive lizard invasions.
[QUOTE=Clavus;38992527]On floating islands on inland lakes.[/QUOTE] It's kind of hard to build infrastructure that can float, let alone conduct maintenance or shuttle supplies back and forth. Has anything of the sort been done before?
[QUOTE=Clavus;38992527]On floating islands on inland lakes. Should help against most types of Japanese disasters short of massive lizard invasions.[/QUOTE] This old gem again. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the lizard invasions of 1956 and 1982 only caused meltdowns because of the primitive designs of the reactors. Modern reactors have safeguards against lizards. It just wouldn't happen with a modern power plant.
[QUOTE]The shutdown of the nuclear reactors has also seen a rise in Japan's imports of energy sources such as oil and natural gas, widening its trade deficit.[/QUOTE] Well done, hippies. You saved the world yet again.
[QUOTE=Arsonist;38992493]It wasn't the earthquake that killed the Fukushima plant, it was the tsunami. The best thing do do would be to build them on higher ground, or on stilts[/QUOTE] Pretty much this: The earthquake didn't get Fukushima; it was the tsunami wrecking the diesel generators that keep the backup systems working. Bad reactor design, not bad location.
Poor old nuclear power always getting such a bad rep. It's like the ultimate source of energy but no one wants to deal with it responsibly.
I hope by 'review' they mean 'table it for good and tell the hippies to go suck on a big, hairly rhinocerous cock". Nuclear power when handled properly is an absolute godsend, and phasing it out is going to quadruple Japan's carbon output and wreck their economy. It's a bad idea.
[QUOTE=No_Excuses;38995441]Poor old nuclear power always getting such a bad rep. It's like the ultimate source of energy but no one wants to deal with it responsibly.[/QUOTE]The fact that I'll see mass fusion in my lifetime is one of the main reasons I tough through the school system.
[QUOTE=Naaz;38995639]The fact that I'll see mass fusion in my lifetime is one of the main reasons I tough through the school system.[/QUOTE] I would not be betting on fusion power. It's been 25 years off for practically 50 years now.
Nikola Tesla be rollin' in his grave, energy be everywhere for ya'll.
[QUOTE=redBadger;38991917]Japan isn't really the best place for nuclear reactors.[/QUOTE] Except it is, the Fukushima incident was because they couldn't be fucked updating the safety mechanisms and said, "ppsshhh tsunamis never happen here, same with earthquakes, it'll be fine don't worry." And then a tsunami happened.
Reality catches up, yet again.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38992686]It's kind of hard to build infrastructure that can float, let alone conduct maintenance or shuttle supplies back and forth. Has anything of the sort been done before?[/QUOTE] If we can build islands in the shape of palm trees in Dubia then I'm pretty sure we can make a tiny island for a nuclear reactor.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38992686]It's kind of hard to build infrastructure that can float, let alone conduct maintenance or shuttle supplies back and forth. Has anything of the sort been done before?[/QUOTE] There's all these stilt villages in West Africa. Ganvie is the biggest, I think. Then there's manned oil rigs and the like.
[QUOTE=smurfy;38992800]This old gem again. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the lizard invasions of 1956 and 1982 only caused meltdowns because of the primitive designs of the reactors. Modern reactors have safeguards against lizards. It just wouldn't happen with a modern power plant.[/QUOTE] I've almost had with you people! The first attack was in 1954, jesus christ, get some sense!
I hope they review the phase-out plans and realise that they are terrible ideas; the reactors need to be upgraded and fortified, not gotten rid of.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38992686]It's kind of hard to build infrastructure that can float, let alone conduct maintenance or shuttle supplies back and forth. Has anything of the sort been done before?[/QUOTE] Well there have been reactors in ships for ages now, Russia is building some ships purpose built for this sort of thing right now, the US had one in the 60's too I think. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] And they can move to where they are needed too
[QUOTE=redBadger;38991917]Japan isn't really the best place for nuclear reactors.[/QUOTE] I recommend the ten minute video, it's really interesting, but if you want to watch the five minute one it's just a condensed version of the ten minute one. If you have five minutes: [url]http://www.wimp.com/lftrminutes/[/url] If you have ten minutes: [url]http://www.wimp.com/thoriumcrisis/[/url]
[QUOTE=CanadianBill;38996794]I recommend the ten minute video, it's really interesting, but if you want to watch the five minute one it's just a condensed version of the ten minute one. If you have five minutes: [url]http://www.wimp.com/lftrminutes/[/url] If you have ten minutes: [url]http://www.wimp.com/thoriumcrisis/[/url][/QUOTE] As much as I like LFTR tech, those may as well be advertisements.
[QUOTE=jaredop;38996621]Well there have been reactors in ships for ages now, Russia is building some ships purpose built for this sort of thing right now, the US had one in the 60's too I think. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] And they can move to where they are needed too[/QUOTE] Peaceful reactors, yeah. russia has nuclear icebreakers, and has for several years. US Warships above 20,000 tons, plus all subs, have been nuclear for decades, as have Russian navy warships.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38996117]I would not be betting on fusion power. It's been 25 years off for practically 50 years now.[/QUOTE]Except the DEMO reactor is on schedule for 2030. Governments are subtly funneling money into fusion. I feel like this century could be awesome.
for fusion to happen efficiently you would need a reactor the size of a star, or be able to control/influence quantum tunnelling, which i'm not sure is even possible in the first place.
[QUOTE=Naaz;38998547]Except the DEMO reactor is on schedule for 2030. Governments are subtly funneling money into fusion. I feel like this century could be awesome.[/QUOTE] Well, we still have to wait and see how ITER does in 2020. In the foreseeable future, fast breeders and thorium reactors are the way forward.
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail here and avoid the knee-jerk "kill the nukes!" reaction. It's stupid and environmentally unsafe to shut down all the nuke plants overnight and go back to burning coal or something.
nuclear energy is safe, i don't know why is it so hard to people to understand that, that reactor withstood an earthquake AND a tsunami and only had such an extremely minor radiation leak that its literally an non-issue, chernobyl can't happen again, unless goverments are being deliberately incompetent, soviet style, and even chernobyl only happened cause they disabled EVERY possible safety. all this anti-nuclear reaction around the globe is gonna cause more global warming(like germany and others are going to shut down their reactors), kinda funny that if we had more serious nuclear energy research we could probably have thorium reactors by now, which would be much safer.
Give them 20 years of economy crippling power shortages and they'll be building new units.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.