With the announcement that Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda will likely approve the restart of two of Japan's nuclear reactors, I admit that I don't buy any of the reasons for doing so.
I've heard many excuses for the nuclear accident that happened as a result of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, followed by reasons why we should return to nuclear power.
1. "We were unprepared for March 11."
Um, who is ever prepared for a natural disaster? Even the Boy Scouts would have had a hard time preparing for an earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident happening at the same time. Besides, have you ever heard of a disaster that went extremely well because everyone was prepared? Hey, we had only 10,000 fatalities rather than 15,000 because we were so prepared! And 5,000 of those deaths were actually pets. And of those pets, most of them were goldfish. So overall, it was a very successful disaster! It's like being relieved that a small plane crashed killing only 50 people rather than a Boeing 747 that crashed killing 350. Who can quantify life?
2. Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan acknowledged there was "poor communication and coordination among nuclear regulators, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) and his government." In addition, he said they had uncovered "inadequate safety guidelines" that need to be overhauled.
How can we be sure that communications will improve or that an overhaul of safety guidelines will make us safer? Even a complete overhaul of the system does not eliminate human error. While we can try to prevent it, we cannot avoid it. There is no guarantee that the "authorities" or anyone else will do the right thing the next time around. Give people safe alternative energy, and all we'll need to worry about is a massive blackout rather than decades of nuclear contamination.
3. "Since nuclear power accounted for about 30 percent of Japan's total energy supply before the March 11 earthquake, the only way to avoid energy shortages this summer is to restart the reactors."
Fifty-four nuclear reactors to power just 30 percent! Wow, is it really worth it? Why are we so afraid of running out of electricity anyway? We have this dependency on electricity as if it were a drug. Makes you wonder what people would do if there was a food shortage. You don't need air conditioning, lights or TVs to survive. You do need food.
We have a problem distinguishing between wants and needs. Needs are food, clothing and shelter. Wants are iPods, Lady Gaga and nuclear energy. Honestly, we could all do with a good scolding from Mother Nature.
When I lived in Indonesia, rolling blackouts were the norm. You just get used to them. Most people had a generator as a backup. You soon realize that power outages aren't so bad. OMG -- we'll have to take a coffee break! You learn that inconvenience is actually sometimes "in convenience." And from my observations of the Japanese work place, I'd say most businesses would have higher worker productivity if they thought the electricity was going to go out for a spell.
To save energy, grocery stores, department stores and public transportation will continue to keep their air conditioners at minimum temperatures rather than freezing the heck out of their customers. People will come home and turn on the fan rather than the air conditioner. And maybe they'll discover they can sleep with the windows open rather than with the fan on. What's wrong with that? In the meantime, we can save energy for hospitals, factories and other facilities that rely on it.
Rather than turning on the air conditioner to deal with intense summer heat, we should tear up all the unnecessary concrete in this country and instead use materials that breathe and absorb the heat. Amid Japan's economic miracle, they removed trees, gardens and grass and replaced them with easy-to care for concrete sidewalks, plazas and parks (yes, pure concrete parks!), all of which reflect heat. Whereas houses used to be built to breathe and cool themselves, these days, they are made for air conditioning. We should be striving to live in a balance of nature and technology, not a separation of the two.
4. "Nuclear power is cheap."
Really? After the cost of Japan's nuclear disaster, I don't think anyone should be calling nuclear power cheap. Tepco is raising its rates to cover this previously "cheap" energy. At least with increased rates, people use less energy. But why not spend that extra money (that they are going to charge us anyway) on alternative energy?
Kansai Electric Power Co. has already made changes such as offering bigger discounts to corporate customers who operate on weekends instead of weekdays (shifting their usage to when electricity demand is lower). They plan on raising the electricity rates in the late afternoon, lowering them at night and adding incentives for households who save energy. This should have happened a long time ago. More options offer more opportunities for companies (many already on the brink) to be more efficient. And employees benefit too. Flex days? Bring 'em on! Electricity should be seen as a commodity.
I also propose that TEPCO lower the rates in winter, when people "need" energy most, and raise the rates in summer when people "want" it most.
5. "Moving away from nuclear power will take away from research and development in this area."
In addition, by continuing R&D on nuclear power, we take away from R&D in alternative energy. I'd like to see more development of not just thermal, wind and hydro power, but also tidal power. Japan's Seto Inland Sea, with over 250 inhabited islands, has some incredible power to be harnessed via a constantly rising and falling four-meter tide, and the resulting swift currents that flow back and forth through the islands and out into the Pacific Ocean.
Japanese writer Genichiro Takahashi, referring to now being the first time since 1966 that Japan has been without atomic power, said, "It is a good opportunity for us to think about what kind of world we should and want to create." And maybe it's time to learn how to appreciate something we don't have: nuclear power.
Follow Amy Chavez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JapanLite
Jeff Biggers: Fukushima Tour de Force: New Book Chronicles Nuclear Devil's Tango
Tim Profeta: The Climate Post: Stakes High as Negotiators Begin Climate Talks in Germany
William Bradley: Nuclear's Once Bright and Shiny Future Blinks Out
Thank you for pointing out that black outs are preferable to decades long contamination. I get so sick of debating with other commentators trying to imply how eco they are for promoting 'clean' nuclear energy over fossil fuels that will make up the shortfall. There is a massive boom in solar panels in Japan, with small portable ones you can install on your balcony costing around $600. I can imagine in 5 years the advances in batteries and reductions in cost will make this much more popular. There just had to be the incentive.
proof of 3 cents here
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/renewable-and-energy-efficiency.html
Until Japan ceases nuclear energy it will be blighted by bad press in the real world opinion ratings. Furthermore, if there is another nuclear problem there may not be much of Nippon (or the planet) left to enjoy rampant consumerism's increasingly manic excess. [See my link below for comprehensive details of the extremely serious issue of Fukushima.]
Yes, we urgently need to reevaluate our concept of prosperity versus safe utility. To do that we require as many people as possible to become well informed and make a noise.
"It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on NO.4 reactor." Letter to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, from Mitsuhei Murata, former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland and Senegal.
Learn more: https://sites.google.com/site/geodesiceye/home/note/and-it-came-to-pass
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/07/from-huff-post.html
We at Kyoto Journal, an award-winning non-profit magazine on Asian culture, are working on a new publication called Fresh Currents on renewable energy in Japan. Follow us at @kyotojournal and @FreshCurrents
They can do that. Yeah, they can.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/04/an-80-year-license-to-kill/
You are falling for the pro nuke fossils meme of green energy intermittency.
Waste bio fuels can backup solar and wind using existing fossil plants but clean and forever.
Such terrible arrogance is routinely exhibited inthe nuclear culture of this nation as well
The "nuclear culture" as you state it is a half million dedicated professionals serving public health and safety. Dont bite the hand that feeds you.
Here are a few graphs showing the the importance of electricity. Each graph show a human condition by country by electricity usage per person.
Life expectancy:
www.bit.ly/KOkJ3W
Children Per woman.
www.bit.ly/KOl2vC
Child mortality:
www.bit.ly/KOl7Q9
Income per person:
www.bit.ly/JuDMMV
Female Literacy:
www.bit.ly/JuEaLB
Using Gapminder, you can set the horizontal access to a wide variety of human conditions. And they are almost all better were electricity is abundant.”
A recent economic analysis published in the American Economic Review and mentioned by Krugman (here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/markets-can-be-very-very-wrong/ ) found that coal power's costs imposed on the public in the form of air pollution ONLY exceed its economic benefits.
The abstract says: The largest industrial contributor to external costs is coal-fired electric generation, whose damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added. (JEL E01, L94, Q53, Q56)
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Note that, again, the authors are only concerned here with air pollution costs imposed by coal, not (for example) CO2-driven warming economic effects, CO2-driven ocean acidification effects, heavy metal poisoning of the food chain, etc.
While I agree that cheap energy is vitally important for quality of life, your contention with respect to coal power is questionable at this point.
By now it should be obvious that the 3 to 4 cents per kWh figure for nuclear has been proven to be a bad joke. Its continued use should be considered nothing less than a lie.
What items are not added to this figure? Here's an incomplete list:
1. The ongoing cleanup cost of major accidents worldwide.
2. The harm nuclear accidents have done and continue to do to both national and international economies, including the loss of once usable land.
3. The costs of public health consequences to affected nations
4. The cost of long term waste management - which is multi-generational
5. The cost of non proliferation efforts which must be undertaken via international cooperation and treaty
A Harvard Medical School study published one month before the catastrophe in Japan, estimated that if the health and environmental externalities from coal were included, the US public would pay an additional $300B to $500B per year - 3 times the current price per kWh often quoted. This in turn would make renewable sources of energy, far more competitive.
How would nuclear power do if massive subsidies were removed and the above costs internalized?
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/04/true-cost-accounting-approach-nuclear/
There are no nuclear subsidies.
Chernobyl was a Soviet nuke weapons production accident nothing to do with nuke power,
TMI and FUKU have all long term damage is confined to the reactors themselves with nobody injured. None of those accidents are even remotely possible in a modern reactor.
Proliferation has nothing to do with nuke power.
All the world's nuke waste would fit on a football field.to burned in Gen IV reactors, and is a tiny fraction of the management issues of the cubic miles of toxic forever mine and coal tailings.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/05/31/Nuke-Plants-8-3-Billion-Loan-Who-Will-Pay.aspx#page1
As of the end of 2011, there was 66,142 Metric Tons of spent radioactive fuel distributed in the US alone. Each reactor produces 2.2 Metric Tons of spent fuel per year.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/nuclearwastedisposal/graphicsandcharts/used-nuclear-fuel-storage-map
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/
You're right mark, it will fit into a football field. You neglected to mention the pile would be as tall as the Empire State building.
That's US waste alone.
Chernobyl was an accident caused by human error during an outage test.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html
Those things colored blue are links to support my claims. You wouldn't know anything about that because you never post any.
You really need to stop eating lead paint chips and settle back down to reality for a little while.
The net cost of health consequences is negative; nuclear power reduces heath costs by reducing the amount of fossil fuels which need to be burned.
The cost of non-proliferation expense is zero in the US, UK, France and Russia. It is minimal in countries who have singed the non-proliferation agreement.
What isn't included in the costs of solar and wind is the costs relating to their intermittentcy and the need to have conventional backup generation. Also, there is no accounting of the energy that is generated when it is not needed - very common in Texas which often gets its best wind conditions in the middle of the night when baseload generation easily handles the demand.
If animals with a much higher mutation and birth defect rate are the ones being preserved
"The net cost of health consequences is negative;"
....salesmen and dishonest accounting practices
Period.
As for whacky claims, you seem to be cornering the market on them.
http://www.cas.sc.edu/greenquad/node/92
http://www.birdresearch.dk/unilang/2012_Chernobyl_birds_Moeller_Erritzoe.pdf
How about LFTR, the (far) better nuclear?
Surely, we don't want "robotic everything", but in this case, we could have machine made (install) jobs as a solution out of global recession.
As for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, the list of benefits is really long, including meltdown proof load leveling baseload power with only 1% the wastes of conventional light water reactors (please search it).
(Yes, I'm about the only one who likes solar and LFTR).
Instead, they claim it can replace nukes in their propaganda since they have to offer something if they're going to eliminate any future nuke technology.
General Wesley Clark On the Next Military Mission: Solar Energy « The Center for Climate & Security
Banner Year for US Solar in 2011, Grows 109% in 2011
Solar 15% Returns Lure Investments From Google to Buffett - Bloomberg
Merit order effect of PV in Germany - News - Renewables International
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Silken17/san-onofre-power-plant_n_1554416_158231318.html
Or for that matter ... wind.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Silken17/a-crossroads-for-japan-re_n_1554376_157967028.html
Your understanding of capacity reserves, capacity factor, reliability, grid management, balancing energy, and a great deal more are fundamentally flawed.
From a capital investment view, it is highly desirable to operate any electric generators at rated capacity. In sunny areas, solar and nuclear power is a great match. Let the nukes handle base load demands and solar for peak demands during the day.
But solar fails for base load generation, this will require another set of panels dedicated to charging a storage system. And storage systems are very expensive, the GM Volt battery cost around $10,00. Add these cost and solar become a very expensive.
Sunergy Offers 5 Cent Solar Billing With No Credit Check: Scientific American
Baseload (24/7) Solar: A Brief History and Bright Future of a Game-Changing Innovation - Tony Seba - Clean Energy and Entrepreneurship - Forbes
Spanish CSP Plant with Storage Produces Electricity for 24 Hours Straight | Renewable Energy News Article
NREL: News Feature - Thermal Storage Gets More Solar on the Grid
Renewable energy can provide baseload power - here's how
Balancing the Grid with Pumped Storage | Renewable Energy World Magazine Article
One of the biggest energy problems we have but which gets little air time is the problem of liquid transportation fuels. Liquid fuels are running out and we don't have any realistic alternatives that are even close to viable at this point in time. It is conceivable that we might end up falling back on coal liquefaction like China is doing today. That would be disastrous since nothing has a bigger carbon footprint.
I see, firing up thousands of gasoline/diesel backup generators is hardly a green solution.
Unless you are color blind.
In India, Solar Power Cheaper Than Diesel:
When there is wind, we are very green.
When the wind dies, we fire up our Yanmar diesels and exhaust them right into the water.
Strange thing about environmental laws, it is illegal to empty a sewage holding tank into the Great Lakes. But if willing to use the railing instead of the head, it is legal to directly deposit human waste into the water.
Got to love that logic...