15 ms·
Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants
- neutronman 7y agoFuture generations will equate this logic to that of the people who healed all ailments with leeches.
- leto_ii 7y agoThis is worse than leeches. It's more like arsenic.
- d33 7y agoProvided that there will be future generations.
- m4rtink 7y agoThere are aiment where leach treatment is suitable, generaly related to restoring blood flow. So mostly frostbite, transplantation and reconnecting of severed tissue (eq. an accidentally cut off ear, etc.)
- jtolmar 7y agoThere are problems where fossil fuels are suitable, related to how dense and stable they are to store. So mostly emergency power and/or remote areas (eq. power's down in a remote mountain village, etc.)
- throaway1990 7y agoThis is just sad, I thought the regression of civilization described in Foundation by Issac Asimov was far fetched BS. How wrong I was! This is the exact example he uses in his books.
- makomk 7y agoSort of, but not really. Asimov worried about us losing the knowledge of nuclear power, and whilst there's a little of that what's really lead to its demise is that as we've learnt more about what's needed to build and operate it over the years it's become less and less viable.
- throaway1990 7y ago> it's become less and less viable. isn't it because of some unnecessary regulation and some materials technology being behind. nuclear fission is the second densest form of energy, It is absolutely worthwhile to improve it for the future humanity, IMHO. I think most countries and national bodies are just giving up on nuclear all together.
- ozborn 7y agoA disaster. I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants (still open to possibility of new fusion plants at some in the future) but from an environmental standpoint it makes far more sense to maintain the existing nuclear plants - at least for now. The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant construction) are off the table with existing plants! Hardening existing plants against possible future catastrophe is probably far cheaper in both economic and human terms than new coal plan construction. Japan already does pretty good job (relatively speaking) with solar power, but it could do much better with the money it will spend on new coal plants if it built more wind power and fixed up existing nuclear plants.
- theredbox 7y agoMisinformed opinions like this always make me so angry. A major industrial power house like Japan or Korea simply has no way of building enough renewable energy sources. It is nonsense.
- bawolff 7y agoIf you're going to call someone misinformed, i think it would only be fair if you cited sources
- Melting_Harps 7y agoEspecially considering how blatantly false it is, Japan is literately covered in volcanoes/hot spring sources; hence why Onsen is such a big part of their culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen My cousin is a Mechanical Engineer with a concentration on renewable energy sources, and while at school for his masters he was telling about his professor he was working under who had his work halted after 3/11 (Tsunami and Fukushima meltdown) on exploring the viability of steam powered turbines to offset energy needs for Nuclear, which by the way at its peak never exceed 30%. I as a anti-nuclear activist was dismayed to hear that. It was going well with promising leads, apparently he still needed gather like 3 more years of data to present to the Japanese government before he got grants and permission to move forward with projects and proofs of concept. Sadly, it never happened.
- jgwil2 7y agoSame thing happened in Germany. This is a really hard problem. I consider myself pretty pro-nuclear but it can never be 100% safe. I can't blame Japan for wanting out after Fukushima, but at the same time there has to be some kind of approach that balances short-term safety against the long-term consequences of carbonization.
- joshvm 7y agoSafety is not necessarily the concern, though clearly important. It's also the huge task of decommissioning afterwards. Even "safe" nuclear power stations require the disposal of all sorts of irradiated mundane things like PPE. Contrary to popular belief its not all spent fuel rods. When you dismantle it's even more difficult because you have to use specialised equipment to take buildings apart room by room. We're still not good at decommissioning, it's an active research area (lots of funding though) and it's going to be like this for decades.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y agoThere is also the fact that no country on Earth can truly guarantee they can properly store the waste for the timelines required.
- jodrellblank 7y agoUnlike coal power plants, where every country guarantees the radioactive, planet harming, human health harming, output is safely stored for as long as necessary, in a single place we can all easily avoid... right? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- joshvm 7y agoA common argument used to be that at least the amount of uranium is finite, so we can simply plan where to put it. Another interesting aspect is that we only have a few centuries of nuclear power left at current reserve and consumption rates. Uranium is absolutely a non renewable fuel. This could change with breeder reactors or the various fancy things being researched, but I think there is a public perception that uranium is unlimited.
- gatherhunterer 7y agoThis is the perfect example of cutting off one’s nose to spite the face.
- adamnemecek 7y agoFukushima reactor design was terrible. Like legit bad. I wonder if open source nuclear power plants plans are the future.
- vernie 7y agoLooking forward to the GitHub issue about the color of the plant's bike shed.
- seabrookmx 7y agoThis. "Open Source" in this context would be largely meaningless, because there's so few people that contribute at that level.
- adamnemecek 7y agoThere is quite a few of them actually. Nuclear engineering a legit field of study.
- arianestrasse 7y agoI'm a big advocate of open source but if a nuclear reactor based on an open-source project would be opened close to me, I'd pack up and move as far as I could.
- Melting_Harps 7y ago> I'm a big advocate of open source but if a nuclear reactor based on an open-source project would be opened close to me, I'd pack up and move as far as I could. I'm also a big Open Source proponent, but that is such an absurd claim; first, where the hell are you going to get enriched Uranium to do any of the testing? I'm pretty sure even in the depths of DNMs any such listings are a honey pot for Interpol or CIA/FBI or something. The US sends other Nations into abject poverty via sanctions for trying to have civil use of Nuclear Energy, you think they won't level your entire neighborhood if they even suspected anyone playing with a reactor? Oddly enough, the NRC/NRA let decommissioned plants store used spent fuel in poorly made casks along the CA coast: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/07/06/the-safe-transfer-of-spent-fuel-at-san-onofre/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/07/06/the-safe-transfer-of-s...
- kingpiss 7y agoNuclear seems like the best hope for humanity, really a shame people are so afraid of it. Although, I guess the fear is justified given how many disasters there have been.
- jodrellblank 7y agohttps://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm... casts doubt on the future of Nuclear growing anywhere near enough to be a best-hope; scaling it up to world energy production of 15TW seems infeasible - burning through the available Uranium supplies in ~5 years - even scaling it up to 1TW would stretch many resources used in nuclear reactor construction such as rare elements.
- m4rtink 7y agoI would assume the numbers would look very differently if breader reactors and alternative nuclear fuel sources (thorium) would be considered.
- jodrellblank 7y agoThorium is mentioned in the article; availability of halfnium, beryllium, and other rare metals for the containment shielding "is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium."
- cthalupa 7y agoThese arguments are silly. It would be like arguing against renewables based on tech from half a century ago. But fearmongering and people being incapable of understanding just how harmful coal is even in comparison to the worst nuclear disasters (which people frequently overestimate the harm from) has lead to significant regulations and cuts in funding, to the point where you're arguing about tech from the 70s. There's tons of promising research, and without all of the fear, we would not be talking about uranium based BWR. We would have entire other classes of fuel, and some of the Gen4 designs that have been researched could burn all actinides. You can create nuclear power from a lot more than just uranium.
- adaisadais 7y agoKnowledgeable nuclear folks: Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region? Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost effectiveness.
- MikeAmelung 7y agoThis isn't so much a nuclear question as a power transmission question. Here is a link that could help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advancements_in_UHVDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...
- saboot 7y agoI would look at France's history, they are one of the most nuclear centric countries, with (relatively) few major accidents. In general, build a not-fancy light water reactor away from the ocean and major fault lines. We have the most experience with LWRs, and they are pretty safe except for the impact of major natural disasters. There are other reactor designs, but we really need more experience with them.
- Krasnol 7y agoYes let's look at France, closing down 14 reactors and investing in renewables: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron.html https://phys.org/news/2018-11-france-nuclear-reactors-macron... Time and money has ran out for nuclear.
- philwelch 7y agoIt's a beautiful exercise in circular logic you have going here. If time and money have run out for nuclear, it's only because of the anti-nuclear activism people like you have been ignorantly spouting for decades. Your point is less of an argument and more an instance of gloating.
- munk-a 7y agoSigh... we really need more functional nuclear plants that aren't built to use technology from the 70s. I suspect that one reason Bernie is against new nuclear plant creation is the absolute debacle that was Vermont Yankee[1]. Even a lot of pro and pro-ish nuclear folks in Vermont got pretty disheartened by the whole affair. These plants cost insane capital to get running and mismanagement can cause serious problems, so economic pressures tightening belts (or just greed for higher profits) is a constant force fighting against safety... Newer reactor designs contain much safer critical failure outcomes that could allow them to safely operate - even within the constant profit pressure of modern culture. 1. General information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_P... List of articles from VTDigger on the topic: https://vtdigger.org/tag/decommission-vermont-yankee/ https://vtdigger.org/tag/decommission-vermont-yankee/
- spullara 7y agoJapan and Germany should be ashamed of themselves. Tragic.
- ciconia 7y agoThere's another solution to the problem of the environmental cost of energy production: reduce consumption. Is there anyone who would not agree that we, humans, are over-consuming?
- p1mrx 7y agoReducing consumption on a meaningful scale is completely impractical, particularly when you include emerging economies, who need to increase their energy consumption in order to attain a reasonable standard of living.
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoI'm generally in favor of nuclear power but the overruns and delays for constructing units 3 and 4 of the Vogtle nuclear plant is frustrating, especially since rate payers rather than investors are footing most of the extra cost. Shamefully the exact same thing happened during construction of units 1 and 2.
- bamboozled 7y agoWhat’s safer at this point, nuclear or coal? A meltdown is terrible, burning coal which intensifies climate change is spelling the end of civilization. I don’t really think it’s optional anymore. Shut the coal down, move with other technologies.
- hurricanetc 7y agoEnvironmentalists just can’t get out of their own way. Solar and wind were never viable alternatives to replace nuclear in Japan. It was always going to be coal. But when good is the enemy of perfect this is what you get. So let’s raise our glasses to the next decade of coal energy in Japan. Congratulations environmentalists, you won! You killed nuclear!
- dangus 7y agoWas it the “environmentalists” who won here? That’s just a label, and you’re using it to group an unknown mass of people together, assume they have identical views, and criticize them. Let me guess - everything that’s gone wrong in the world is also the fault of “the liberals?” In reality, Japan had an unfortunate nuclear catastrophe and it scared people, rightfully. The public put pressure on the government to ensure the catastrophe didn’t happen again. Meltdown scare is the major downside of nuclear outside of waste management. I think a lot of people aware of the science of energy generation consider nuclear a very reliable, green solution compared to the alternatives. But asking the general public to ignore the big scary elephant in the room is like asking people to stop freaking out about flying on planes (while they have no fear of the objectively less safe alternative of driving).
- jdshaffer 7y agoAnd that's not to forget the large quantities of contaminated water that are rapidly increasing at the Fukushima site. Now they want to release them into the ocean... Meltdown is scary, but so are the thoughts of dumping radioactive water into the oceans (and we eat a lot of seafood here in Japan!). Scary.
- crispinb 7y agoWell it's scary in the abstract. Which is why to make a rational assessment you need details (of relevant half-life, volumes, ocean dispersal directions & rates, etc). Hard for us laypersons to assess, so it's easier to be scared (if you're anti-nuclear inclined) or complacent (if you're reflexively pro tech).
- AcerbicZero 7y agoJapan has been increasing its year over year coal consumption since like, the 70's, and while I'm sure "more coal" isn't a good thing, ~20 Mt a year jumping up to ~21 Mt a year isn't exactly dramatic. If you happen to take a peek at the coal consumption metrics from around the world, you'll notice a small country a few miles to the west of Japan which currently has the distinct honor of being the only country in the world to measure its annual coal usage in billions of tons instead of millions of tons (although to be fair, India is pretty close to breaking into their first Bt). Thats probably what I'd look into first.
- fiblye 7y agoI have to wonder if this is a deal with China, since it makes Japan less energy independent and the leading political party is known for nonstop corruption scandals and some ties to China. China will likely be a big seller of that coal and profit off this big time, same as they will with the recent bizarre casino legalization plan.
- keanzu 7y agoThe world production of coal is dominated by the People’s Republic of China with 47.4% of global production. China also dominates the global consumption of coal with 51.6% of the world demand in 2017. http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/2020991907 http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/2020991907 China has no coal to spare to sell to Japan, they need it all. As the world's fastest growing major economy their electricity and thus coal demand will go up, not down.
- xxgreg 7y agoMost of Japan's electricity is from imported LNG, so doesn't make much difference to independence. They already import this energy.
- dang 7y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22262467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22262467
- wmeddie 7y agoOne thing this article doesn't cover which was a big part of this decision was nuclear waste. Nobody wants nuclear waste sites in their prefectures. There was a plan to use breeder reactors, but that hasn't gone anywhere, and the waste is just piling up at the reactor sites with absolutely no place to dispose it. When the mayor of Osaka even hinted at making an underwater waste site the backlash was huge. I doubt any other politicians will step up after that (nor will their parties allow it). So with waste being in this deadlock state for decades, there's just no way forward for nuclear here.
- keanzu 7y ago> this decision What decision? This appears to be a Bloomberg opinion piece, I see not a single reference or statement from the Japanese government. "Another six reactors have made improvements to meet the new, post-3/11 quake safety standards and have received NRA approval to restart." https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan-nuclear-power-onagawa-reactor-restart/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan... As recently as December last year reactors had restart approval.
- bamboozled 7y agoSomething doesn't add up here. Why would Japan, who is facing a declining population and hardly has a growing manufacturing industry require twenty new coal plants? Seems like there might be a conspiracy involved here if this is true. Maybe someone in the Government has a vested interest in pushing this ? Right now Japan runs on very little Nuclear, I can't imagine it would take 20 new plants to replace a few older dying reactors, they seem to be coping now just fine. Once the Tokyo Olympics is a disaster from the extreme heat waves and one strong typhoon after another, people won't be happy about this policy. People in Japan are really starting to get concerned about climate change after the lack of snow this season which has seriously affected tourism and is an obvious wake up call for many people in the country side. How backwards and disappointing this new is.
- keanzu 7y agoAs of [Dec 9, 2019], there are nine reactors officially in operation. Another six reactors have made improvements to meet the new, post-3/11 quake safety standards and have received NRA approval to restart. What about the future for nuclear power in Japan? The government’s long-term energy policy for 2030 calls for nuclear power to make up around 20 to 22 percent of the nation’s energy mix, and it is pushing hard for the restart of as many idled reactors as possible. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan-nuclear-power-onagawa-reactor-restart/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan... Has there been a new development where the Japanese government "abandoned nuclear energy" sometime in the last two months?
- Eleopteryx 7y agoFunny how quickly this Bloomberg article manages to segue into "Bernie Sanders doesn't want poor people to have electricity"