24 ms·

Majority in Japan backs nuclear power for first time since Fukushima

605 points by karaokeyoga 5y ago

londons_explore 5y ago
While public opinion swings back and forth every few decades, I guess there is an opportunity for businesses to be ready to get nuclear powerplants built rapidly as soon as public opinion swings enough to be able to get permission to build in any given location.
- The_rationalist 5y ago
  Capitalism is absurdly inneficient for maintaining long term humanity interests, e.g. the U.S became a third world country since they let westinghouse dies in darkness. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-tos...
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    The USA is, by definition, the first world. First world means, USA or it's NATO allies. The second world is USSR and associated allies. The third world is everyone else. Implying they are too insignificant to be allied to either. Which isn't necessarily the case. Finland and Sweden are technically "third world" countries, as they are not NATO members.
    - The_rationalist 5y ago
      bruh what I meant is obvious no need for such truisms. Third world can be intended to mean a pejorative qualiticative of weakness, here the U.S has become third world-like regarding nuclear energy knowledge and production, basically synonymous to irrelevant. Aso your rigid and off-topic definition does not scale in a multipolar world with new powers and changing dynamics, e.g China
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        It's in poor taste to use the term "third world" in a pejorative way.
        The_rationalist 5y ago
        The ends justify the means and the world definitely would benefit from a pro-nuclear psy-ops
arcticbull 5y ago
Finally folks are overcoming their fear of the spicy rocks. Once we get to economical seawater extraction of Uranium, we'll have virtually unlimited renewable energy. [1] [1] https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac...
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Once or if?
- throw82473751 5y ago
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  It might be abundant and clean, but it's not renewable, and like every energy source, nuclear has associated capital and operational costs.
  - nightski 5y ago
    By that definition I don't think there is such a thing as renewable yet considering you need storage/batteries for just about any "renewable" energy source out there. Energy will always cost us something imho.
    - mattferderer 5y ago
      One alternative approach to storage/batteries is trying to provide over 100% of the average daily demand of electricity. Excess electricity could be priced lower. Consumers & industries could use those cheaper hours for certain tasks. This is already done in many areas. Run your dishwasher, charge your car, etc. at night. Which leads me to think storage/batteries is not the issue & that manufacturing, installation & infrastructure is. I also imagine getting land permits, regulations, politics, etc. is also a huge factor.
      - 5y ago
Ygg2 5y ago
Do they want to transition to it for energy or for weapons? Nuclear power takes long time to adapt to. Why hurry now? It's not like the public started caring about it now. And not like renewables aren't an option. Edit: While I think fear of nuclear power is misguided, I am against it if it will be used for more nukes.
- p_l 5y ago
  Japan is already in the position of having nuclear-tipped ICBMs essentially "whenever it wants". The conservative time period from decision to arm with nuclear weapons and having ICBMs with usable nuclear warheads was estimated by (public) CIA documents at 1 year. That's less than it takes to make a new power plant.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  You don't need full scale power plants to produce weapons grade material. The reasons for anti-proliferation targeting of power plants is countries that want to hide their weapons programs in commercial power plants. Japan isn't Iran, the thing to fear from Japan arming is the short-term response from China, et al. and other less allied countries wanting to follow suit. Long term, a nuclear Japan might be a good thing for regional stability. It is very possible that Japan already has nuclear weapons or production is simply a matter of assembly. They have thousands of pounds of weapons grade or very-easy-to-change-into-weapons-grade nuclear materials, enough for thousands of bombs. Additional power infrastructure would have no effect on their readiness to become armed.
- sigstoat 5y ago
  you don't need to build large commercial nuclear plants if you just want material for weapons. that kind of thing can be built on a military base where nobody hears about it, and nobody gets to file environmental impact lawsuits.
wheelerof4te 5y ago
Nuclear power is not bad. Using nuclear power for making weapons of mass destruction is bad. Stop spreading FUD over it.
- Ygg2 5y ago
  It's not bad and any other time l would have welcomed it. But timing of it is bad, and makes me think they might be looking for easy path to weaponization.
  - p_l 5y ago
    They already have all they need if they want weapons.
  - wheelerof4te 5y ago
    I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Though, russian actions might have made them desperate.
    - 0des 5y ago
      > I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Why?
      - wheelerof4te 5y ago
        It would become too independent. Plus, it has a very powerful economy. Currently, it is occupied by the US, which bombed it in the past with nuclear weapons.
  - tomatowurst 5y ago
    Really bizarre why you would continue to push this narrative, Japan isn't out to develop nuclear warheads. It certainly possess the capacity to do so if it desired and is considered a "nuclear threshold state" similar to Canada. The odds of Taiwan and South Korea going nuclear is far more likely as something like 3/4 of SK citizens support having nuclear weapons.
arberx 5y ago
This is awesome. But nuclear bulls should remember it takes half a decade or so to build up nuclear power plants. Newer reactors (SMRs) will probably take even longer.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  I thought the point of SMRs is that they can be built more quickly?
  - arberx 5y ago
    Regulatory approval still lacking + most are untested.
- baq 5y ago
  Half a decade? That isn’t happening even in China…
  - arberx 5y ago
    Median construction time is 7 years: https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi...
  - eunos 5y ago
    Hualong One reactor construction time is around 5-6 years but pandemic slow things down.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gwbennett 5y ago
  The US Navy builds new nuclear reactors every year. It takes 5+ years to build commercial plants because of government bureaucrats, endless regulations and every new nuke plant is a new, non-standard design.
- bun_at_work 5y ago
QuikAccount 5y ago
It doesn't surprise me that HN is so pro nuclear but I am very skeptical about reactor safety. I know I will get inundated with comments about how modern reactors are so safe and if everything is done correctly then there is no problem. Things are never done 100% correctly and with as seismically active Japan is, I would approach this very carefully because the worst case when things go wrong is very bad. Fukushima would've been 100x worse if it wasn't for brave people sacrificing themselves.
- alephnan 5y ago
  What’s the nearest nuclear plant to San Francisco or is it NIMBY?
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:2&tbm=lcl&q=california+nuclear+plants&rflfq=1&num=10#rlfi=hd:;si:;mv:[[39.46267611359436,-113.20118472995898],[32.99135724862753,-126.40675113620898],null,[36.29406869249964,-119.80396793308398],7 https://www.google.com/search?tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:2&tbm=lcl&q=cal...] Two not so far away, but it would take an incident worse than Chernobyl to create long term issues for the bay area (one could perhaps debate the threshold of what a long term issue might be)
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    The nearest one is 5 hrs south, near Morro Bay: Diablo Canyon. It's being shut down soon. There was a nearer one at Rancho Seco but it was shut down. There's another one in SoCal at San Onofre but that one is shut down too. Oh and I remember that Berkeley is a "Nuclear-free Zone" (you'll see the signs as you enter) but that they once had a research reactor :D
- anonporridge 5y ago
  The question is not whether nuclear reactors are safe. They are dangerous and cause accidents that cause death and injury. But, that's true of literally every source of energy. You have to look at the danger posed holistically. And the fact is, the actual realized danger posed by old generation nuclear is orders of magnitude less dangerous than every fossil fuel source, even when accounting for major disasters like Chernobyl and Fukishima. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy In light of this data, it seems to me that any decision to avoid nuclear that leads to more fossil fuel burning, which is almost always what happens when we prematurely shut down nuclear plants, is almost criminally the wrong choice.
it_citizen 5y ago
The energy transition show made an episode on it recently: https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-154-japans-nuclear-dilemma/ https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-154-japans-nuclea... Japan really is a country to watch in term of energy transition. They will have to take bold steps to meet their energy demand while curbing their CO2 emissions. I expect them to see some great projects around offshore wind but I think nuclear will have to be a part of the solution if they want to get anywhere close to the paris targets. Unfortunately, having a majority of japanese backing nuclear is not going to be enough. Last I checked most of the initiatives to bring back nuclear were stalled. The anti nuclear sentiment in japan leads a lot of communities to go to court to try to block building or reopening existing nuclear power plants.
belorn 5y ago
The article is pretty clear why peoples interests in nuclear power has gone up. Natural gas prices have gone up and as a result the energy price that customers has to pay is swinging up and down based on supply and demand. It the same story as in many other places in the world. Nuclear represent a stable price of energy that doesn't get impacted by changing fossil fuel prices, and while the initial capital cost is high, stability and freedom from fossil fuels has their benefits. Especially since fossil fuel and wars tend to be associated with each other. It is a bit indicative of the global age we live in that a war between Russia and Ukraine is dictating what a Japanese citizen is paying for electricity.
- hardolaf 5y ago
  "Nuclear is super expensive!" they keep screaming as I've been living in places with primarily nuclear power for the vast majority of my life. The only 3 years when I didn't, I really felt the price of dinosaur-fuel even though it was at rock-bottom prices for all 3 years. Illinois is majority nuclear and is one of the cheapest stats in the USA when it comes to electricity rates all because of nuclear. And I grew up in Cleveland which was also primarily nuclear and electricity was so cheap there, the power and gas company was paying people to switch their entire homes from LNG heating to electric heating for about 3 decades.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Nuclear is cheap in Illinois because Exelon, the company that runs the Nuclear plants, bribed the state to give their plants subsidies. https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2020/11/19/ex-comed-ceo-others-charged-by-feds.html https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2020/11/19/ex-comed...
    - belorn 5y ago
      Since there seems to be a lot of interest in Illinois energy subsidies, maybe we could get a tally on how much they spend each year and whom the benefactors are. I got one news article that said they gave nuclear $130 millions each year in 2019, but then other sources say it is a number between $19 and $52 millions. Then in 2021 I find an article that they increased subsidies for renewables by an additional $350 millions per year. In one article that the total subsidies to build new solar and wind has a total of $600 millions per year. An other said that the total of subsidies for renewables are well above $1 billion per year. I couldn't find an article that estimates Illinois fossil fuel subsidies, but one said that the US spend around $20 billions per year. Naturally each article want to either inflate or deflate those numbers to drive a political point, so it would be nice if anyone could bring some authoritative numbers that give the exact number of what Illinois actually spend in terms of energy subsidies.
sebow 5y ago
Layman question I have when I constantly see (what i perceive as) misguided fear towards nuclear energy: Is is "that" easy to use nuclear energy facilities to manufacture or empower nuclear weapons? My gut says no, but I feel some people think nuclear weapons are easily made from nuclear power plants just because they have a common word.
- bun_at_work 5y ago
  As far as I know it comes down to enrichment levels of the nuclear material used (Uranium?). Nuclear power requires much lower enrichment levels. > Most nuclear reactors that produce electricity only require fuel that is enriched to between 3-5% U-235. > This fuel does not represent a proliferation threat primarily because of the critical mass issue — the amount of material necessary to maintain a self-sustaining neutron chain reaction. If the level of enrichment is low, then it holds that the amount of the material must go up in order for a chain reaction to be sustained. The size can quickly become impractical for weapons delivery, so low enriched uranium (LEU) is not a threat. > Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is anything enriched above 20% and weapon-grade uranium is commonly considered to have been enriched above 90% U-235. However, some research reactors use 90% enriched U-235 to produce medical isotopes, so there are civilian applications for this fuel too. From: https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-or-for-weapons/ https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-o...
- mywittyname 5y ago
  The process used to enrich uranium/plutonium for use in reactors is the same process used to enrich it for use in weapons, the difference is merely scope. The "waste" from nuclear plants are also problematic. Plutonium can be obtained from spent fuel rods in a number of ways and it is easier to yield "weapons grade" enrichment levels with plutonium. Plus, once enough fuel has been accumulated, a breeder reactor can be set up to generate the necessary Pu238 & Pu239. This is something a nuclear power would want to do for legitimate purposes because plutonium yields are far higher than uranium. So in some ways, yes, nuclear reactors make it "that easy" to manufacture nuclear weapons. Especially plutonium-based weapons. There's still the work needed to create a weapon from the source material, but that's an easier problem to solve.
ffeiek 5y ago
Last year, the 44-year-old nuclear power plant resumed generating power. But most of the nuclear plants are over 40 years old, and even worse, some of them were built on active faults. Even after two atomic bombings and the worst nuclear accident, we still don't understand the threat of radiation.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Finally, after decades of phobias and burning 'green' gas, people are coming to their senses!
AlwaysRock 5y ago
I know a lot of people who are worried about Nuclear energy because, "What if a plant explodes?" but are unaware that they likely live A LOT closer to a plant than they think. There are quite a few nuclear energy plants across the US. Pull up a map and check it out sometimes. It helps with that fear because people realize they have been living with that threat most of their life and just didnt know.
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  The big problem with older reactors is that they need active cooling for awhile after they are shut down. That's why Fukushima exploded. The diesel generators flooded and couldn't run the cooling pumps. Chernobyl happened during an experiment shutting down the plant using the momentum in the generator to cool the plant. Newer reactor designs can shut down safely without active cooling.
- ngngngng 5y ago
  I would have to drive for ten hours to reach one, that's pretty much what I assumed anyway. There are a ton more plants in the eastern US than I would have guessed though.
  - AlwaysRock 5y ago
    Yeah. This is my point exactly. Most people don't realize there is one close by and once they do the fear of one popping up next door tends to go away.
baby 5y ago
If you can, watch this video with the english subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTzsWM_gbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTzsWM_gbQ It's a great short investigation in the numbers, and how damaging different source of energies have been.
kkfx 5y ago
IMVHO: - we need energy and people start feeling risk of blackouts; - we can't made except for limited cases a society that live on renewables, not with today tech at least; - it's hard to know how much "underground" resources we really have but it's clear that oil and gas will came to scarcity at a certain point in time and we need oil for too many things, from tissues to joints to lubricant, electrical insulation, plastic, ... without something able to replace it on scale. Nuclear so far seems to be able to run for many decades, so we probably can became all-electric (except for metallurgy and few other industrial domains) with nuclear and slowly integrate renewables as needed. That's not good since that's probably the need of much nuclear now (and now means in 10+ years, no less) and then we will not profit much from it but that's is. I honestly see no other realistic options.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > we need oil for too many things, from tissues to joints to lubricant, electrical insulation, plastic, ... without something able to replace it on scale This is right. The next thought I had in this line of thinking is: how much will it cost to extract oil when it's only for these things? What will that do to their price?
  - kkfx 5y ago
    I can't answer beside the obvious hyper-inflation BUT in human history we generally have changed (almost) "in time" depending on the what we can source in nature, so if oil it's almost depleted today we are just dead, but in 40-50 years maybe we will have had enough time to substitute it gradually for almost all applications. Actually we know how to substitute oil for most applications but nothing that scale, for instance we can just switch from plastic packaging, common containers, car's part etc with various other things, from bamboo to paper to metals and glass but we can't meet the demand, no matter the price. Perhaps in a significantly far future, but still in time the actual society have changed to a different one with different needs and basic resources, something we already see: Green New Deal is an example. We are substituting ICEs cars for electric ones, we already state that most EVs we be just "glorified golf carts" to be "cheap enough", railroads will probably get expanded, dense cities for poor people will be even more dense etc that's already a very big shift and happen at a certain speed. Perhaps in 30 years nuclear and renewables have substituted completely the need of oil for grid-scale electricity generation and industrial electricity usage grow to cover many more usage (perhaps also for most metallurgical activities) and perhaps in 50 years nuclear fusion will be developed enough to became a common means for electricity production. That's still do not solve the oil usage for plastic etc issues BUT lower much oil usage. A new economy, less centralized, might reduce packaging much and in 100 years we will have something to substitute oil entirely just in time. I do not have the crystal ball (unfortunately) but I'm pretty sure that for a reason or another the push against oil it's here to stay and the push to renewables can't really work at a society scale. What I imaging for the not-that-short term is nuclear for industries who need near-constant 24/7/365 energy and renewables for civil usages. Speculate further is more a game than a real prediction so I have to pass...
goodpoint 5y ago
And yet again the whole conversation on HN is around alleged "irrational fear". There are other risks to be considered: centralization. The world is facing climate change and potential social unrest. Democratized and hyper-local energy production creates resilient communities. Highly centralized power generation increases risks of government corruption, terrorism or just plain failures (like Fukushima) leading to power failures.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Small scale nuclear reactors (and microreactors) would be a solution to that centralization problem. I know that NuScale had some controversy a couple years ago; not sure how that shook out. Whether that design should be modified or not, in theory there's nothing stopping reactors generating community-level power, except that nobody wants a reactor in their back yard. Not saying anyone would want a coal plant in their backyard either, but given the choice it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more. I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    Good luck operating them [safely] in case of social unrest or terrorism. After the collapse of USSR a lot of RTGs where stripped and used a scrap metal by people completely unaware of the risks. Luckily, RTGs have moderate amounts of active fuel. > it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more Who is "they"? An imaginary group of people that you disagree with? > I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time. And once again HN claims to be rational...
    - Loughla 5y ago
      >And once again HN claims to be rational... Remember that the people here are tech focused, for the most part. Few, if any, have any experience at all with power generation, let alone nuclear power generation. When was the last time you saw an intelligent, rational, and unbiased discussion here about something that you had intimate knowledge of? I've worked in higher ed for decades, and sister let me tell you, the threads on here about higher ed are full of very short-sighted/anecdotal/ignorant statements. I just have to assume this thread is the same as that. It's easy to have an opinion about something when you don't know very many details.
haydenchambers 5y ago
ericmay 5y ago
Genuine question: why nuclear over mass solar? Panels on every house, decentralized, etc. I was having a discussion with a friend recently about this and he was very much pro-solar and thought nuclear wasn't the right way to go from a cost/centralization perspective. Figured smart people here might be able to color this a bit better. -edit- Ty to everyone who responded here. It's enjoying to read these different perspectives.
- zurn 5y ago
  We're so far behind in replacing fossils and fighting off global warming disaster, that we should do both. Nuclear has worse bang for the buck though and decades long lead times. But as long as it can be financed without displacing more capital efficient renewables we should still build nuclear as well.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  It is extremely expensive to get significant amount of energy from roof mounted solar. Solar doesn’t shine all of the time. Storage is extremely hard. Japan does not have a lot of wastelands to spare on mass solar power farms. Nuclear, on the other hand, just works, 24/7.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Is storage becoming less hard with battery backup systems? And from a cost perspective won't these come down, and from a total social spending amount couldn't rooftop solar eventually be cheaper than nuclear plants, scientists, infrastructure, etc. that has to go into it? Just to note I've been coming from the perspective that nuclear + "renewables" is the right approach, but wanted to learn a little more.
    - sofixa 5y ago
      > And from a cost perspective won't these come down No. Even discounting the explosion of prices of lithium, nickel and other materials needed in batteries due to wars and what not, there's already significant demand for batteries ( mostly to convert vehicles to EVs), which far outstrips supply. That's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future ( like a decade), so no, batteries won't continue to get cheaper.
jollybean 5y ago
Oil is not not just about 'The Environment' but it's 'Major War'. So the calculus is palpitate. Iraq 1 and 2, Iran sanctions, Saudi/Yemen, rise of Chavismo, now Russia, so much of it is Oil driven. But with Nuclear, guess who is the #1 source of Uranium? Russia! That said, Canada and Australia have plenty. And those are 'Good Places'.
godelski 5y ago
Title is misleading and I think many commenters are missing the point. This is support for *restarting existing reactors* and not really a support for nuclear in general. This may lead to the latter, but it is very different turning on reactors that already exist (meaning some danger already exists) compared to creating more. Proposed title change: > Majority in Japan backs restarting existing nuclear reactors
- nixass 5y ago
- fomine3 5y ago
  This is important difference.
alexott 5y ago
I wish that it would happen in Germany :-( Even in current situation, government is reluctant to open existing stations
alberth 5y ago
EVs Seeing how US automakers have nearly unanimously announced a complete EV future, I don't see any other alternative options other than nuclear that will allow us to keep up with electricity demands.
8bitsrule 5y ago
They would say that.
ashtonkem 5y ago
The current war and gas crisis in Europe is finally underscoring one of the points that’s been ignored for a long time; depending on unstable rentier states to secure the energy required for HVAC and transit is unbelievably foolish national policy. Nuclear is really expensive to build, both in terms of money and political capital, but the benefits are more apparent once crisis hits oil producing states, which was always inevitable.
woodpanel 5y ago
And this is how you spot the difference between grown-up leadership and an infantile one: 1) Japan kept its longterm energy policy goals despite of temporary unpopularity and is now reaping the rewards of having reliable energy and giving the voters what they, eventually, want 2) Germany nixed its complete nuclear energy production, because of a temporary outrage, despite having neither earthquakes nor tsunamis.
- forum_ghost 5y ago
  Japan never had other real options. Their natgas imports was only ever going to be a temporary duct-tape solution.
- fomine3 5y ago
  I argue somewhat opposite. * Japan won't decide good future energy plan since 2011. They avoid wide discussion for that because utilize nuclear (meaning replacing old existing plants by new plants) is obviously unpopular opinion but other options also have problems or difficulties. So currently just burn coal/LNG. They encouraged to build solar plants but it's hated by some people due to it encourages deforestation (makes land weak for disaster), high additional fee for every electricity bill. Also it won't work much in winter (when supply crisis tend to be happen). * Germany decided strong future energy plan, but their plan (renewables but also rely on russian gas) is failed now.
whatever1 5y ago
Nuclear power in a world of military conflicts sounds like a bad joke.
- wbear 5y ago
  Though both have the word "nuclear" in the name, nuclear power and nuclear bombs are not the same thing.
  - whatever1 5y ago
    So people are stressing for no reason over wrong semantics for the (operating & abandoned) nuclear plants in Ukraine. Thanks for your valuable contribution.
trhway 5y ago
The opinion may globally change depending on what happens to the military base, and especially munition stores, Russia has made right at the Chernobyl power plant - it is conveniently located to provide supplies to the Russian forces attacking Kiev, and is "protected" by the power plant as Ukraine, who otherwise has been tearing Russian forces supply logistics apart, is naturally not able to directly attack those stores because of the associated danger of damage to the power plant objects like for example the reactors, spent fuel storage, overall radioactive soil/dust around which you don't want to blast into the air ... And even without any military action - there are fires right now in the forests around Chernobyl, and Russian temporary as well as permanent munition stores have a history of catching fires and blowing up.

605 points by karaokeyoga 5y ago

While public opinion swings back and forth every few decades, I guess there is an opportunity for businesses to be ready to get nuclear powerplants built rapidly as soon as public opinion swings enough to be able to get permission to build in any given location.

The_rationalist 5y ago
Capitalism is absurdly inneficient for maintaining long term humanity interests, e.g. the U.S became a third world country since they let westinghouse dies in darkness. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-toshiba-nuclear-bankruptcy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/business/westinghouse-tos...
- mywittyname 5y ago
  The USA is, by definition, the first world. First world means, USA or it's NATO allies. The second world is USSR and associated allies. The third world is everyone else. Implying they are too insignificant to be allied to either. Which isn't necessarily the case. Finland and Sweden are technically "third world" countries, as they are not NATO members.
  - The_rationalist 5y ago
    bruh what I meant is obvious no need for such truisms. Third world can be intended to mean a pejorative qualiticative of weakness, here the U.S has become third world-like regarding nuclear energy knowledge and production, basically synonymous to irrelevant. Aso your rigid and off-topic definition does not scale in a multipolar world with new powers and changing dynamics, e.g China
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      It's in poor taste to use the term "third world" in a pejorative way.
      - The_rationalist 5y ago
        The ends justify the means and the world definitely would benefit from a pro-nuclear psy-ops

arcticbull 5y ago

Finally folks are overcoming their fear of the spicy rocks. Once we get to economical seawater extraction of Uranium, we'll have virtually unlimited renewable energy. [1] [1] https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac...

pvaldes 5y ago
Once or if?
throw82473751 5y ago
i_am_proteus 5y ago
It might be abundant and clean, but it's not renewable, and like every energy source, nuclear has associated capital and operational costs.
- nightski 5y ago
  By that definition I don't think there is such a thing as renewable yet considering you need storage/batteries for just about any "renewable" energy source out there. Energy will always cost us something imho.
  - mattferderer 5y ago
    One alternative approach to storage/batteries is trying to provide over 100% of the average daily demand of electricity. Excess electricity could be priced lower. Consumers & industries could use those cheaper hours for certain tasks. This is already done in many areas. Run your dishwasher, charge your car, etc. at night. Which leads me to think storage/batteries is not the issue & that manufacturing, installation & infrastructure is. I also imagine getting land permits, regulations, politics, etc. is also a huge factor.
    - 5y ago

Ygg2 5y ago

Do they want to transition to it for energy or for weapons? Nuclear power takes long time to adapt to. Why hurry now? It's not like the public started caring about it now. And not like renewables aren't an option. Edit: While I think fear of nuclear power is misguided, I am against it if it will be used for more nukes.

p_l 5y ago
Japan is already in the position of having nuclear-tipped ICBMs essentially "whenever it wants". The conservative time period from decision to arm with nuclear weapons and having ICBMs with usable nuclear warheads was estimated by (public) CIA documents at 1 year. That's less than it takes to make a new power plant.
colechristensen 5y ago
You don't need full scale power plants to produce weapons grade material. The reasons for anti-proliferation targeting of power plants is countries that want to hide their weapons programs in commercial power plants. Japan isn't Iran, the thing to fear from Japan arming is the short-term response from China, et al. and other less allied countries wanting to follow suit. Long term, a nuclear Japan might be a good thing for regional stability. It is very possible that Japan already has nuclear weapons or production is simply a matter of assembly. They have thousands of pounds of weapons grade or very-easy-to-change-into-weapons-grade nuclear materials, enough for thousands of bombs. Additional power infrastructure would have no effect on their readiness to become armed.
sigstoat 5y ago
you don't need to build large commercial nuclear plants if you just want material for weapons. that kind of thing can be built on a military base where nobody hears about it, and nobody gets to file environmental impact lawsuits.

wheelerof4te 5y ago

Nuclear power is not bad. Using nuclear power for making weapons of mass destruction is bad. Stop spreading FUD over it.

Ygg2 5y ago
It's not bad and any other time l would have welcomed it. But timing of it is bad, and makes me think they might be looking for easy path to weaponization.
- p_l 5y ago
  They already have all they need if they want weapons.
- wheelerof4te 5y ago
  I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Though, russian actions might have made them desperate.
  - 0des 5y ago
    > I don't believe that US will allow Japan to become nuclear. Why?
    - wheelerof4te 5y ago
      It would become too independent. Plus, it has a very powerful economy. Currently, it is occupied by the US, which bombed it in the past with nuclear weapons.
- tomatowurst 5y ago
  Really bizarre why you would continue to push this narrative, Japan isn't out to develop nuclear warheads. It certainly possess the capacity to do so if it desired and is considered a "nuclear threshold state" similar to Canada. The odds of Taiwan and South Korea going nuclear is far more likely as something like 3/4 of SK citizens support having nuclear weapons.

arberx 5y ago

This is awesome. But nuclear bulls should remember it takes half a decade or so to build up nuclear power plants. Newer reactors (SMRs) will probably take even longer.

andy_ppp 5y ago
I thought the point of SMRs is that they can be built more quickly?
- arberx 5y ago
  Regulatory approval still lacking + most are untested.
baq 5y ago
Half a decade? That isn’t happening even in China…
- arberx 5y ago
  Median construction time is 7 years: https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi...
- eunos 5y ago
  Hualong One reactor construction time is around 5-6 years but pandemic slow things down.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gwbennett 5y ago
The US Navy builds new nuclear reactors every year. It takes 5+ years to build commercial plants because of government bureaucrats, endless regulations and every new nuke plant is a new, non-standard design.
bun_at_work 5y ago

QuikAccount 5y ago

It doesn't surprise me that HN is so pro nuclear but I am very skeptical about reactor safety. I know I will get inundated with comments about how modern reactors are so safe and if everything is done correctly then there is no problem. Things are never done 100% correctly and with as seismically active Japan is, I would approach this very carefully because the worst case when things go wrong is very bad. Fukushima would've been 100x worse if it wasn't for brave people sacrificing themselves.

alephnan 5y ago
What’s the nearest nuclear plant to San Francisco or is it NIMBY?
- colechristensen 5y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:2&tbm=lcl&q=california+nuclear+plants&rflfq=1&num=10#rlfi=hd:;si:;mv:[[39.46267611359436,-113.20118472995898],[32.99135724862753,-126.40675113620898],null,[36.29406869249964,-119.80396793308398],7 https://www.google.com/search?tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:2&tbm=lcl&q=cal...] Two not so far away, but it would take an incident worse than Chernobyl to create long term issues for the bay area (one could perhaps debate the threshold of what a long term issue might be)
- renewiltord 5y ago
  The nearest one is 5 hrs south, near Morro Bay: Diablo Canyon. It's being shut down soon. There was a nearer one at Rancho Seco but it was shut down. There's another one in SoCal at San Onofre but that one is shut down too. Oh and I remember that Berkeley is a "Nuclear-free Zone" (you'll see the signs as you enter) but that they once had a research reactor :D
anonporridge 5y ago
The question is not whether nuclear reactors are safe. They are dangerous and cause accidents that cause death and injury. But, that's true of literally every source of energy. You have to look at the danger posed holistically. And the fact is, the actual realized danger posed by old generation nuclear is orders of magnitude less dangerous than every fossil fuel source, even when accounting for major disasters like Chernobyl and Fukishima. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy In light of this data, it seems to me that any decision to avoid nuclear that leads to more fossil fuel burning, which is almost always what happens when we prematurely shut down nuclear plants, is almost criminally the wrong choice.

it_citizen 5y ago

The energy transition show made an episode on it recently: https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-154-japans-nuclear-dilemma/ https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-154-japans-nuclea... Japan really is a country to watch in term of energy transition. They will have to take bold steps to meet their energy demand while curbing their CO2 emissions. I expect them to see some great projects around offshore wind but I think nuclear will have to be a part of the solution if they want to get anywhere close to the paris targets. Unfortunately, having a majority of japanese backing nuclear is not going to be enough. Last I checked most of the initiatives to bring back nuclear were stalled. The anti nuclear sentiment in japan leads a lot of communities to go to court to try to block building or reopening existing nuclear power plants.

belorn 5y ago

The article is pretty clear why peoples interests in nuclear power has gone up. Natural gas prices have gone up and as a result the energy price that customers has to pay is swinging up and down based on supply and demand. It the same story as in many other places in the world. Nuclear represent a stable price of energy that doesn't get impacted by changing fossil fuel prices, and while the initial capital cost is high, stability and freedom from fossil fuels has their benefits. Especially since fossil fuel and wars tend to be associated with each other. It is a bit indicative of the global age we live in that a war between Russia and Ukraine is dictating what a Japanese citizen is paying for electricity.

hardolaf 5y ago
"Nuclear is super expensive!" they keep screaming as I've been living in places with primarily nuclear power for the vast majority of my life. The only 3 years when I didn't, I really felt the price of dinosaur-fuel even though it was at rock-bottom prices for all 3 years. Illinois is majority nuclear and is one of the cheapest stats in the USA when it comes to electricity rates all because of nuclear. And I grew up in Cleveland which was also primarily nuclear and electricity was so cheap there, the power and gas company was paying people to switch their entire homes from LNG heating to electric heating for about 3 decades.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Nuclear is cheap in Illinois because Exelon, the company that runs the Nuclear plants, bribed the state to give their plants subsidies. https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2020/11/19/ex-comed-ceo-others-charged-by-feds.html https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2020/11/19/ex-comed...
  - belorn 5y ago
    Since there seems to be a lot of interest in Illinois energy subsidies, maybe we could get a tally on how much they spend each year and whom the benefactors are. I got one news article that said they gave nuclear $130 millions each year in 2019, but then other sources say it is a number between $19 and $52 millions. Then in 2021 I find an article that they increased subsidies for renewables by an additional $350 millions per year. In one article that the total subsidies to build new solar and wind has a total of $600 millions per year. An other said that the total of subsidies for renewables are well above $1 billion per year. I couldn't find an article that estimates Illinois fossil fuel subsidies, but one said that the US spend around $20 billions per year. Naturally each article want to either inflate or deflate those numbers to drive a political point, so it would be nice if anyone could bring some authoritative numbers that give the exact number of what Illinois actually spend in terms of energy subsidies.

sebow 5y ago

Layman question I have when I constantly see (what i perceive as) misguided fear towards nuclear energy: Is is "that" easy to use nuclear energy facilities to manufacture or empower nuclear weapons? My gut says no, but I feel some people think nuclear weapons are easily made from nuclear power plants just because they have a common word.

bun_at_work 5y ago
As far as I know it comes down to enrichment levels of the nuclear material used (Uranium?). Nuclear power requires much lower enrichment levels. > Most nuclear reactors that produce electricity only require fuel that is enriched to between 3-5% U-235. > This fuel does not represent a proliferation threat primarily because of the critical mass issue — the amount of material necessary to maintain a self-sustaining neutron chain reaction. If the level of enrichment is low, then it holds that the amount of the material must go up in order for a chain reaction to be sustained. The size can quickly become impractical for weapons delivery, so low enriched uranium (LEU) is not a threat. > Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is anything enriched above 20% and weapon-grade uranium is commonly considered to have been enriched above 90% U-235. However, some research reactors use 90% enriched U-235 to produce medical isotopes, so there are civilian applications for this fuel too. From: https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-or-for-weapons/ https://armscontrolcenter.org/uranium-enrichment-for-peace-o...
mywittyname 5y ago
The process used to enrich uranium/plutonium for use in reactors is the same process used to enrich it for use in weapons, the difference is merely scope. The "waste" from nuclear plants are also problematic. Plutonium can be obtained from spent fuel rods in a number of ways and it is easier to yield "weapons grade" enrichment levels with plutonium. Plus, once enough fuel has been accumulated, a breeder reactor can be set up to generate the necessary Pu238 & Pu239. This is something a nuclear power would want to do for legitimate purposes because plutonium yields are far higher than uranium. So in some ways, yes, nuclear reactors make it "that easy" to manufacture nuclear weapons. Especially plutonium-based weapons. There's still the work needed to create a weapon from the source material, but that's an easier problem to solve.

ffeiek 5y ago

Last year, the 44-year-old nuclear power plant resumed generating power. But most of the nuclear plants are over 40 years old, and even worse, some of them were built on active faults. Even after two atomic bombings and the worst nuclear accident, we still don't understand the threat of radiation.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Finally, after decades of phobias and burning 'green' gas, people are coming to their senses!

AlwaysRock 5y ago

I know a lot of people who are worried about Nuclear energy because, "What if a plant explodes?" but are unaware that they likely live A LOT closer to a plant than they think. There are quite a few nuclear energy plants across the US. Pull up a map and check it out sometimes. It helps with that fear because people realize they have been living with that threat most of their life and just didnt know.

gwbas1c 5y ago
The big problem with older reactors is that they need active cooling for awhile after they are shut down. That's why Fukushima exploded. The diesel generators flooded and couldn't run the cooling pumps. Chernobyl happened during an experiment shutting down the plant using the momentum in the generator to cool the plant. Newer reactor designs can shut down safely without active cooling.
ngngngng 5y ago
I would have to drive for ten hours to reach one, that's pretty much what I assumed anyway. There are a ton more plants in the eastern US than I would have guessed though.
- AlwaysRock 5y ago
  Yeah. This is my point exactly. Most people don't realize there is one close by and once they do the fear of one popping up next door tends to go away.

baby 5y ago

If you can, watch this video with the english subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTzsWM_gbQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnTzsWM_gbQ It's a great short investigation in the numbers, and how damaging different source of energies have been.

kkfx 5y ago

IMVHO: - we need energy and people start feeling risk of blackouts; - we can't made except for limited cases a society that live on renewables, not with today tech at least; - it's hard to know how much "underground" resources we really have but it's clear that oil and gas will came to scarcity at a certain point in time and we need oil for too many things, from tissues to joints to lubricant, electrical insulation, plastic, ... without something able to replace it on scale. Nuclear so far seems to be able to run for many decades, so we probably can became all-electric (except for metallurgy and few other industrial domains) with nuclear and slowly integrate renewables as needed. That's not good since that's probably the need of much nuclear now (and now means in 10+ years, no less) and then we will not profit much from it but that's is. I honestly see no other realistic options.

robertlagrant 5y ago
> we need oil for too many things, from tissues to joints to lubricant, electrical insulation, plastic, ... without something able to replace it on scale This is right. The next thought I had in this line of thinking is: how much will it cost to extract oil when it's only for these things? What will that do to their price?
- kkfx 5y ago
  I can't answer beside the obvious hyper-inflation BUT in human history we generally have changed (almost) "in time" depending on the what we can source in nature, so if oil it's almost depleted today we are just dead, but in 40-50 years maybe we will have had enough time to substitute it gradually for almost all applications. Actually we know how to substitute oil for most applications but nothing that scale, for instance we can just switch from plastic packaging, common containers, car's part etc with various other things, from bamboo to paper to metals and glass but we can't meet the demand, no matter the price. Perhaps in a significantly far future, but still in time the actual society have changed to a different one with different needs and basic resources, something we already see: Green New Deal is an example. We are substituting ICEs cars for electric ones, we already state that most EVs we be just "glorified golf carts" to be "cheap enough", railroads will probably get expanded, dense cities for poor people will be even more dense etc that's already a very big shift and happen at a certain speed. Perhaps in 30 years nuclear and renewables have substituted completely the need of oil for grid-scale electricity generation and industrial electricity usage grow to cover many more usage (perhaps also for most metallurgical activities) and perhaps in 50 years nuclear fusion will be developed enough to became a common means for electricity production. That's still do not solve the oil usage for plastic etc issues BUT lower much oil usage. A new economy, less centralized, might reduce packaging much and in 100 years we will have something to substitute oil entirely just in time. I do not have the crystal ball (unfortunately) but I'm pretty sure that for a reason or another the push against oil it's here to stay and the push to renewables can't really work at a society scale. What I imaging for the not-that-short term is nuclear for industries who need near-constant 24/7/365 energy and renewables for civil usages. Speculate further is more a game than a real prediction so I have to pass...

goodpoint 5y ago

And yet again the whole conversation on HN is around alleged "irrational fear". There are other risks to be considered: centralization. The world is facing climate change and potential social unrest. Democratized and hyper-local energy production creates resilient communities. Highly centralized power generation increases risks of government corruption, terrorism or just plain failures (like Fukushima) leading to power failures.

karaterobot 5y ago
Small scale nuclear reactors (and microreactors) would be a solution to that centralization problem. I know that NuScale had some controversy a couple years ago; not sure how that shook out. Whether that design should be modified or not, in theory there's nothing stopping reactors generating community-level power, except that nobody wants a reactor in their back yard. Not saying anyone would want a coal plant in their backyard either, but given the choice it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more. I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Good luck operating them [safely] in case of social unrest or terrorism. After the collapse of USSR a lot of RTGs where stripped and used a scrap metal by people completely unaware of the risks. Luckily, RTGs have moderate amounts of active fuel. > it seems like they'd choose the coal because it scares them less while hurting them more Who is "they"? An imaginary group of people that you disagree with? > I hate to say it, but it does really does seem to come down to dealing with irrational fear a lot of the time. And once again HN claims to be rational...
  - Loughla 5y ago
    >And once again HN claims to be rational... Remember that the people here are tech focused, for the most part. Few, if any, have any experience at all with power generation, let alone nuclear power generation. When was the last time you saw an intelligent, rational, and unbiased discussion here about something that you had intimate knowledge of? I've worked in higher ed for decades, and sister let me tell you, the threads on here about higher ed are full of very short-sighted/anecdotal/ignorant statements. I just have to assume this thread is the same as that. It's easy to have an opinion about something when you don't know very many details.

haydenchambers 5y ago

ericmay 5y ago

Genuine question: why nuclear over mass solar? Panels on every house, decentralized, etc. I was having a discussion with a friend recently about this and he was very much pro-solar and thought nuclear wasn't the right way to go from a cost/centralization perspective. Figured smart people here might be able to color this a bit better. -edit- Ty to everyone who responded here. It's enjoying to read these different perspectives.

zurn 5y ago
We're so far behind in replacing fossils and fighting off global warming disaster, that we should do both. Nuclear has worse bang for the buck though and decades long lead times. But as long as it can be financed without displacing more capital efficient renewables we should still build nuclear as well.
xyzzyz 5y ago
It is extremely expensive to get significant amount of energy from roof mounted solar. Solar doesn’t shine all of the time. Storage is extremely hard. Japan does not have a lot of wastelands to spare on mass solar power farms. Nuclear, on the other hand, just works, 24/7.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Is storage becoming less hard with battery backup systems? And from a cost perspective won't these come down, and from a total social spending amount couldn't rooftop solar eventually be cheaper than nuclear plants, scientists, infrastructure, etc. that has to go into it? Just to note I've been coming from the perspective that nuclear + "renewables" is the right approach, but wanted to learn a little more.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > And from a cost perspective won't these come down No. Even discounting the explosion of prices of lithium, nickel and other materials needed in batteries due to wars and what not, there's already significant demand for batteries ( mostly to convert vehicles to EVs), which far outstrips supply. That's unlikely to change in the foreseeable future ( like a decade), so no, batteries won't continue to get cheaper.

jollybean 5y ago

Oil is not not just about 'The Environment' but it's 'Major War'. So the calculus is palpitate. Iraq 1 and 2, Iran sanctions, Saudi/Yemen, rise of Chavismo, now Russia, so much of it is Oil driven. But with Nuclear, guess who is the #1 source of Uranium? Russia! That said, Canada and Australia have plenty. And those are 'Good Places'.

godelski 5y ago

Title is misleading and I think many commenters are missing the point. This is support for *restarting existing reactors* and not really a support for nuclear in general. This may lead to the latter, but it is very different turning on reactors that already exist (meaning some danger already exists) compared to creating more. Proposed title change: > Majority in Japan backs restarting existing nuclear reactors

nixass 5y ago
fomine3 5y ago
This is important difference.

alexott 5y ago

I wish that it would happen in Germany :-( Even in current situation, government is reluctant to open existing stations

alberth 5y ago

EVs Seeing how US automakers have nearly unanimously announced a complete EV future, I don't see any other alternative options other than nuclear that will allow us to keep up with electricity demands.

8bitsrule 5y ago

They would say that.

ashtonkem 5y ago

The current war and gas crisis in Europe is finally underscoring one of the points that’s been ignored for a long time; depending on unstable rentier states to secure the energy required for HVAC and transit is unbelievably foolish national policy. Nuclear is really expensive to build, both in terms of money and political capital, but the benefits are more apparent once crisis hits oil producing states, which was always inevitable.

woodpanel 5y ago

And this is how you spot the difference between grown-up leadership and an infantile one: 1) Japan kept its longterm energy policy goals despite of temporary unpopularity and is now reaping the rewards of having reliable energy and giving the voters what they, eventually, want 2) Germany nixed its complete nuclear energy production, because of a temporary outrage, despite having neither earthquakes nor tsunamis.

forum_ghost 5y ago
Japan never had other real options. Their natgas imports was only ever going to be a temporary duct-tape solution.
fomine3 5y ago
I argue somewhat opposite. * Japan won't decide good future energy plan since 2011. They avoid wide discussion for that because utilize nuclear (meaning replacing old existing plants by new plants) is obviously unpopular opinion but other options also have problems or difficulties. So currently just burn coal/LNG. They encouraged to build solar plants but it's hated by some people due to it encourages deforestation (makes land weak for disaster), high additional fee for every electricity bill. Also it won't work much in winter (when supply crisis tend to be happen). * Germany decided strong future energy plan, but their plan (renewables but also rely on russian gas) is failed now.

whatever1 5y ago

Nuclear power in a world of military conflicts sounds like a bad joke.

wbear 5y ago
Though both have the word "nuclear" in the name, nuclear power and nuclear bombs are not the same thing.
- whatever1 5y ago
  So people are stressing for no reason over wrong semantics for the (operating & abandoned) nuclear plants in Ukraine. Thanks for your valuable contribution.

trhway 5y ago

The opinion may globally change depending on what happens to the military base, and especially munition stores, Russia has made right at the Chernobyl power plant - it is conveniently located to provide supplies to the Russian forces attacking Kiev, and is "protected" by the power plant as Ukraine, who otherwise has been tearing Russian forces supply logistics apart, is naturally not able to directly attack those stores because of the associated danger of damage to the power plant objects like for example the reactors, spent fuel storage, overall radioactive soil/dust around which you don't want to blast into the air ... And even without any military action - there are fires right now in the forests around Chernobyl, and Russian temporary as well as permanent munition stores have a history of catching fires and blowing up.