5 ms·

> For one: Japan has no natural resources. Fuel for power must be imported. Materials for solar panels (or the panels themselves) must be imported. Nuclear is b

> For one: Japan has no natural resources. Fuel for power must be imported. Materials for solar panels (or the panels themselves) must be imported. Nuclear is by far one of the most efficient /and/ effective forms of power generation humanity currently has. How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? Sure it's more compact, but it has other complications regarding transport. They're still going to be reliant on other countries. Solar panels, even if imported, do not require the ongoing importation of fuel. > For third: Japan needs power /today/, not tomorrow I don't see how nuclear solves this problem. New plants have a very long lead time. I'm not trying to fearmonger, and I think that had we adopted a lot more nuclear in decades past we could be in a much better position regarding climate change now. But I'm not convinced that the arguments stack up for nuclear right now.

JanSt 4y ago
The solar panels have to be replaced at some too, don't they? And how many of them are being made in China? Diversification will be key for the future - including nuclear, solar, wind, storage. France took 10 years to go from very little nuclear to most of the energy coming from nuclear. It can be done if activist don't stop it and put up ever higher requirements to make nuclear less attractive.
Dalewyn 4y ago
>How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? We're already talking about what we will do once major reserves of coal and oil run dry. It's obviously not going to happen any time soon, maybe even not this century, but I'm not aware of similar sentiments being thrown around about nuclear fuel such as uranium and plutonium. Nuclear power also does not belch out greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere unlike coal and oil. If we want power generation without greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is one of the answers. >I don't see how nuclear solves this problem. Keeping currently active plants active for longer means the immediate need for power is better satisfied and the need for /more/ power in the short-term is delayed. This plan also calls for new plants which will replace the generation capacity lost from outgoing plants (coal/oil or nuclear) and hopefully satisfy power demands today and tomorrow.
- askvictor 4y ago
  The original argument was that Japan imports all of its energy; nuclear is no different to fossil fuels in this regard. You raise plenty of other interesting issues, but don't address the question of energy sovereignty.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    It reduces the amount of import necessary for a given amount of power and shifts geopolitical reliances around (hopefully to more favorable entities).
lucb1e 4y ago
Imagine the sheer volume of solar panels needed to supply even a fraction like 1/5th of the energy demand. You don't manufacture and ship that to Germany in a few big orders, that's a decades-long process. By the time that's done, the oldest panels are up for renewal. Any country that is not producing solar panels (and that isn't a place like Norway or Iceland with hydro or geothermal plentiful) is effectively relying on foreign 'fuel' as well. It's almost as though we're going to have to learn to live together on planet A.
- orwin 4y ago
  They have available hydro. The issue is building a hydro plant that resist earthquakes.
- askvictor 4y ago
  I wonder why there isn't geothermal energy in Japan, being on a fault-line.
cbmuser 4y ago
> How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? Sure it's more compact, but it has other complications regarding transport. They're still going to be reliant on other countries. Solar panels, even if imported, do not require the ongoing importation of fuel. Nuclear requires a tiny fraction of the material that any other generation type needs. We’re talking about a factor of one million more energy dense compared to fossil fuels! Solar and wind do not provide baseload and can therefore not replace any conventional power plant. There is a reason why Germany just returned 7.3 GW in coal-fired power units to the electricity market: > https://www.smard.de/home/rueckkehr-von-kohlekraftwerken-an-den-strommarkt-209208 https://www.smard.de/home/rueckkehr-von-kohlekraftwerken-an-...
- askvictor 4y ago
  Agree that nuclear fuel is a lot more dense, but still has the same geopolitical problems as any imported fuel, just fewer (and probably more specialized) ships to transport it. Also agree about the base-load issue, but that's a different argument (and there are some ways to lessen it without always resorting to conventional power-plants; see how Australia has performed over the past decade with crumbling coal infrastructure and no ability for long term planning due to policy paralysis - our base-load has been crumbling but through some clever grid manipulation there have been far fewer blackouts than anyone expected)
  - simondotau 4y ago
    The size is an extremely important benefit. It means a country like Japan is able to stockpile a domestic fuel supply sufficient for multiple years of electricity generation.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  > Solar and wind do not provide baseload and can therefore not replace any conventional power plant. Think about a hospital, the ultimate baseload requirement. Would a hospital be OK with just power from a single nuclear reactor? Of course not, it would still have a generator for backup power. Nuclear power plants don't run 24/7/365, they have scheduled maintenance and unexpected downtime. Baseload power is ensured through diversity and spare dispatchable power.
Laaas 4y ago
Theoretically you can extract much (all?) of the uranium you need from sea water: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac...
- askvictor 4y ago
  Theoretically you can get anything from sea water, but practically it's not worth it.

JanSt 4y ago

The solar panels have to be replaced at some too, don't they? And how many of them are being made in China? Diversification will be key for the future - including nuclear, solar, wind, storage. France took 10 years to go from very little nuclear to most of the energy coming from nuclear. It can be done if activist don't stop it and put up ever higher requirements to make nuclear less attractive.

Dalewyn 4y ago

>How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? We're already talking about what we will do once major reserves of coal and oil run dry. It's obviously not going to happen any time soon, maybe even not this century, but I'm not aware of similar sentiments being thrown around about nuclear fuel such as uranium and plutonium. Nuclear power also does not belch out greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere unlike coal and oil. If we want power generation without greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power is one of the answers. >I don't see how nuclear solves this problem. Keeping currently active plants active for longer means the immediate need for power is better satisfied and the need for /more/ power in the short-term is delayed. This plan also calls for new plants which will replace the generation capacity lost from outgoing plants (coal/oil or nuclear) and hopefully satisfy power demands today and tomorrow.

askvictor 4y ago
The original argument was that Japan imports all of its energy; nuclear is no different to fossil fuels in this regard. You raise plenty of other interesting issues, but don't address the question of energy sovereignty.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  It reduces the amount of import necessary for a given amount of power and shifts geopolitical reliances around (hopefully to more favorable entities).

lucb1e 4y ago

Imagine the sheer volume of solar panels needed to supply even a fraction like 1/5th of the energy demand. You don't manufacture and ship that to Germany in a few big orders, that's a decades-long process. By the time that's done, the oldest panels are up for renewal. Any country that is not producing solar panels (and that isn't a place like Norway or Iceland with hydro or geothermal plentiful) is effectively relying on foreign 'fuel' as well. It's almost as though we're going to have to learn to live together on planet A.

orwin 4y ago
They have available hydro. The issue is building a hydro plant that resist earthquakes.
askvictor 4y ago
I wonder why there isn't geothermal energy in Japan, being on a fault-line.

cbmuser 4y ago

> How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? Sure it's more compact, but it has other complications regarding transport. They're still going to be reliant on other countries. Solar panels, even if imported, do not require the ongoing importation of fuel. Nuclear requires a tiny fraction of the material that any other generation type needs. We’re talking about a factor of one million more energy dense compared to fossil fuels! Solar and wind do not provide baseload and can therefore not replace any conventional power plant. There is a reason why Germany just returned 7.3 GW in coal-fired power units to the electricity market: > https://www.smard.de/home/rueckkehr-von-kohlekraftwerken-an-den-strommarkt-209208 https://www.smard.de/home/rueckkehr-von-kohlekraftwerken-an-...

askvictor 4y ago
Agree that nuclear fuel is a lot more dense, but still has the same geopolitical problems as any imported fuel, just fewer (and probably more specialized) ships to transport it. Also agree about the base-load issue, but that's a different argument (and there are some ways to lessen it without always resorting to conventional power-plants; see how Australia has performed over the past decade with crumbling coal infrastructure and no ability for long term planning due to policy paralysis - our base-load has been crumbling but through some clever grid manipulation there have been far fewer blackouts than anyone expected)
- simondotau 4y ago
  The size is an extremely important benefit. It means a country like Japan is able to stockpile a domestic fuel supply sufficient for multiple years of electricity generation.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
> Solar and wind do not provide baseload and can therefore not replace any conventional power plant. Think about a hospital, the ultimate baseload requirement. Would a hospital be OK with just power from a single nuclear reactor? Of course not, it would still have a generator for backup power. Nuclear power plants don't run 24/7/365, they have scheduled maintenance and unexpected downtime. Baseload power is ensured through diversity and spare dispatchable power.

Laaas 4y ago

Theoretically you can extract much (all?) of the uranium you need from sea water: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extract-uranium-seawater-nuclear-power https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac...

askvictor 4y ago
Theoretically you can get anything from sea water, but practically it's not worth it.