Japan nuclear regulator ignores its duty to protect the people

Justin,

economically, Japan suffers immensely because of having to replace the suspended nuclear electricity production by fiscally not v...

Justin,

economically, Japan suffers immensely because of having to replace the suspended nuclear electricity production by fiscally not viably bought in fossil fuel (gas and coal).

Your claim that having been without nuclear for some time would show that nuclear was unnecessary has no basis in reality. You can't have missed all the articles and analyses that have been published on the dire situation that fuel costs have caused for Japan?

Embracing solar/wind sounds nice - but have a cold and hard look at the figures: The production from these sources is absolutely minimal - additionally one has to be aware that those fluctuating sources can never replace capacity with guaranteed output, they can only replace fuel sometimes - and need additionally costly changes in the networks and storage capacities that are currently not feasible.

The new nuclear regulator in Japan seems, by all I have gathered, to have real teeth. Any sources for your claims in the article that this would be otherwise?

Japan has just voted in a government that has made no secrets about its determination to switch (some) nuclear power back on.

Realistically (at the upper most) 35 GW, plus 3 GW if the reactors under construction get completed, of nuclear capacity can be considered for restart (there is no chance for the pre-1980, mostly smaller reactors to get restarted).

The only realistic alternative to not restart at least half of that capacity in the medium future would be fossil based electricity production, and because of economic reasons, that would longer term mostly be coal.

Consider the damage to climate and health through emissions this would cause. The example of Germany should not be forgotten: It has massive costly 'renewable' new build, replaces only some nuclear currently - has no excessive debt burden and still effectively has to rely strongly on coal and lignite for the foreseeable future.

Jan, a population who 'does not want restarts' will not vote in a government with a 2/3 majority, that makes no secret of its policy to restar...

Jan, a population who 'does not want restarts' will not vote in a government with a 2/3 majority, that makes no secret of its policy to restart nuclear power plants. In Japan they don't have a political system based on [questionable] opinion polls.

You called the scenario the 65 eminent environmental scientist endorsed, which contained a fair amount of nuclear in a mix with 'renewables' a 'wet dream' of the nuclear industry.

Nevertheless I'll keep to diplomatic language, when considering the Greenpeace 100% renewable-is-doable master plan for Japan you linked to: It is wishful phantasy.

High gloss presentation does not make all the soon close to upright vertical lines for wind, solar, biomass and geothermal developments and the steady downwards falling, soon reaching zero lines for coal and nuclear happen in real life!
Already now, only a few years on, the [R]evolution scenario, is negated by reality.

[R]evolution, page 107: Even if one did not questions the cost given for the [R]evolution, how could anybody expect Japan to be able, even if willing, to afford to invest the additional sum of nearly 300 billion dollars envisaged between now and 2020?

Other obvious misrepresentations in the scenario: It compares the assumed cost for nuclear installation with renewable - without taking into account, that nuclear will run for 60 years, has a capacity factor of 90% and provides stable output. Wind: 20 years, capacity factor 25 %, needs full back up as a stochastic producer. Ditto with photovoltaic. Apples and pears.

Energy conservation is presented as the big saviour, when clearly this factor has nothing to do at all with renewables. It is just as important with fossil, nuclear or whatever.

Btw, Japan's renewable FITs have just been updated, and the sensible step of introducing a 30 days (or rather more importantly a 720 hours) switch-off time, whenever the grid provider cannot make use of the electricity, has been introduced for all, also the small participants.

A similar measure would have saved a lot of trouble for the German 'Energiewende'. Where I live the feed in tariff for photovoltaic has just been reduced from 9 cent/kWh to 0 cent/kWh from next January. And we are way up on the 'green' list that Germanwatch recently published. Am deutschen Wesen wird die Welt - nicht - genesen:)

Those purely ideological ideas you keep repeating "breaking the habit of centralised nuclear and fossil", you need to question their rational! Why should small be beautiful? It depends on the circumstances.

The German Energiewende for example actually replaces current rather decentralised electricity production close to the consumer/industry with a system where the electricity from those nice, democratic, decentralised wind turbines will have to be transported to Norway and back to the South of Germany in 'Stomautobahnen', and ditto with photovoltaic, where the South produces at times as much electricity the whole of Germany cannot use up. Not to mention all the nice, decentralised corn monocultures, by now covering 1/5 of German agricultural lands for fouling into 'green biogas electricity'.

The (wet?) dreams of immense capacities for wind and solar for Japan in the scenario are mind-boggling:
onshore wind : 70 - 300 GW
offshore fixed wind: 5 -310GW
offshore floating wind : 56 - 1300GW
photovoltaic: 100 - 150 GW (on non-residential sites alone)

It is a common misconception by the renewables-only brigades to lean so heavy on the 'potential', as the [R]evolution does. That figure is not more than a theoretical limit, but should otherwise not figure much, as it is grossly misleading the mind.

A look at the current figures for real electricity production from the renewables in Japan is sobering.

Factors like the EROI are relevant, but are missing in the scenario. Why? Because the low EROI of wind and solar would be hard to dispute. The limiting factor with wind, solar and biofuels has really to do with physics, their EROI is simply too low, especially when taking the need for buffering into account. Physics is unforgivable and thus these stochastic renewables will probably ever only play a limited part of the solution to decarbonise electricity generation.
For nuclear generation, depending on the type of enrichment process used, there's an EROI of 75 to 106, according to these latest study figures.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aux2QwQckeWEdE9UbHNKR3l6THItNi1RTUdxa1RrdUE#gid=0

It's just no comparison with PV (South Germany at around 4! , buffered 1.5! or Biomass at 3.5!. Only wind is somewhat better with an EROI of 16, but with buffering taken into account of also only 4!)
Below an EROI of 7 a technic does not make sense economically.

And the EROI does not change for Japan either.

The only reference to "return on investment" in the GP scenario is this: "Action: Provide a stable return for investors through price support mechanisms." If it was not sad it would by funny:)

Peter,

I suspect you know very well that only about 25% of the Japanese voters cast their ballot for the pro-nuclear Abe government: this...

Peter,

I suspect you know very well that only about 25% of the Japanese voters cast their ballot for the pro-nuclear Abe government: this is because 50% of those having right did not go to vote and, roughly, less than 50% of those who voted supported the government.

An electoral law that has been declared unconstitutional several times then granted the nuclear lobby a 2/3 majority in the Japanese parliament.

Suggesting that two thirds of the Japanese support nuclear power is misleading and you know it.

Besides, opinion polls about nuclear energy in Japan are less questionable than you would like: even pro-nuclear newspapers report that only 20/25% of the public supports an indefinite use of nuclear power.

I also suspect you know very well that nuclear power in Japan does not have a capacity factor of 90%; even before Fukushima it was closer to 50% and now is 0%. Is this a reliable source of energy?

I am not saying you lied but again I find your wording misleading, possibly deliberately so.

By the way, electricity rates in Japan and Germany are among the highest in the world. Such rates are exacted out of consumers that have no alternative choices. For the price we pay we should be entitled not to have our livelihoods threatened by the nuclear pressure clunkers.

Let's not forget that, in the worst case scenario envisaged by government experts, Tokyo might have had to be evacuated and indeed, according to news, the families of the American military personnel in Yokohama were evacuated for some time in the aftermath of the crisis.

I do not really want to put the potential loss of Tokyo in ROI terms, especially when the return on the investment belongs to someone and the losses belong to someone else.

Beppe, about your [Beppe:"I suspect you know very well that only about 25% of the Japanese voters cast their ballot for the pro-nuclear Abe gover...

Beppe, about your [Beppe:"I suspect you know very well that only about 25% of the Japanese voters cast their ballot for the pro-nuclear Abe government: this is because 50% of those having right did not go to vote and, roughly, less than 50% of those who voted supported the government."]:

Japan is a constitutional democracy. No quorum or duty to vote is in the constitution.Whoever does not make use of his/her electoral right agrees with the majority vote. This old chestnut of "only x voting for“ does get staler and staler with every warming up.

Even when staying with your flawed line of argument, you clearly misrepresent the facts and miss the point:
Turn out was at 53%, two thirds for the gov coalition equals 35% of all voters - and not 25% as you claim.
And, here comes the clincher: according to your line of argument: only some 17% of Japanese voters voted for parties opposed to nuclear restarts. How about that?

[Beppe:"An electoral law that has been declared unconstitutional several times then granted the nuclear lobby a 2/3 majority in the Japanese parliament."]

You suggestion that the Japanese nuclear lobby "has been granted" a 2/3 majority because of an unconstitutional law is outlandish. Which reality distortion machine are you in? Take an exemplary look elsewhere: The German constitutional court has in its history more than 500 times declared parts of the law unconstitutional, and many times parts of the electoral law. That is a normal process of a constitutional democracy and the very function of the constitutional courts. In Japan this has only happened a dozen or so times. Look the facts up before you make such outlandish claims. Wikipedia is your friend:)

[Beppe:"Suggesting that two thirds of the Japanese support nuclear power is misleading and you know it.“]

I have not suggested that at all. The hard fact is that Japan has voted in a government with a 2/3 majority, when the winning parties made no secret of their intent to restart nuclear reactors.

[Beppe: „Besides, opinion polls about nuclear energy in Japan are less questionable than you would like: even pro-nuclear newspapers report that only 20/25% of the public supports an indefinite use of nuclear power.]

An "indefinite use" is supported by 20 - 25%, you say. I find that rather high considering the circumstances. About restarting nuclear plants polls suggest that the populous is currently split halfway.


[Beppe: „I also suspect you know very well that nuclear power in Japan does not have a capacity factor of 90%; even before Fukushima it was closer to 50% and now is 0%. Is this a reliable source of energy?]

Not due to technical factors, but due to the inspection scheme Japan’s nuclear reactors had a rather low capacity factor of not 50%, as you fantasise, but of around 70%. The hundred top nuclear reactors worldwide have a capacity factor of around 95%. Nuclear is one of the most reliable energy sources, indeed.


[Beppe: „I am not saying you lied but again I find your wording misleading, possibly deliberately so.“]

You have to find better arguments to support that mud sling:)


[Beppe: „By the way, electricity rates in Japan and Germany are among the highest in the world... potential loss of Tokyo in ROI terms, especially when the return on the investment belongs to someone and the losses belong to someone else.“]

Electricity rates on their own, I guess you mean consumer end prices, are not a good way to compare and draw conclusions, as you do. And about the EROI of different methods of electricity production - I suppose you don’t have a clou what that is about...