Japan eyes nuclear for a fifth of electricity supply

The Japanese industry ministry favours nuclear power as a way to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, des
The Japanese industry ministry favours nuclear power as a way to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, despite a groundswell of public opposition since the nuclear crisis in Fukushima

A fifth of Japan's electricity supply should come from nuclear power generation, the country's industry ministry said Tuesday, despite widespread opposition in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.

With none of the nation's viable nuclear reactors in operation, the target indicates an intention to bring most, if not all of them, back online.

Environmentalists Greenpeace said the proposition showed the government was "deluding itself".

Japan's intended energy mix—what proportion of power comes from which sources—has been a subject of hot debate for months, not least because without it, Tokyo has been unable to make international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In its proposal, which will be debated by the government by the end of next month, the industry ministry said about 20-22 percent of the country's electricity should come from nuclear power by 2030.

Supply from renewables such as solar and wind power should also be doubled to 22-24 percent.

The industry ministry favours nuclear power as a way to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, despite a groundswell of public opposition since the nuclear crisis in Fukushima.

Reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant went into meltdown in March 2011 after a tsunami swamped their cooling systems—setting off the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

Anti nuclear activists celebrate as the Fukui district court issued a landmark injunction against the restarting of two atomic r
Anti nuclear activists celebrate as the Fukui district court issued a landmark injunction against the restarting of two atomic reactors of Kansai Electric Power Co's Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui on April 14, 2015

Japan's entire nuclear stable was gradually switched off following the crisis, while tens of thousands of people were evacuated due to concerns about radiation exposure.

Many local residents are still unable to return to their homes and scientists have warned that some areas around the plant may remain uninhabitable for decades or more.

'Deluding itself'

Pro-nuclear premier Shinzo Abe and the country's business sector have since pushed to restart plants that once supplied more than one quarter of Japan's electricity, as a plunging yen has sent energy import bills through the roof.

Abe's government has pledged to lower the country's dependence on nuclear power and promote so-called "green energy", but insists it is unrealistic to rely too much on renewables because of cost and stability issues.

Japan's pro-nuclear lobby said last week that 2015 would be the year reactors are restarted, despite public wariness.

Reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant went into meltdown in March 2011 after a tsunami swamped their cooling systems—setting
Reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant went into meltdown in March 2011 after a tsunami swamped their cooling systems—setting off the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986

Four reactors were decommissioned on Monday after failing to meet new, stricter safety standards, and another will be permanently taken out of operation on Thursday, Jiji Press reported.

But the 20-22 percent supply figure indicates that most, if not all, of the remaining 43 reactors will have to be restarted, though most have yet to receive the green light from regulators.

Shaun Burnie, nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany, said many of these reactors would never come back online.

"The Japanese government is deluding itself if it thinks that will play a significant role in its future energy supply," he said.

"The scale of the challenges facing the nuclear industry are such that generation from reactors is likely to collapse during the coming decade. Many reactors will never restart, and most over the coming years will be too old to operate."

The industry ministry said if the proposed energy mix is implemented, Japan will be able to reduce by 21.9 percent in 2030 from 2013 levels.


Explore further

Japan's nuclear industry pledges to refire reactors

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Japan eyes nuclear for a fifth of electricity supply (2015, April 28) retrieved 20 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-04-japan-eyes-nuclear-electricity.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
17 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 28, 2015
"Environmentalists Greenpeace said the proposition showed the government was 'deluding itself'."
"Abe's government has pledged to lower the country's dependence on nuclear power and promote so-called 'green energy', but insists it is unrealistic to rely too much on renewables because of cost and stability issues."
"Shaun Burnie, nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Germany, said many of these reactors would never come back online."

Lamentable. Renewable energy is not nearly as "clean" and "good for the environment" as these hypocrite-environmentalists want you to believe. There are serious environmental risks that the pseudo-environmentalism lobby would prefer you never know about.

Apr 28, 2015
There are radiological levels of 48 Sieverts in a Fukushima unit. It takes five or so to kill you.

Why does Willie like this? Why won't he go help in Fukushima?

Tell you what, willie, I will take all the waste from wind power production if you take the waste from nuclear power production.

Nobody else knows how to store it.

Apr 28, 2015
There are radiological levels of 48 Sieverts in a Fukushima unit. It takes five or so to kill you.

No, much more, million sieverts!!!
"Up to 1,000,000 sieverts per hour outside Fukushima Unit 1 containment vessel — Still too hot to attempt measuring other areas (PHOTO & VIDEO)"
http://enenews.co...ng-photo
There are a lot of fearmongering media out there.
Nevertheless, the inconvenient truth is that nuclear power has caused relatively low environmental impact per gigawatt generated even when if it is taken into account Fukushima.

Apr 28, 2015
I think you mean gigawatt-hour, willie. And did you include Uranium mining, with its huge lung cancer problem, or all the other steps in refining it? How about the lives shortened by radiation from the 200,000 years of Plutonium we are leaving behind?


Apr 28, 2015
... And did you include Uranium mining, with its huge lung cancer problem, or all the other steps in refining it? How about the lives shortened by radiation from the 200,000 years of Plutonium we are leaving behind?

Why don't you tell us little more about rare earth (radioactive) metals in wind turbines?
"Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret"
http://www.theatl.../307377/
"Rare Earths: Elemental Needs of the Clean-Energy Economy"
http://www.scient...economy/
http://www.bbc.co...26687605
http://www.dailym...ale.html
http://www.thegua...ollution

Apr 29, 2015
I think you mean gigawatt-hour, willie. And did you include Uranium mining, with its huge lung cancer problem, or all the other steps in refining it? How about the lives shortened by radiation from the 200,000 years of Plutonium we are leaving behind?


You dont need to mine much uranium due to its very high energy density. Include all that and nuclear still comes up as very safe per GWh produced, when compared to other energy sources, comparable to renewables.

Then there is sea water uranium extraction, which is viable even now, the issue is that it is less profitable than mining.

Apr 29, 2015
Oh, good! Does that mean we can send you the high-level waste?

Nobody else has found a way to safely store it for 200,000 years

Apr 29, 2015
The amount of radioactive wastes is very small relative to wastes produced indirectly by renewables, e.g. rare earth (radioactive) metals.
"Nuclear wastes are neither particularly hazardous nor hard to manage relative to other toxic industrial wastes."
"Safe methods for the final disposal of high-level radioactive waste are technically proven; the international consensus is that this should be geological disposal."
http://www.world-...agement/

"For high level and long lived radioactive waste, the consensus of the waste management experts internationally is that disposal in deep underground engineered facilities - geological disposal - is the best option that is currently available or likely to be available in the foreseeable future."
http://www.iaea.o...age.html
No problem, Earth is naturally radioactive.
http://www.physic...ural.htm

Apr 29, 2015
Furthermore, no millions birds are slaughtered per gigawatt generated as it happens with renewables.

"Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill"
http://dailycalle...l-spill/
http://www.eenews...60017406

Apr 29, 2015
Hey, Willie, here's your precious Wiki on bird kills:

Federal wildlife officials have begun calling these 'eco-friendly' power towers "mega traps" for wildlife. [54] [55][56] However, the number of bird deaths is far lower than the hundreds of millions to billions that die annually from collisions with windows, vehicles, and power lines.[57]

And how many birds like to live downwind from coal plants? How many people?

Apr 29, 2015
PM Abe has not learned from disaster. Politicians think all they have to do is proclaim something and it is real. Nope.

Japan's Tokyo Olympics may be a disaster and may be the last thing from that nation in a long time. When others learn what they did to the Earth in Fukushima, they are done.

Apr 29, 2015
Hey, Willie, look here:

http://www.wsj.co...17529956

Europe is trying to dump their nukes. Want to buy some?

Apr 29, 2015
Europe is trying to dump their nukes. Want to buy some?

Germany has found out an intelligent way to cut off CO2 emissions, by slaughtering large amounts of bats and birds to stop them to breathe out more and more CO2 into the environment.

Apr 29, 2015
Silly remarks cannot hide the truth, Willie.

Wanna buy some nukes??

Apr 29, 2015
Wanna buy some nukes??
Follow the crowd, latest fashion trends are buying wind farms combined with solar towers to get cooked birds more delicious.
Gigawatt nuke plants are not proven be the best for slaughtering and cooking birds in midair as renewables.

Apr 29, 2015
I have worked in and around this field for decades, Willie.

What have you been doing?

Apr 29, 2015
I have worked in and around this field for decades...
"You can't teach an old dog new tricks."
"An old dog will learn no tricks."
But it doesn't matter, let the old dogs barking out there, "Generation IV Reactors" and newer are being developed to become even safer ready to replace the standard reactors.
http://en.wikiped..._reactor

Apr 29, 2015
Really? And you believe them?

Go here:

http://www.reuter...20150427
Next-generation nuclear reactors may not be safer: French watchdog

Apr 29, 2015
Next-generation nuclear reactors may not be safer
Even so, much less environmental impact per unit of energy generated than renewables.
"Fukushima's casualties will come from fear, not from radiation; and, when compared by impacts per energy unit produced, nuclear power is actually by far the least deadly of any energy source ever employed by humans."
"An engineering-only analysis might show that nuclear alone (using novel fourth-generation reactors) could easily power the world, and with much less environmental impact than today's power sources, but politics are different."
"..., much of the anti-nuclear activism is grounded on misconceptions, poor science, and even blatant disinformation, spread by well-meaning but ideologically blinkered activists. The problem for these activists is that the scientific consensus does not, by and large, agree with their views."
http://jmkorhonen...-carbon/

Apr 29, 2015
Willie, how old are you? Have you heard the same stuff since the 1950's, like me? Heard the promises?

Here is where I got my opinion:
I am a former engineer in Technical Services for a large power company. Before that, I worked as a Research Engineer, and we tested for the NRC parts of the safety systems of ge Mark I and Mark II BWRs. I learned they are unsafe. I understand and have been in all kinds of powerplants. This is too dangerous to use to boil water. When you show me how to contain the deadly and exothermic (look it up) waste, tell us.

Apr 29, 2015
Willie, the deaths from radiation are not immediate and graphic. The damages are long-term increases in cancers of all kinds. They are shortened lives, sickness, and costly illness. They are genetic damage from damaging rays and particles.

They are the residue of our hubris and foolishness, continuing to maim and kill for hundreds of thousands of years long after we and our need for "cheap" power is gone.

Apr 29, 2015
I am a former engineer in Technical Services for a large power company
No you are a former tech, validator, powerpoint jockey, et al who held non-pro jobshop-type positions at various companies, few of which lasted for very long apparently.

These positions are often given the name 'engineer' although they dont require a PE. However, holding one doesnt make you an engineer and it certainly doesnt give you the right to call yourself one. Especially since by your own admission you have no engg schooling, no degree, no EIT-level experience, and no PE.

George claims to have been a Senior engr at PG&E. Research has shown that senior level positions there require a PE.

Engineers are bound by certain professional standards. Youre not because you lie through your teeth about what you know and how you know it.

This bullshit has been going on for months. And it will not stop because george the compulsive egomaniac cannot stop lying, and so I will not stop exposing his lies.

Apr 29, 2015
Willie, the deaths from radiation are not immediate and graphic
And now gkam thinks he is a professional physician.

"Symptoms of ARS may include nausea, vomiting, headache, and diarrhea.
These symptoms start within minutes to days after the exposure, can last for minutes up to several days... After the initial symptoms, a person usually looks and feels healthy for a period of time, after which he or she will become sick again with variable symptoms and severity that vary depending on the radiation dose that he or she received.
These symptoms include loss of appetite, fatigue, fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and possibly even seizures and coma... This seriously ill stage may last from a few hours up to several months..."

-Claiming bogus qualifications and then claiming you know bogus facts because of them, is especially egregious. Why do you do that george? Dont you know that the people here can see right through that sort of BULLSHIT?

Apr 29, 2015
Gotta go. It is good to have some direct experience in the technology at Fukushima, and its failings. Those without it can say what they wish, but their credibility is nil. They could not tell a PWR from PWM from an SRV.

I offered GE's own tome on the development of the BWR, but they could not understand it, even though it was in conversational English (with many acronyms). It is essentially the story of the chase for safety - how to keep those monsters from killing us.

Go read it.

Apr 29, 2015
the deaths from radiation are not immediate and graphic.The damages are long-term increases in cancers of all kinds.They are shortened lives, sickness, and costly illness.They are genetic damage from damaging rays and particles.They are the residue of our hubris and foolishness, continuing to maim and kill for hundreds of thousands of years long after we and our need for "cheap" power is gone.
And you do not consider yourself a fearmonger.
"Alarmist personality: The alarmist person is subject to the cognitive distortion of catastrophizing – of always expecting the worst of possible futures.
They may also be seeking to preserve feelings of omnipotence by generating anxiety and concern in others."
"...anti-nuclear activism is grounded on misconceptions, poor science, and even blatant disinformation, spread by well-meaning but ideologically blinkered activists. The problem for these activists is that the scientific consensus does not, by and large, agree with their views."

Apr 29, 2015
No, Willie, I told you I got my opinion from testing GE Mark I & II SRV systems, and a good thermo background, and knowledge of generation system types.

How did you get yours?

Apr 30, 2015
"I have worked in and around this field for decades"
"I am a former engineer in Technical Services for a large power company. Before that, I worked as a Research Engineer, and we tested for the NRC parts of the safety systems of ge Mark I and Mark II BWRs."
"GE Mark I & II SRV systems, and a good thermo background, and knowledge of generation system types"
An insider anti-nuclear activist; chances and ideological motivations.
You may have sabotaged several nuclear power stations. Nazi-environmentalists Greenpeace should be proud of you now.

Apr 30, 2015
Yeah, Willie, that is exactly the response I was expecting and hoping for.

Thanks.

Apr 30, 2015
Hey Willie.

Here's another one for all of us. Now the contaminated Chernobyl land, hundreds of square miles, is being burned and threatened by a fire which is spreading the deadly radiation into the air. Breathe deeply.

http://www.reuter...20150428

Apr 30, 2015
Here's another one for all of us. Now the contaminated Chernobyl land, hundreds of square miles, is being burned and threatened by a fire which is spreading the deadly radiation into the air. Breathe deeply.
http://www.reuter...20150428
Inexhaustible fearmongering news.
Like Godzilla in Fukushima, the Chernobyl's mutant giant earthworms are about to incinerate all of us with radioactive million-sieverts particles, that is the end of the world you should trust me now because fearmongers are always right.


Apr 30, 2015
48 Sieverts at Fukushima, Willie!

If you think that is scare-mongering, I suggest you go prove it.

Apr 30, 2015
You can prove that renewables, butchering millions of birds and using rare earth (radioactive) metals, in large-scale are environmentally safer than nuclear power per gigawatt generated.
"To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security."
"...America's nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel."
"the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America's electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the US."
http://canadafree...ve-waste

Apr 30, 2015
Who is killing more birds, is the oil industry falling behind?
"Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill"
http://dailycalle...l-spill/
http://www.eenews...60017406

Apr 30, 2015
You are looking at all wind turbines on Earth, but only one of the many oil spills, blowouts, and disasters.

Argue all you want. You are losing in the Real World, with real people, not just those driven by political prejudice.

Apr 30, 2015
In the Real World, with real people, there are almost no trustworthy-environmentalists to protect birds, bats, turtles and other endangered species from decimation caused by ecologically hypocrite means of energy generation.
"Endangered Blanding's turtles win court-ordered wind turbine reprieve"
http://www.timesc....1829124
http://greenlivin...gles.htm

Apr 30, 2015
Okay, Willie, but don't get caught using that-there Alternative Energy stuff.

Apr 30, 2015
No, Willie, I told you I got my opinion from testing GE Mark I & II SRV systems, and a good thermo background
And by testing we can conclude that you read dials and guages and filled out validation forms, which ANYONE can do as it is done by following instruction books. And you said you did this off-site yes?
It is good to have some direct experience in the technology at Fukushima
-And this is what you mean by 'direct experience'? No wonder you think that radiation cant kill quickly. It is a fact that you imagined you knew.

Remember how you also imagined that HIGH ENERGY alpha cant penetrate the skin? This is what happens in the minds of wannabes and pretenders.

Apr 30, 2015
Those ignorant of the dangers of nuclear power will forever be in awe of it.

Others of us know better.

Apr 30, 2015
Have any of you noticed the immense stacks at Fukushima? they look to be 200 meters high. Why? I thought nukes were clean, and did not have to get nasty stuff way up in the air before they got rid of it.

One of them has been contaminated, and if you stand near it for 20 minutes you will die from radiation poisoning as your immune system gives up and opportunistic and very nasty infections kill you.

Apr 30, 2015
More fearmongering news.
"Watch: Chernobyl Fox Makes and Eats Six-Layer Sandwich"
http://www.dailym...rew.html
Radioactive Chernobyl foxes are becoming ever smarter, they will rule the world soon.

Apr 30, 2015
Well, now that we know where you get your "science", we have an explanation for your ignorance of the environment.

May 01, 2015
Do we have someone, a doubter of my experience, perhaps, who wants to tell us why they have 600-foot tall stacks for a "clean" power source?

What do they release that is so terrible they need a stack that high?

May 01, 2015
The backup diesel generators will have smoke stacks. They release heat and diesel fumes.

I thought an engineer would know this.

May 01, 2015
Yes, . . you "thought". Those are not diesel generators. Look at the size of them.

If I find the real stacks for the generators for you, will you believe it?

May 01, 2015
Estevan, diesel stacks are short and fat. And they often have a 45-degree cut in the end of the stack. It is to keep the condensibles in vapor, so they do not condense out, creating nitric and sulfuric acids, corroding everything under it.

It is especially important in boilers, where it can eat out the tube sheet, for an exciting time. We used to keep exhaust from waste heat recovery above 300 degrees.

May 01, 2015
Do we have someone, a doubter of my experience, perhaps
Everybody who has been reading your posts for any length of time doubts your experience because it has led you to believe that...

HIGH ENERGY alpha cant penetrate skin

Fallout is the MAJOR cause of lung cancer (not even on the list)

Fukushima H2 explosions can cause Pu nuclear detonations which throw macroscopic vessel parts 130km without making a crater

There is plutonium or americium raining down on idaho

Swimming pools are commonly being used to cool houses

Only 1 scientist ever concluded that the next ice age is imminent

Thorium reactor research is being abandoned worldwide

That radiation sickness cannot be quickly fatal

That in his professional opinion floating concentrated power stations cannot be installed on reservoirs even though he 'evaluated' such a system 25 years ago

Etcetcetc

-That your 'experience' is worthless is not a very hard conclusion to reach, now is it george?

May 01, 2015
The stacks also serve as a release point for "low level waste gases" as part of the containment system. They are tall to avoid low level atmospheric inversion which would concentrate the emissions on populated areas.

Same principle as in Hanford where they were used to release radionuclides particularly iodine-131 on the populace. Not plutonium.

I could give you many examples and pictures of tall diesel generator stacks but you need the exercise in looking things up. Not all things are as they exist in your mind.

I thought an engineer would know this. I don't give a damn about the stacks, but you asked.


May 01, 2015
Oh, please show me the really tall ones!!

May 02, 2015
Japan eyes nuclear for a fifth of electricity supply


That's a good start.

I have long advocated the US build 100 1000 megawatt fission plants to replace the aging coal and petroleum fired generators.

May 02, 2015
"I have long advocated the US build 100 1000 megawatt fission plants to replace the aging coal and petroleum fired generators."
-----------------------------------------

Look into Vogtle. They can't even build two right.

And who would listen to somebody hiding behind the pseudonym "shootist"?

May 02, 2015
Newest, Safest Reactor licensed. Finally, people are becoming aware that nuclear power is far more ecologically friendly per gigawatt generated than 'renewables' even taking into account Fukushima and Chernobyl incidents.

"Michigan utility first to receive license for GE Hitachi's newest reactor"
www.starnewsonlin...50439976

May 02, 2015
"DTE "currently has no plans" to build the Fermi 3 reactor, spokesman Guy Cerullo said. "
-----------------------------------------

Oh, . . . .

Ask them what happened to Fermi I.

May 02, 2015
Actually, shootist, we do not have the money to spring for such expensive and plagued monsters. Look at how much they cost. Look at the trouble in the metallurgy of the European designs being built. And they are all experimental, since every single one is different, unique.

We have no way to store the waste. Look into what is happening in WIPP. Those are only contaminated gloves and things like that, and they cannot store them.

Too many dangers, too much cost, no grownup supervision.


May 03, 2015
Appears to be Wise Willie who walks on water and talks to God vs G(erK)he)AM who seems to have a severe case of halitosis of the brain brought on by too much idolizing bad propaganda. Calls to mind Armenia shortly after the fall of the Soviets in '89-'91. They HAD to restart their SovBloc designed system or its people would have starved and/or (whichever came first) frozen to death in the dark if they had not. NO one in the world was going to help them, least of all the G(erK)AM's in the world who only snigger at success and sell old snake oil 'waste' propaganda in the same old bottles of groundless fear mongering as was done decades ago. So they started their old Soviet reactors and guess what, they survived and thrived; and NONE of them glow in the dark. We make lots of laws, every nation has somewhere to put this 'waste'. Just as every nation has or can have laws dealing with common barrators, luddites, and those who would shout 'fire' in crowded theaters! Go for it Ab

May 03, 2015
Osiris wants the nookular wayste.

Send him to Fukushima.

May 03, 2015
Does this look like a good nation for nuclear powerplants?

http://www.jma.go...volcano/

May 03, 2015
Does this look like a good nation for nuclear powerplants?
http://www.jma.go...volcano/
What about severe cyclones on wind farms in Japan?
http://i.imgur.com/mZs6Wqb.gif
http://www.youtub...uFvjtM0s
"Wind turbine blades fly off in storm"
http://www.dailym...ces.html

"The Most Powerful Storm on Earth This Year Is Heading for Japan"
http://mashable.c...g-japan/
http://en.wikiped...n_season
Imagine Japan's wind farms in severe hurricanes/tornadoes, blades flying off and slaughtering human beings and animals around, far much more fatalities than Fukushima tsunami.


May 03, 2015
Tell that to the former citizens of Pripyat.

May 04, 2015
Osiris wants the nookular wayste.

Send him to Fukushima.
More t shirt wisdom. I think this one would really sell. Along with a pic of dubya. Right gkam?

May 04, 2015
I wonder if otto is aware of Pripyat. It is another reminder of the dangers of nuclear technology, wherein we are all apprentices, not sorcerers. We can see it is not over in Pripyat, nor will it ever be, since the deadly radiation will be there long after Humans are gone, as a sign of our stupidity and arrogance and hubris.

At Fukushima, with the type pf power system I tested, the damage is worse, because the government, unlike the Rooskies, is lying still. Politicians and those not familiar with the technologies are patsies for the clever and well-funded Nukers. They believe every promise, such as too cheap to meter.

May 04, 2015
..It is another reminder of the dangers of nuclear technology, ..., since the deadly radiation will be there long after Humans are gone...
At Fukushima, with the type pf power system I tested, the damage is worse, because the government, ...
Fearmongers are schizophrenic creatures they believe in imaginary menaces produced from their minds, also they believe they are genius and expert in everything and have worked in all kinds of stuffs.
Don't matter what a fearmonger says. It is impossible to debunk statistics: "From a safety stand point, nuclear power, in terms of lives lost per unit of electricity delivered, is comparable to and in some cases, lower than many renewable-energy sources." And you can put into account Chernoby and Fukushima.


May 04, 2015
But radiation keeps on killing, . . for hundreds of thousands of years. It takes Plutonium 240,000 years for ten half-lives. Are YOU going to guarantee is is not messed with in 240,000 years?

May 04, 2015
Plutonium is bred from naturally-occurring uranium-238. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years; then what about blaming the nature for relative abundance of uranium, thorium, radium, potassium-40, carbon-14 and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes.

May 04, 2015
Because we are MAKING it, with every process in the reactor. It will KILL you. First with chemical toxicity, and with deadly radiation.

You are unaware of the nature of nuclear disintegrations, emissions, and radioactive isotopes. Look up the problem with nuclear waste.

May 04, 2015
It will KILL you. First with chemical toxicity, and with deadly radiation.
And you still do not consider yourself a scaremonger.

Oh! I'm so scared, worldwide mankind are dying due to Fukushima, based on beliefs of some alarmists.


May 04, 2015
Willie, breathe some.

May 04, 2015
Actually, Willlie, I do not want you to breathe some. It will kill you. Do not do it.

In fact, join the rest of us to clean up our power sources.

May 04, 2015
In fact, join the rest of us to clean up our power sources.
Renewable energy is not nearly as clean and good for the environment as the "environmentalists Talibans" want you to believe. From million bird deaths to rare earth (radioactive) materials, renewables poses serious environmental risks that the lobbyists would prefer you never know about, to make it easier for them when arguing for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports.
"Radical environmentalists are religious fanatics, convinced that their beliefs can save the world and arrogantly dismissive of all other considerations."
http://www.corvet...red.html
http://www.dailym...unt.html

May 04, 2015
At Fukushima, with the type pf power system I tested
Tested - as in followed an instruction booklet, read some dials, filled out some validation forms, all without stepping foot inside a nuclear facility. Correct? How does this make you knowledgeable about anything?

Believing that it does only diminishes your credibility even more. Dont you realize that?
It will KILL you. First with chemical toxicity, and with deadly radiation
No more so than any heavy metal or alpha emitter. But good thing most everybody will never be exposed to it, let alone breathe it. No matter what your nipponese/romanian hypochondriac wants you to believe.

And how come you werent aware that sufficient radiation (including HIGH ENERGY alpha) can be fatal within minutes?

How did you ever miss that, george???

May 04, 2015
Those of you who like that-there nookular power can get great pay right now at Fukushima. Not only that, you might talk them into letting you have seaside property. All free.

otto likes it, not having any education or experience with it. He can go there and get rich!!

And he can prove me wrong, at the same time.

Go otto, go!

May 04, 2015
And he can prove me wrong, at the same time
I can sit right here and prove you wrong. Its easy. Because you are an aging egomaniac with a grossly distended opinion of yourself.

You were a teller who thought he could run the bank if he only had the chance. Didnt losing all those jobs give you any indication at all that youre more than a little fucked up?

Oh thats right - none of that was YOUR fault was it?

May 04, 2015
Unable to debate the issue, poor otto, a pseudonym for a "game" player, rises up to personal attacks from the gutter.

The discussion is the nuclear future for Japan. I am not a nuclear engineer, but am personally familiar with nuclear power in sufficient ways to make a professional; judgment. Those of you with no background whatever can take some other position.

What does Wiki say???

May 07, 2015
"The other area where renewable energy needs a firmer critique is on its poor record at abating overall carbon emissions. We have seen that the use of coal for power generation has risen again in Germany and the United Kingdom and the rise of intermittent renewables explains much of this. The premature closure of eight German nuclear stations was another important factor - but renewable energy curbs far fewer overall carbon emissions than is often claimed."
http://www.neimag...4570482/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more