I was studying environment when I was in university. In my opinion, the fundamental question of environment issue is energy. After comparing a lot of energy sources, I started thinking nuclear energy maybe a good solution for it.
As a major user of nuclear energy, I would like to ask your opinion about it.
In Japan, since nuclear industry start of commercial operation at 1970, now it has already became a major energy source for the country. It provides 10% primary energy supply and 30% of the total electric power supply. In addition, compare to other energy sources, nuclear energy has a very low cost, doesn’t emit green house gas, and provides energy stably.
Another fact is that, Japan lacks significant domestic sources of fossil energy, the country’s dependence on imports primary energy stood at more than 84%. Therefore the nuclear energy could increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.
Meanwhile, it has a potentially risk. Even, the technology has been developed high enough to prevent the possibility of accident down to a very low level, it is impossible to preclude it. And any accident could be fatal. Besides, we still have to consider the issue about proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Please note that, in my assertion nuclear energy is not an ultimate energy source for our society, because it’s an unrenewable resource. However for above reason, it will be a critical energy source in the near future.
How do you think should Japan promote nuclear energy more or not?
Sorry for the poor English, and appreciated if you could share your opinion about it.
As a major user of nuclear energy, I would like to ask your opinion about it.
In Japan, since nuclear industry start of commercial operation at 1970, now it has already became a major energy source for the country. It provides 10% primary energy supply and 30% of the total electric power supply. In addition, compare to other energy sources, nuclear energy has a very low cost, doesn’t emit green house gas, and provides energy stably.
Another fact is that, Japan lacks significant domestic sources of fossil energy, the country’s dependence on imports primary energy stood at more than 84%. Therefore the nuclear energy could increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil.
Meanwhile, it has a potentially risk. Even, the technology has been developed high enough to prevent the possibility of accident down to a very low level, it is impossible to preclude it. And any accident could be fatal. Besides, we still have to consider the issue about proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Please note that, in my assertion nuclear energy is not an ultimate energy source for our society, because it’s an unrenewable resource. However for above reason, it will be a critical energy source in the near future.
How do you think should Japan promote nuclear energy more or not?
Sorry for the poor English, and appreciated if you could share your opinion about it.
|
|
|
|
コメント(38)
Interesting question; do you mean that Japan should build more reactors, or promote its nuclear energy technology abroad?
Generally speaking, my (lay) opinion is that, while nuclear energy isn’t necessarily the best way to obtain energy, it certainly seems like a great way of obtaining a high yield of energy from a relatively small source. This source of energy is indeed relatively clean. However, due to this concentrated nature, if an accident does happen, it’s not going to be pretty. And we’ve still the task of dealing with the deadly radioactive waste- -the modern answer seems to be to bury it underground and wait for it to slowly decay.
Now, fortunately, it seems that most modern plants are run and monitored rather strictly, and the backup plans have backup plans, and there are a lot of pretty bright minds that have spent countless hours in thinking about what to do if the “impossible” happens. That said, I think that before we try and sprout nuclear plants all over the place, we need to make a larger effort into figuring out what to do with the waste generated; we should also consider novel ways of conserving the energy we are producing already rather than generating more.
Generally speaking, my (lay) opinion is that, while nuclear energy isn’t necessarily the best way to obtain energy, it certainly seems like a great way of obtaining a high yield of energy from a relatively small source. This source of energy is indeed relatively clean. However, due to this concentrated nature, if an accident does happen, it’s not going to be pretty. And we’ve still the task of dealing with the deadly radioactive waste- -the modern answer seems to be to bury it underground and wait for it to slowly decay.
Now, fortunately, it seems that most modern plants are run and monitored rather strictly, and the backup plans have backup plans, and there are a lot of pretty bright minds that have spent countless hours in thinking about what to do if the “impossible” happens. That said, I think that before we try and sprout nuclear plants all over the place, we need to make a larger effort into figuring out what to do with the waste generated; we should also consider novel ways of conserving the energy we are producing already rather than generating more.
It seems very simple to me.
People, not only the Japanese, need to see nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are separate things.
This is a same argument: "if cars are safe or dangerous since they can
kill".
The important thing is that people MUST understand the danger of it and
how they utilise it.
People, not only the Japanese, need to see nuclear weapons and nuclear energy are separate things.
This is a same argument: "if cars are safe or dangerous since they can
kill".
The important thing is that people MUST understand the danger of it and
how they utilise it.
Maybe instead of promoting or creating more nuclear reactors in Japan, the Japanese should develop a technology that can quickly eliminate nuclear waste. Like a nuclear waste "garbage disposal."
What is to become of all those spent fuel rods? Japan is a relatively small country, so you can't just bury them.
What is to become of all those spent fuel rods? Japan is a relatively small country, so you can't just bury them.
Excellent point. Besides, in order to make nuclear weapons, you need much more than just a nuclear reactor...there’s a whole infrastructure that has to be made as well. Japan has the technology and capital needed to make a nuke in a relatively short amount of time, without US aid, a point Koizumi had touched on. Terrorists or others could also hypothetically steal nuclear material and use it for their own plans, to make, say, a dirty bomb.
But those are kinda off-topic. The point here is nuclear energy: go or no-go? A nuclear plant is relatively clean. And let’s assume they’re relatively safe. However, let’s not forget that in order to make a plant, we end up using an incredible amount of energy and raw material, much of which is currently not supplied through “green” efforts, if that’s where we’re headed. But the same can be said for solar, hey: from what I’ve heard, the cost to produce solar options is still relatively high compared to the energy produced, and the energy used to maintain a solar array. Same with wind. Nuclear, however, seems to yield much more energy than it takes to build and maintain the plant during its lifetime.
But, yeah: what do we do with decommissioned plants? What do we do with radioactive material? Japan’s current path is to nurture pluthermal (MOX) technology as a way of recycling certain portions of radioactive waste; this course of action is fairly experimental and has been met with large public outcry over safety concerns (cf. the Monju reactor ordeal).
Personally I believe that we have to figure out why we need more nuclear plants in the first place. Building more reactors or wind turbines so that we can have more energy fails to address the root cause of energy inefficiency and energy waste. Making a concerted effort, however, to switch over from coal- or oil-fired power plants in favor of something more high-yield, however, might be something I could get behind. In either case, we still have to deal with the notion of a) where does the fission material come from, b) how to deal with radioactive waste, c) what to with the land/buildings/fixtures/etc. after decommissioning the plant. Among heaps of other concerns.
But those are kinda off-topic. The point here is nuclear energy: go or no-go? A nuclear plant is relatively clean. And let’s assume they’re relatively safe. However, let’s not forget that in order to make a plant, we end up using an incredible amount of energy and raw material, much of which is currently not supplied through “green” efforts, if that’s where we’re headed. But the same can be said for solar, hey: from what I’ve heard, the cost to produce solar options is still relatively high compared to the energy produced, and the energy used to maintain a solar array. Same with wind. Nuclear, however, seems to yield much more energy than it takes to build and maintain the plant during its lifetime.
But, yeah: what do we do with decommissioned plants? What do we do with radioactive material? Japan’s current path is to nurture pluthermal (MOX) technology as a way of recycling certain portions of radioactive waste; this course of action is fairly experimental and has been met with large public outcry over safety concerns (cf. the Monju reactor ordeal).
Personally I believe that we have to figure out why we need more nuclear plants in the first place. Building more reactors or wind turbines so that we can have more energy fails to address the root cause of energy inefficiency and energy waste. Making a concerted effort, however, to switch over from coal- or oil-fired power plants in favor of something more high-yield, however, might be something I could get behind. In either case, we still have to deal with the notion of a) where does the fission material come from, b) how to deal with radioactive waste, c) what to with the land/buildings/fixtures/etc. after decommissioning the plant. Among heaps of other concerns.
6>
Well, isn’t that essentially what’s being done at the moment, under the Basel Convention? Still, we aren’t effectively dealing with radioactive waste by burying it off in Siberia and forgetting about it, thinking hey, it’s Russia’s problem now, init. Waste disposal is a huge industry, sure. But wouldn’t be a far more effective use of time and resources to have a rough idea of what to do with end products before we make them?
Incidentally, a fascinating paper on just the topic of labeling waste disposal sites, so that people 300 generations in the future know not to go near them, is available at http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/wipp/card43.pdf for interested eyes.
Well, isn’t that essentially what’s being done at the moment, under the Basel Convention? Still, we aren’t effectively dealing with radioactive waste by burying it off in Siberia and forgetting about it, thinking hey, it’s Russia’s problem now, init. Waste disposal is a huge industry, sure. But wouldn’t be a far more effective use of time and resources to have a rough idea of what to do with end products before we make them?
Incidentally, a fascinating paper on just the topic of labeling waste disposal sites, so that people 300 generations in the future know not to go near them, is available at http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/wipp/card43.pdf for interested eyes.
I'm neither here nor there on the subject but I would say that nuclear
energy doesn't guarantee Japan a secure energy future. Japan would
need to source the uranium probably from Australia but Australia is
loathe to accept nuclear waste so at the end of the productive life of
the uranium Japan will have an extremely dangerous waste product
which will need to be safely stored for many 100s if not 1000s of years.
I think this could potentially be complicated by Japan being prone to
earthquakes, in fact recent reports suggest that Japan is long overdue
for an earthquake with the destructive power of the Kobe earthquake.
I don't really know if it would work but I wonder about using the heat
produced by the earth to heat water and then drive turbines with the
produced steam. Or even using tidal flow to turn small underwater
turbines which could be fixed off the coast. But I'm not really sure,
that could just be pie in the sky.
energy doesn't guarantee Japan a secure energy future. Japan would
need to source the uranium probably from Australia but Australia is
loathe to accept nuclear waste so at the end of the productive life of
the uranium Japan will have an extremely dangerous waste product
which will need to be safely stored for many 100s if not 1000s of years.
I think this could potentially be complicated by Japan being prone to
earthquakes, in fact recent reports suggest that Japan is long overdue
for an earthquake with the destructive power of the Kobe earthquake.
I don't really know if it would work but I wonder about using the heat
produced by the earth to heat water and then drive turbines with the
produced steam. Or even using tidal flow to turn small underwater
turbines which could be fixed off the coast. But I'm not really sure,
that could just be pie in the sky.
>9
I think earthquake wouldn’t be a big problem for burying the waste. Since the expert of NUMO has claimed that, if any local place wants to be the volunteer, it will spend one thousand million Yen to do the safety assessment. Indeed, the earthquake factor is contained. If the report didn’t show the place is completely save for the local people under various situation, nobody would allow the project.
I think earthquake wouldn’t be a big problem for burying the waste. Since the expert of NUMO has claimed that, if any local place wants to be the volunteer, it will spend one thousand million Yen to do the safety assessment. Indeed, the earthquake factor is contained. If the report didn’t show the place is completely save for the local people under various situation, nobody would allow the project.
9>
Yeah--you can bet that any country that's looking for making nuclear plants is gonna be dining the Rudd silly.
10>
<blink> Um....... actually, I'd be interested in knowing what such a safety assessment involves. Know of any web links? Also, how about the long-term plans to mark the disposal site, etc.? The link I posted above provides a brilliant amount of insight into the intricate planning involved just on that issue alone, for the WIPP (http://www.wipp.energy.gov/) in the States.
Yeah--you can bet that any country that's looking for making nuclear plants is gonna be dining the Rudd silly.
10>
<blink> Um....... actually, I'd be interested in knowing what such a safety assessment involves. Know of any web links? Also, how about the long-term plans to mark the disposal site, etc.? The link I posted above provides a brilliant amount of insight into the intricate planning involved just on that issue alone, for the WIPP (http://www.wipp.energy.gov/) in the States.
Nuclear power generation is, to tell the truth, possible only after huge
consumption of oil or coal or other energy, since it requires enormous
electric power to enrich uranium or for the control of nuclear waste
after the generation itself.
This issue, called energy analysis, is an essential ponit to argue on
the question whether we should continue this technology, since it is
meaningless if we should enormous energy to produce energy.
Particularly, how much electric power will be necessary to control
nuclear waste is uncertain. I am quite doubtful whether so-called
nuclear power generation will really save oil or coal in the long range.
For this reason and risk of nuclear disaster and contamination by the
nuclear waste, I am against nuclear power gnenaration.
It goes without saying so-called global warming story remains only one
of possible hypotheses and I do not think nuclear power generation is
needed from this mythical view point at all.
consumption of oil or coal or other energy, since it requires enormous
electric power to enrich uranium or for the control of nuclear waste
after the generation itself.
This issue, called energy analysis, is an essential ponit to argue on
the question whether we should continue this technology, since it is
meaningless if we should enormous energy to produce energy.
Particularly, how much electric power will be necessary to control
nuclear waste is uncertain. I am quite doubtful whether so-called
nuclear power generation will really save oil or coal in the long range.
For this reason and risk of nuclear disaster and contamination by the
nuclear waste, I am against nuclear power gnenaration.
It goes without saying so-called global warming story remains only one
of possible hypotheses and I do not think nuclear power generation is
needed from this mythical view point at all.
5>
It has enough reason for us to compare and discuss solar and nuclear energy.
In my opinion, these two energy sources are in extremely opposite site.
Solar energy:
a. It is clean during production of electricity process.
b. It has almost the highest cost compare to other energy sources. (since the construction of facility is really expensive)
c. It can only generate electricity during daytime and depends on weather. Therefore, it is OK for single home, but it is not appropriate for industry or downtown energy supply.
d. Renewable energy
Nuclear energy:
a. Risky
b. Nonrenewable energy
c. It is almost the cheapest energy sources. Somebody mentioned that it will be cost a lot of money when deal with the waste. Actually, these kinds of money have already be considered before the country build a reactor. And in Japan, the electrical bill contains the money which is for deposal waste and demolishing reactor. So you had already paid for that. After all, the nuclear energy is still the cheapest one.
d. The natural uranium’s cost only account 30% of the whole cost, which also the lowest level compare to other nonrenewable energy sources. Which means it increases energy security, since the natural uranium price’s fluctuation won’t have a big influence on it.
For above comparing, just as I said before, Nuclear energy won’t be an ultimate energy source, but it will be a critical energy source in near future. Solar energy might be human’s ultimate energy source, but now it still has a lot of part which need to improve.
It has enough reason for us to compare and discuss solar and nuclear energy.
In my opinion, these two energy sources are in extremely opposite site.
Solar energy:
a. It is clean during production of electricity process.
b. It has almost the highest cost compare to other energy sources. (since the construction of facility is really expensive)
c. It can only generate electricity during daytime and depends on weather. Therefore, it is OK for single home, but it is not appropriate for industry or downtown energy supply.
d. Renewable energy
Nuclear energy:
a. Risky
b. Nonrenewable energy
c. It is almost the cheapest energy sources. Somebody mentioned that it will be cost a lot of money when deal with the waste. Actually, these kinds of money have already be considered before the country build a reactor. And in Japan, the electrical bill contains the money which is for deposal waste and demolishing reactor. So you had already paid for that. After all, the nuclear energy is still the cheapest one.
d. The natural uranium’s cost only account 30% of the whole cost, which also the lowest level compare to other nonrenewable energy sources. Which means it increases energy security, since the natural uranium price’s fluctuation won’t have a big influence on it.
For above comparing, just as I said before, Nuclear energy won’t be an ultimate energy source, but it will be a critical energy source in near future. Solar energy might be human’s ultimate energy source, but now it still has a lot of part which need to improve.
10: >>
I'm not entirely convinced. I think the waste issue is quite a serious
one. Even the United States has found the containers in which waste
has been stored have corroded over a 30 year period causing some
leakage. If that can happen after 30 years, who can know what will
happen after 100 years.
I would also suggest that while safety standards might be very high
at the moment with the cost of storage included at the beginning,
as waste increases there will be pressure to relax those standards.
I really don't know how long nuclear waste needs to be safely stored
for but you sometimes hear people say 10,000 years. I'm not an
expert so I'll use a conservative number of 100 years. By historical
standards that would be 50 prime ministers in Japan....and it only
takes one who is beholding to the nuclear power industry and safety
standards will be chipped away.
I'm not entirely convinced. I think the waste issue is quite a serious
one. Even the United States has found the containers in which waste
has been stored have corroded over a 30 year period causing some
leakage. If that can happen after 30 years, who can know what will
happen after 100 years.
I would also suggest that while safety standards might be very high
at the moment with the cost of storage included at the beginning,
as waste increases there will be pressure to relax those standards.
I really don't know how long nuclear waste needs to be safely stored
for but you sometimes hear people say 10,000 years. I'm not an
expert so I'll use a conservative number of 100 years. By historical
standards that would be 50 prime ministers in Japan....and it only
takes one who is beholding to the nuclear power industry and safety
standards will be chipped away.
13>
Thanks!
I don't like how costs are simply passed on to the consumer when the consumer seems to have little say in the process.
As for the methodology used - - I'm still looking through the site and the available PDFs. Gotta say, looks nice on screen. But a lot of other things looked nice on screen and on paper--until they found out they were wrong an an assumption, or something similar. (Case in point: the unexpected, "Oh, we have a fault line next to the nuclear plant" not so long ago. How'd they find this fault line? After an earthquake there.)
Thanks!
I don't like how costs are simply passed on to the consumer when the consumer seems to have little say in the process.
As for the methodology used - - I'm still looking through the site and the available PDFs. Gotta say, looks nice on screen. But a lot of other things looked nice on screen and on paper--until they found out they were wrong an an assumption, or something similar. (Case in point: the unexpected, "Oh, we have a fault line next to the nuclear plant" not so long ago. How'd they find this fault line? After an earthquake there.)
13>
Hmm ... just had a read through, and a lot of what's explained in English, honestly, sounds like too much of a cursory overview of things. I know that Japanese hate disclosing specifics, but, seriously...specifics are what helps breed confidence among the public, hey?
And man, poor Tohoku! Always getting slammed with the nuclear.
Hmm ... just had a read through, and a lot of what's explained in English, honestly, sounds like too much of a cursory overview of things. I know that Japanese hate disclosing specifics, but, seriously...specifics are what helps breed confidence among the public, hey?
And man, poor Tohoku! Always getting slammed with the nuclear.
>21
Actually the majority of public doesn’t have the interest about the specifics. You can image when a salaried employee finished his whole day work went back home, do they really have the motivation to read the detailed official paper. So I think maybe to communicate with the public in a simple way is a better choice.
Also, NUMO had held a lot of communication conference for local people in lots of place. I didn’t participate a one, but I believe the local people will get very specific information from there. Still, if they spend time to join one.
Actually the majority of public doesn’t have the interest about the specifics. You can image when a salaried employee finished his whole day work went back home, do they really have the motivation to read the detailed official paper. So I think maybe to communicate with the public in a simple way is a better choice.
Also, NUMO had held a lot of communication conference for local people in lots of place. I didn’t participate a one, but I believe the local people will get very specific information from there. Still, if they spend time to join one.
>22
Well, see...that’s part of my concern about Japanese: decisions are made behind closed doors far too often, and people seem hardly ever ask the hard questions. Granted, I’m sure people in Tokai (where many of the proposed waste disposal/reactor sites are located) are far more active and alert than other people and are far more savvy to protest along NIMBY lines. The general disinterest of Japanese toward government and government’s actions really concerns me; I wholeheartedly believe that community voices are not only a way of making sure that government is doing its job, but of raising perspectives, ideas, and potential ramifications that government officials and experts haven’t really considered, thereby improving the overall quality of the end decision.
Well, see...that’s part of my concern about Japanese: decisions are made behind closed doors far too often, and people seem hardly ever ask the hard questions. Granted, I’m sure people in Tokai (where many of the proposed waste disposal/reactor sites are located) are far more active and alert than other people and are far more savvy to protest along NIMBY lines. The general disinterest of Japanese toward government and government’s actions really concerns me; I wholeheartedly believe that community voices are not only a way of making sure that government is doing its job, but of raising perspectives, ideas, and potential ramifications that government officials and experts haven’t really considered, thereby improving the overall quality of the end decision.
>24 I'm not sure I understand the joke about eggs.. but it was an amusing video clip anyways.
The segment "Mount Fuji in red" from the Kurosawa movie "Dreams" was introspective and not meant as disrespect to this serious subject. Although, the moral of the story is to not let life imitate art in this case.
The segment "Mount Fuji in red" from the Kurosawa movie "Dreams" was introspective and not meant as disrespect to this serious subject. Although, the moral of the story is to not let life imitate art in this case.
In order to promote the peacefule use of nuclear energy and prevent the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, the IAEA has concluded a safeguards agreement with Member States and has made safeguards in place.
Japan has accepted IAEA safeguards under the comprehensive safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocal, and has been working to ensure the transparency of nuclear activities including the use of plutonium.
The IAEA Board meeting in June 2004 made a conclusion on Japan that there was no sign of diversion of safeguarded nuclear material and no sign of undeclared nuclear material and activities. In September 2004, integrated safeguards; which can make improvements in the efficiency of safeguards, such as reduction in the frequency of inspections, were implemented in Japan as the first country with large-scale nuclear activities. Since then, Japan has received the same conclusion every year.
Therefore, I think it won’t have any proliferation problem in Japan.
Japan has accepted IAEA safeguards under the comprehensive safeguards agreement and the Additional Protocal, and has been working to ensure the transparency of nuclear activities including the use of plutonium.
The IAEA Board meeting in June 2004 made a conclusion on Japan that there was no sign of diversion of safeguarded nuclear material and no sign of undeclared nuclear material and activities. In September 2004, integrated safeguards; which can make improvements in the efficiency of safeguards, such as reduction in the frequency of inspections, were implemented in Japan as the first country with large-scale nuclear activities. Since then, Japan has received the same conclusion every year.
Therefore, I think it won’t have any proliferation problem in Japan.
Now, Japanese government tries to strengthen clean energy. These are sustainable and eternal energy. Although I dont know the detail, it is said that Japan would be able to produce the amount of electricity up to 30-40% of the total in the future, as well as the development of energy conservation technology.
The problem of nuclear energy is that it possibly explodes and seriously dameges people and environment. The key point is which is more important, the risk of radioactive leak or the reduction of greenhouse gases. So far, it is difficult to decide it, and we have to estimate it more.
It is hard for some countries to produce enough electricity by clean energy, because it is expensive and not powerful. In other words, the cost performance of it is not so good. Nuclear energy is very useful for these counries which demand a lot of erectricity at affordable price.
In my opinon, however, Japan should enhance not the development of nuclear energy, but that of clean energy. Unless Japan faces the difficulty in money or budged, it should develop clean energy wichi is safe, sustaible. and eco-friendly.
The problem of nuclear energy is that it possibly explodes and seriously dameges people and environment. The key point is which is more important, the risk of radioactive leak or the reduction of greenhouse gases. So far, it is difficult to decide it, and we have to estimate it more.
It is hard for some countries to produce enough electricity by clean energy, because it is expensive and not powerful. In other words, the cost performance of it is not so good. Nuclear energy is very useful for these counries which demand a lot of erectricity at affordable price.
In my opinon, however, Japan should enhance not the development of nuclear energy, but that of clean energy. Unless Japan faces the difficulty in money or budged, it should develop clean energy wichi is safe, sustaible. and eco-friendly.
26>>
Well, I think the clip speaks in large part for itself - - and as the first, only, and hopefully last nation to experience the awesome horror of atomic weapons, I sympathize with Japan's concern about the rectalgia associated with things nuclear.
I’m no nuclear physicist, but it seems that reactors themselves won’t spontaneously explode like something out of Dr. Strangelove--or, for that matter, explode at all. And while the China Syndrome is a sexy idea, with the all the safeguards of modern reactors, it’s a sexy idea that’ll remain just that: fiction.
What can be a major headache, however, is if there is a case where a SCRAM is ordered and fails, and/or something goes awry, like the core somehow gets exposed and copious water gets poured on it and the resulting steam builds and builds and the pressure containment housing reaches failure, and all the steam goes rushing out in a great invisible cloud of radioactive death. Yet, in the wake of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, we have a pretty good understanding of how things can err, and how to build a better design, and how to deal with so very many kinds of potential scenarios. Short of someone crashing a plane into or shooting a missile at a nuclear plant, or someone having a really crappy life and deciding to say, hey, screw everyone, let’s melt this mother down (and I’m sure there are contingencies in place even for these most unlikely scenarios), the actual generation of nuclear energy and the plants themselves are quite safe in my eyes.
The waste, is not.
>>Therefore, I think it won’t have any proliferation problem in Japan.
Well . . . honestly, I truly truly wonder about that; if N. Korea decided to launch a missile at Tokyo, I rather doubt that Japan is going to stand by and wait for the Americans to protect them. The Japanese would most likely say, we ain’t waiting for these Yanks; we are retaliating tout suite, using everything at our disposal. And if America decides to change its policy, withdrawing the majority of its presence in Japan, I think Japan would face a rather large question as to whether to rely solely on conventional armament.
Well, I think the clip speaks in large part for itself - - and as the first, only, and hopefully last nation to experience the awesome horror of atomic weapons, I sympathize with Japan's concern about the rectalgia associated with things nuclear.
I’m no nuclear physicist, but it seems that reactors themselves won’t spontaneously explode like something out of Dr. Strangelove--or, for that matter, explode at all. And while the China Syndrome is a sexy idea, with the all the safeguards of modern reactors, it’s a sexy idea that’ll remain just that: fiction.
What can be a major headache, however, is if there is a case where a SCRAM is ordered and fails, and/or something goes awry, like the core somehow gets exposed and copious water gets poured on it and the resulting steam builds and builds and the pressure containment housing reaches failure, and all the steam goes rushing out in a great invisible cloud of radioactive death. Yet, in the wake of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, we have a pretty good understanding of how things can err, and how to build a better design, and how to deal with so very many kinds of potential scenarios. Short of someone crashing a plane into or shooting a missile at a nuclear plant, or someone having a really crappy life and deciding to say, hey, screw everyone, let’s melt this mother down (and I’m sure there are contingencies in place even for these most unlikely scenarios), the actual generation of nuclear energy and the plants themselves are quite safe in my eyes.
The waste, is not.
>>Therefore, I think it won’t have any proliferation problem in Japan.
Well . . . honestly, I truly truly wonder about that; if N. Korea decided to launch a missile at Tokyo, I rather doubt that Japan is going to stand by and wait for the Americans to protect them. The Japanese would most likely say, we ain’t waiting for these Yanks; we are retaliating tout suite, using everything at our disposal. And if America decides to change its policy, withdrawing the majority of its presence in Japan, I think Japan would face a rather large question as to whether to rely solely on conventional armament.
>31
Solar energy is a renewable energy source, and almost clean during production of electricity process. However it has almost the highest cost compare to other energy sources. In addition, it can only generate electricity during daytime and depends on weather. In view of these, it is OK for single home, but it is not appropriate for industry or downtown energy supply.
One TEPCO official had said that, it is not that simple just change the fossil energy to solar energy by building more solar panel. Since the solar energy system has totaly differenet output power of the present system. You have to also change the whole electricity supply system too. That won't be a easy thing.
Solar energy might be human’s ultimate energy source, but now it still has a lot of things which need to improve.
Solar energy is a renewable energy source, and almost clean during production of electricity process. However it has almost the highest cost compare to other energy sources. In addition, it can only generate electricity during daytime and depends on weather. In view of these, it is OK for single home, but it is not appropriate for industry or downtown energy supply.
One TEPCO official had said that, it is not that simple just change the fossil energy to solar energy by building more solar panel. Since the solar energy system has totaly differenet output power of the present system. You have to also change the whole electricity supply system too. That won't be a easy thing.
Solar energy might be human’s ultimate energy source, but now it still has a lot of things which need to improve.
>>33
The supply of clean energy such as wind and solar power is unstable, but this problem can be improved by the diversity of clean energy and the diffusion of its area.
The diversity of it is that we can use wind, solar, geothermal heat, tidal, and biomass. If Japan develops them all together, it can be much more stable. For example, when it is cloudy, it is difficult to produce electricity by solar power. Other clean energy , however, can compensate for the loss. Thus, it is the form that some of them always make up for the others, and overall, the total amount of them stably come near a constant value. Or at least, it has a minimum value. Based on this minimum value, we can stably produce electricity for industry. In addition, we can also forecast weather condition、and then adjust the amount of energy in advance.
Next, the diffusion of its area is that a certain kind of clean energy is distributed over a large area. For example, when wind blows weakly in X area, and well in Y area, the wind power in Y area can compensate for the loss in X area. Thus, the total amount of them in the large area stably come near a constant value. Or at least, it has a minimum value.
For these reasons, the problem of clean energy can be improved by these ways.
The supply of clean energy such as wind and solar power is unstable, but this problem can be improved by the diversity of clean energy and the diffusion of its area.
The diversity of it is that we can use wind, solar, geothermal heat, tidal, and biomass. If Japan develops them all together, it can be much more stable. For example, when it is cloudy, it is difficult to produce electricity by solar power. Other clean energy , however, can compensate for the loss. Thus, it is the form that some of them always make up for the others, and overall, the total amount of them stably come near a constant value. Or at least, it has a minimum value. Based on this minimum value, we can stably produce electricity for industry. In addition, we can also forecast weather condition、and then adjust the amount of energy in advance.
Next, the diffusion of its area is that a certain kind of clean energy is distributed over a large area. For example, when wind blows weakly in X area, and well in Y area, the wind power in Y area can compensate for the loss in X area. Thus, the total amount of them in the large area stably come near a constant value. Or at least, it has a minimum value.
For these reasons, the problem of clean energy can be improved by these ways.
Theres also the added problem that power plants cant just be flicked on like a lighter. Depending on the type of power plant it can take up to a good week to get from 0% output to 100% output.
And the ones who are faster are usually held in reserve, as in: there are gas power plants that operate at about 50% capacity and can be upped to 100% in minutes, but they produce more - on a percentage basis - waste at 50% than at 100%. however thats a necessary evi as long as there is no way to store large amounts of electricity over long periods of time.
That means, even if its sunny at the moment, nobody knows what weather will bring in an hour. If it gets cloudy and the solar plants pump out less electricity than demanded there will be outages or some plant was held in reserve and nows upps its output. That plant can not be wind power (theres no use to have a backup plant thats unpredictable) so those kind of backup plants are a bit of the shadowside of solar power.
That said, I dont think theres any alternative to regenetive energy. we just need better bateries and better solar and wind plants for it to work. i'm sure however that mankind will find a way to solve those problems.
As for the safety of nuclear plants... I think they are very, very safe. That does not make them infallible though.
And the ones who are faster are usually held in reserve, as in: there are gas power plants that operate at about 50% capacity and can be upped to 100% in minutes, but they produce more - on a percentage basis - waste at 50% than at 100%. however thats a necessary evi as long as there is no way to store large amounts of electricity over long periods of time.
That means, even if its sunny at the moment, nobody knows what weather will bring in an hour. If it gets cloudy and the solar plants pump out less electricity than demanded there will be outages or some plant was held in reserve and nows upps its output. That plant can not be wind power (theres no use to have a backup plant thats unpredictable) so those kind of backup plants are a bit of the shadowside of solar power.
That said, I dont think theres any alternative to regenetive energy. we just need better bateries and better solar and wind plants for it to work. i'm sure however that mankind will find a way to solve those problems.
As for the safety of nuclear plants... I think they are very, very safe. That does not make them infallible though.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
