The Japanese are the only nation upon which atomic bombs have been dropped. They have always had a cautious approach to nuclear power, but nevertheless have managed to create an economy under which a third of their electrical power was dependent upon nuclear energy. After Fukushima the Government put the decision to continue to operate nuclear power plants in the hands of the municipalities, and within a few months of the nuclear accident at Fukushima all nuclear power plants in Japan were closed down, temporarily.
Nuclear energy is important to the Japanese economy. It is not important because it is cheap – nuclear energy is not cheap over its whole life cycle, but it is important because it is there. Japan has little in the way of fuel for energy and having decided to invest in nuclear energy, once that investment no longer produces a return, returning to fossil fuel becomes expensive and requires more investment.
In order to counter this when the nuclear power plants were closed down the Japanese campaigned for people to use 15% less electricity. It is a sensible campaign. In Japan as in every other nation much energy is wasted. By that I do not mean that everyone wastes energy, but many people and businesses do, and reducing consumption by 15% is probably a rather modest aim.
But governments, who mainly want to get re elected and often forget the reasons why the put themselves forward for election in the first place, get worried is they feel that they might not get re elected. The economy, stupid, is probably what determines the results of elections and as most governments’ foresight is mainly limited to the next election the Japanese government is becoming worried that using fossil fuel, which for Japan is more expensive than the already paid for nuclear reactors, is sending the price of electricity high and will make goods more expensive thus damaging exports thus creating unemployment.
As a result the Japanese are proposing to restart two nuclear power plants. If they do the price of electricity may fall, the economy may improve and that may pave the way for starting more nuclear power plants, although the one at Fukushima will never, I expect, come back into operation. As nuclear power plants are located on the coasts in order to use the ocean as a device to cool the large amounts of heat generated by the power plants, I expect the Japanese, much like the rest of the world, are praying that no new tsunami occurs.
The Japanese are unfortunately qualified to make judgements about nuclear power, and must decide whether nuclear power is a dangerous necessity or dangerous luxury.
Filed under: climate change, energy, global warming Tagged: | climate, environment, Fukushima, Japan Nuclear power, nuclear power, nuclear power plants, science
It is interesting that renewables are not always as green as they might seem, solar cells are not as green as nuclear when you consider the global warming effect per kWhr of power. What is needed is a good examination of the whole life cycle of every energy technology.
A good document on the subject can be seen at http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/Pess/assets/GHG_manuscript_pre-print_versionDanielWeisser.pdf
I hold the view that some of the harmful effects of coal use could outlast the majority of the harmful effects of nuclear power use. The vast majority of the radioactivity formed in a nuclear power plant will decay away within a decade. Of the radioactivity in the waste which manages to last more than 10 years, most of that will decay away within 300 years.
On the other hand the radium in coal ash will stay radioactive for thousands of years. As a result the use of coal can be a greater radiological threat to the general public than nuclear.
Also becuase the accidents and poor health associated with coal and other fossil fuels are rather dull, common, old fashioned and not very newsworthy they fail to get the attention which they should get. It is also interesting that the first carcinogen identified by a medical doctor was coal soot (it was spotted as a carcinogen 100s of years ago).
What is needed is a sensible debate of where do we get our energy from rather than a quick and easy answer.
What about Aberfan, this coal mining accident killed off more people than Fukushima ?
If we use Fukushima as a reason to shut down all nuclear plants then we should use the Aberfan accident as a even better reason to close all mines.
I’d close all coal mines in any event. But to answer your question, coal mining risks are manageable, but nuclear energy risks are not. An earthquake or Tsunami on a coal mine or coal burning power station causes damage to the specific area where it strikes, whereas if the same events happen to a nuclear power plant the damage caused spreads very widely, and potentially affects people and their environment for hundreds of years. It is a question of risk.
Here is a clever man who uses waste items to make hot free water.
http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/climate_change_and_energy/477574/how_to_make_a_solar_water_heater_from_plastic_bottles.html
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DehDgXrpRlTU&sa=X&ei=XfLlT7ClForKhAfXjtHTCQ&ved=0CGgQuAIwAA&usg=AFQjCNG5Fx6eZkOOl7wwCRjUe_CLtmpt8A