Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#81

Post by snvzz »

mkj wrote: post #9
snvzz wrote: post #5

>Japan will also change the rule that limits the operating life of reactors basically to 40 years but tolerates an extension to up to 60 years upon regulatory approval. >Under the plan, Japan will allow power companies to operate reactors beyond the 60-year limit by excluding periods when reactors are halted for safety inspections or other reasons. In short, instead of running more modern, more safe nuclear power pla…

It's not "instead of". The sentence before your quote says they're building next generation reactors.

But what's the incentive, if they can keep running the old ones up to 40 years and beyond?

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#82

Post by cbmuser »

askvictor wrote: post #47
Dalewyn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it makes no sense to not go nuclear. For one: Japan has no natural resources. Fuel for power must be imported. Materials for solar panels (or the panels themselves) must be imported. Nuclear is by far one of the most efficient /and/ effective forms of power generation humanity currently has. For two: Fukushima was a result of human incompetence, nothing to do with the reactor itself or nuclear technology ther…

> For one: Japan has no natural resources. Fuel for power must be imported. Materials for solar panels (or the panels themselves) must be imported. Nuclear is by far one of the most efficient /and/ effective forms of power generation humanity currently has. How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? Sure it's more compact, but it has other complications regarding transport. They're still going to be reliant o…

> How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? Sure it's more compact, but it has other complications regarding transport. They're still going to be reliant on other countries. Solar panels, even if imported, do not require the ongoing importation of fuel.

Nuclear requires a tiny fraction of the material that any other generation type needs. We’re talking about a factor of one million more energy dense compared to fossil fuels!

Solar and wind do not provide baseload and can therefore not replace any conventional power plant.

There is a reason why Germany just returned 7.3 GW in coal-fired power units to the electricity market:

> https://www.smard.de/home/rueckkehr-von-kohlekraftwerken-an-...

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#83

Post by snvzz »

arp242 wrote: post #74
snvzz wrote: post #5

>Japan will also change the rule that limits the operating life of reactors basically to 40 years but tolerates an extension to up to 60 years upon regulatory approval. >Under the plan, Japan will allow power companies to operate reactors beyond the 60-year limit by excluding periods when reactors are halted for safety inspections or other reasons. In short, instead of running more modern, more safe nuclear power pla…

Fukushima was 40 years old at the time of the accident, and did quite well all things considering.

The one that melted up was just months away from being shut down forever.

The newer ones didn't melt up. This example supports my point of view: Old reactors should be decommissioned, not life-extended.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#84

Post by mpweiher »

wewxjfq wrote: post #70
mpweiher wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some grounding in reality: - Russia mines 5% of the world's Uranium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining - The reason we only use less than 5% of the Uranium fuel, so throwing away 95%, is that the fuel is so cheap (= abundant) that it is cheaper to just throw it away - Fuel costs are basically a negligible component of the lifecycle costs of a nuclear reactor

The hard facts are that Russia processes half of the world's uranium and no country, not even the US, could sanction their nuclear energy sector. This is the reality, not your fuel efficiency and breeder reactor hopium. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/21/uranium-i...

The article you cite clearly states that even the worst-case impact of Russian supplies would be minimal:

"at worst, some long-term Russian supply contracts could not be executed, and that would perhaps raise the price of electricity 1 or 2 percent."

World-ending.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#85

Post by snvzz »

melling wrote: post #12
snvzz wrote: post #5

>Japan will also change the rule that limits the operating life of reactors basically to 40 years but tolerates an extension to up to 60 years upon regulatory approval. >Under the plan, Japan will allow power companies to operate reactors beyond the 60-year limit by excluding periods when reactors are halted for safety inspections or other reasons. In short, instead of running more modern, more safe nuclear power pla…

How dangerous are the current nuclear plants? Also, it appears that you are lying through omission: “The basic plan calls for building next-generation nuclear reactors to replace decommissioned ones within the premises of the nuclear plants, ending a freeze on any projects to add, expand or replace reactors.”

Refer to Fukushima (referenced in other posts) for an example behavior of older vs newer reactors when exposed to the same crisis.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#86

Post by guitarbill »

locallost wrote: post #29
glogla wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, but not only. The German way - turning off nuclear power to replace it with coal and gas while running token amount of renewables which will never cover the base load (because the required amount of storage would be insane), is very much the dream of traditional coal, gas and oil industries. Yet the Germans argue it is the best way because "what about the waste?!!!111" It is a shame that whole country manag…

Stop spreading disinformation. Germany not only switched off nuclear plants but reduced its coal use drastically compared to levels 10 years ago. I've posted data on this a billion times, and am too lazy to do it now -- checking the actual data for once before posting an opinion should not be too difficult. Sorry, but this is beyond pitiful.

Not as "drastically" as their nuclear power of course...

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#88

Post by zdragnar »

knocte wrote: post #76
lelag wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on. So you think political ecologists have no role in the fact that very few nuclear plants were built in Europe since 1990 ? Even France, the nuclear plant country(tm) has forgotten how to make them (look at Flamanville EPR fiasco). Now, everybody realize we actually need nuclear but we can't make anymore quickly and are stuck extending the life of the existing plants like Japan is doing.

Building new nuclear plants is pro-nuclear. I said green movement is not anti-nuclear but I didn't say it is pro-nuclear. World is not black&white.

Nuclear plants don't live forever. Refusing new nuclear is tantamount to eliminating nuclear.

Also, there are certainly green activists against ALL nuclear. I don't have a formal survey handy, but based purely on the opinions of those that I know, far more are anti-nuclear than are neutral on the matter.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#89

Post by snovv_crash »

emodendroket wrote: post #60
simondotau wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether or not you support nuclear power, being “scared” of it is an admission of ignorance and indicative of short-term reactionary thinking. It ought to be a source of national shame, not pride. With apologies to Yoda, fear is the path to the dark ages.

Do you think we evolved fear by accident? If I were handling a venomous snake I'd be scared to be bit and rightly so. There's no reason to be proud of being heedless of risk.

And what if it was a non-venomous snake, and all the experts tell you it is a non-venomous snake, and it is literally safer than a pet dog. Would you still be scared of handling it because of a pathological fear of snakes? In what way is that adaptive and helpful in a modern era of scientific knowledge?

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#90

Post by kstenerud »

ycuser2 wrote: post #3

As a German this is quite bizzare to me. Here, our politicians take Fukushima as an example why we should stop nuclear energy. People are scared of nuclear energy. And now Japan goes max nuclear.

There are a number of reasons for this:

* Japan's access to oil is via ship, which is expected to become more difficult as China is anticipated to tighten the screws in the South China Seas even further in coming years and Russia is unlikely to offer favorable terms since Japan is aligned with the West. Japan has past trauma of being cut off from oil by America and England, so they're particularly sensitive about this.

* The Ukraine war has highlighted how fragile the world energy sources actually are, and everyone is hedging however they can.

* Japan is following the general world trend towards isolationism and nationalism that flows from a sudden decrease in stability (COVID and the Ukraine war), and although this phase will pass, it's still having an effect on decision making now.

* A declining population and economy that basically will continue doing so means that big investments make more sense now than later (even though they still won't be able to pay for it).

* The LDP has defacto ruled Japan virtually unopposed since the end of WW2, and Japanese people rarely seriously question the government's judgment beyond a bit of localized murmuring.

Japan needs energy security, and its options are very limited.

Post reply on HN