
Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants - jseliger
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-02-05/japan-turns-to-coal-after-closing-nuclear-power-plants
======
ozborn
A disaster.

I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants (still open to
possibility of new fusion plants at some in the future) but from an
environmental standpoint it makes far more sense to maintain the existing
nuclear plants - at least for now.

The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant construction)
are _off the table_ with existing plants! Hardening existing plants against
possible future catastrophe is probably far cheaper in both economic and human
terms than new coal plan construction.

Japan already does pretty good job (relatively speaking) with solar power, but
it could do much better with the money it will spend on new coal plants if it
built more wind power and fixed up existing nuclear plants.

~~~
espadrine
This argument causes some of the problems this argument tries to avoid.

> _I 'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants_

The technology involved in nuclear plants has evolved tremendously, both in
terms of efficiency and in terms of safety, but the technology of the new
generation is fundamentally different.

> _The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant
> construction) are off the table with existing plants!_

Old plants use outdated designs. Nobody would tolerate the 1972 Internet
infrastructure nowadays, and yet Chernobyl was created that year, and is still
in use.

The main reason old plants stick around instead of being replaced is that
Greenpeace and Green parties influence each other into lobbying against
building correct reactors.

Take Superphénix: a French Gen IV reactor started construction twelve years
_before_ the Chernobyl accident. Its design is still considered next-gen and
highly favorable today.

Activists literally fired rocket-propelled grenades at it while it was being
built. It got so bad that they had to shut it down.

They tried building a similar Gen IV reactor recently, ASTRID, that improved
tremendously even compared to the advanced Superphénix, and it got cancelled
six months ago because of lobbies.

So all that remains are old plants… designs that were essentially initial
drafts meant to be replaced by better technology, but that never gets shut
down because every replacement gets lobbied against.

Those old designs have awful properties, so yeah, we get Chernobyl and
Fukushima. We would have had neither if people had let replace the oldest
generation. But because of Greenpeace, people died, and fear rose, when all
this was unnecessary.

~~~
FooHentai
I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's
reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor)

The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that
occurred. How is the reactor design relevant?

Also regarding Superphénix, your telling of this seems a bit biased - The
rocket attack occurred in 1982 and it was shut down in 1997 by the prime
minister due to excessive cost.

As for whether fast breeder reactors are 'still considered next-gen and highly
favorable' see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix)

"a group of 80 physicists from the Lyon Physics Institute wrote an open letter
about the risks of breeder technology, and in February 1975, about 400
scientists signed their name to an expanded letter."

~~~
espadrine
> _I don 't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's
> reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030_

As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981.

> _the primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami
> that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant?_

Fukushima melt down because the water destroyed the backup generators. The
generators are used to power the pumps. The pumps force coolants to flow,
removing heat and therefore avoiding an increase in temperature beyond what is
structurally sound.

A typical Gen IV reactor would naturally cool down without need to keep
coolant running. For instance, Superphénix immerses the breeder in a liquid
sodium coolant that has an effectively unreachable boiling point, tremendous
heat capacity, and no corrosion.

~~~
FooHentai
>As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981.

No, it isn't and wasn't. The Gen IV FBR types are only GFR, SFR, LMFBR and
SCWR.

From the link I provided earlier 'In January 2018, it was reported that "the
first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV
reactor" had been completed on the HTR-PM.'

~~~
espadrine
> _, it isn 't and wasn't. The Gen IV FBR types are only GFR, SFR, LMFBR and
> SCWR._

Superphénix is an SFR. Its first version, Phénix, is literally cited in the
official Gen IV description of what an SFR is[0].

Historically, it has not been labeled Gen IV, but only because the Gen IV
nomenclature didn’t exist at the time.

[0]:
[https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9361/sfr](https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9361/sfr)

------
munk-a
Sigh... we really need more functional nuclear plants that aren't built to use
technology from the 70s. I suspect that one reason Bernie is against new
nuclear plant creation is the absolute debacle that was Vermont Yankee[1].
Even a lot of pro and pro-ish nuclear folks in Vermont got pretty disheartened
by the whole affair.

These plants cost insane capital to get running and mismanagement can cause
serious problems, so economic pressures tightening belts (or just greed for
higher profits) is a constant force fighting against safety... Newer reactor
designs contain much safer critical failure outcomes that could allow them to
safely operate - even within the constant profit pressure of modern culture.

1\. General information:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

List of articles from VTDigger on the topic:
[https://vtdigger.org/tag/decommission-vermont-
yankee/](https://vtdigger.org/tag/decommission-vermont-yankee/)

------
jgwil2
Same thing happened in Germany. This is a really hard problem. I consider
myself pretty pro-nuclear but it can never be 100% safe. I can't blame Japan
for wanting out after Fukushima, but at the same time there has to be some
kind of approach that balances short-term safety against the long-term
consequences of carbonization.

~~~
jeltz
No energy source is 100% safe. People die when working on windmills and
hydroelectric disasters are way more deadly than nuclear disasters. I think
100% safe is an unreasonable requirement.

~~~
nicoburns
I'd much rather be involved in a hydro-electric disaster than a nuclear one
though...

~~~
zetazzed
Hydro disasters can be dams bursts and are no joke! Thousands dead, towns
wiped away, stuff like that.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Machchhu_dam_failure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Machchhu_dam_failure)

Luckily not that common especially with well-maintained dams. But it was a
huge fear with the Mosul dam in Iraq, which was expected to put over a million
lives at risk during the ISIL insurgency:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosul_Dam)

I'm not anti-hydro at all! But it's important to understand how powerful these
dams are...

~~~
usrusr
GP was saying, I think, that they'd prefer a quick violent water surge over
slow radiation poisoning. You can say good bye, but you might have to do
nothing else but saying good bye for an awful low of time (perhaps to
similarly doomed people).

I don't have data but I assume that most immediate dam breach deaths are from
acute force trauma (and then drowning) rather than from just drowning. Less
similar to the slow death of being without a boat in the middle of an ocean
than to the hypothetical of getting stomped by the Terry Gilliam foot in
Flying Circus.

------
AcerbicZero
Japan has been increasing its year over year coal consumption since like, the
70's, and while I'm sure "more coal" isn't a good thing, ~20 Mt a year jumping
up to ~21 Mt a year isn't exactly dramatic.

If you happen to take a peek at the coal consumption metrics from around the
world, you'll notice a small country a few miles to the west of Japan which
currently has the distinct honor of being the only country in the world to
measure its annual coal usage in billions of tons instead of millions of tons
(although to be fair, India is pretty close to breaking into their first Bt).
Thats probably what I'd look into first.

------
neutronman
Future generations will equate this logic to that of the people who healed all
ailments with leeches.

~~~
m4rtink
There are aiment where leach treatment is suitable, generaly related to
restoring blood flow. So mostly frostbite, transplantation and reconnecting of
severed tissue (eq. an accidentally cut off ear, etc.)

~~~
jtolmar
There are problems where fossil fuels are suitable, related to how dense and
stable they are to store. So mostly emergency power and/or remote areas (eq.
power's down in a remote mountain village, etc.)

------
adaisadais
Knowledgeable nuclear folks:

Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world
and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region?

Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big
believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost
effectiveness.

~~~
philwelch
Once you're past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible,
you would probably have to store the energy chemically. In principle you could
charge gigantic banks of lithium batteries and then ship the batteries, but
that would require infeasible (probably ludicrous) amounts of lithium, and
lithium batteries are a pretty inefficient way to chemically store energy.

Alternatively, it probably isn't cost-effective with current technology, but
on a fundamental level, you could use a nuclear reactor to power a system that
chemically recombined atmospheric CO2 and water back into hydrocarbon fuels.
Unlike fossil-derived hydrocarbons, these hydrocarbons would be carbon-neutral
since you'd be sourcing all the carbon from the same atmosphere that it would
eventually be dumped back into. This is probably going to make sense for
things like vehicles, aircraft, rockets, etc. long before it makes sense for
power generation, but there are definite benefits. We already have all the
necessary technology to burn hydrocarbons, meaning that any improvements in
synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels can potentially eliminate the need to switch
these things over to batteries or whatnot. Which may be extremely helpful if
we run into serious resource constraints over lithium, or if we grow
increasingly concerned with the environmental byproducts of lithium battery
production.

~~~
keanzu
> past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible

A 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km
with a power of 12 GW.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
voltage_direct_current](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
voltage_direct_current)

It is feasible to transmit electrical power over far greater distances than
most people imagine. For reference Barcelona to Moscow is a 3,000 km flight.

~~~
philwelch
Sure, but if you want to be safe and resilient against earthquakes and other
natural disasters, those are potentially going to take out long distance
transmission lines, too.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Then build them to be resilient against that.

~~~
philwelch
Sure, whatever. I’m not saying it’s a bad idea to build long distance
transmission lines, I just wanted to write about a different option because I
figured the other subthreads on this post adequately covered the transmission
line idea.

------
throaway1990
This is just sad, I thought the regression of civilization described in
Foundation by Issac Asimov was far fetched BS.

How wrong I was! This is the exact example he uses in his books.

~~~
makomk
Sort of, but not really. Asimov worried about us losing the knowledge of
nuclear power, and whilst there's a little of that what's really lead to its
demise is that as we've learnt more about what's needed to build and operate
it over the years it's become less and less viable.

~~~
throaway1990
> it's become less and less viable.

isn't it because of some unnecessary regulation and some materials technology
being behind.

nuclear fission is the second densest form of energy, It is absolutely
worthwhile to improve it for the future humanity, IMHO.

I think most countries and national bodies are just giving up on nuclear all
together.

------
kingpiss
Nuclear seems like the best hope for humanity, really a shame people are so
afraid of it. Although, I guess the fear is justified given how many disasters
there have been.

~~~
jodrellblank
[https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-
energy.htm...](https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html)
casts doubt on the future of Nuclear growing anywhere near enough to be a
best-hope; scaling it up to world energy production of 15TW seems infeasible -
burning through the available Uranium supplies in ~5 years - even scaling it
up to 1TW would stretch many resources used in nuclear reactor construction
such as rare elements.

~~~
m4rtink
I would assume the numbers would look very differently if breader reactors and
alternative nuclear fuel sources (thorium) would be considered.

~~~
jodrellblank
Thorium is mentioned in the article; availability of halfnium, beryllium, and
other rare metals for the containment shielding " _is a new argument that
Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-
generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium._ "

------
keanzu
As of [Dec 9, 2019], there are nine reactors officially in operation.

Another six reactors have made improvements to meet the new, post-3/11 quake
safety standards and have received NRA approval to restart.

 _What about the future for nuclear power in Japan?_

The government’s long-term energy policy for 2030 calls for nuclear power to
make up around 20 to 22 percent of the nation’s energy mix, and it is pushing
hard for the restart of as many idled reactors as possible.

[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan-
nuclear-power-onagawa-reactor-restart/)

Has there been a new development where the Japanese government "abandoned
nuclear energy" sometime in the last two months?

------
bamboozled
Something doesn't add up here.

Why would Japan, who is facing a declining population and hardly has a growing
manufacturing industry require twenty new coal plants?

Seems like there might be a conspiracy involved here if this is true. Maybe
someone in the Government has a vested interest in pushing this ?

Right now Japan runs on very little Nuclear, I can't imagine it would take 20
new plants to replace a few older dying reactors, they seem to be coping now
just fine.

Once the Tokyo Olympics is a disaster from the extreme heat waves and one
strong typhoon after another, people won't be happy about this policy. People
in Japan are really starting to get concerned about climate change after the
lack of snow this season which has seriously affected tourism and is an
obvious wake up call for many people in the country side.

How backwards and disappointing this new is.

------
wmeddie
One thing this article doesn't cover which was a big part of this decision was
nuclear waste. Nobody wants nuclear waste sites in their prefectures. There
was a plan to use breeder reactors, but that hasn't gone anywhere, and the
waste is just piling up at the reactor sites with absolutely no place to
dispose it. When the mayor of Osaka even hinted at making an underwater waste
site the backlash was huge. I doubt any other politicians will step up after
that (nor will their parties allow it). So with waste being in this deadlock
state for decades, there's just no way forward for nuclear here.

~~~
keanzu
> this decision

What decision? This appears to be a Bloomberg opinion piece, I see not a
single reference or statement from the Japanese government.

"Another six reactors have made improvements to meet the new, post-3/11 quake
safety standards and have received NRA approval to restart."

[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/12/09/reference/japan-
nuclear-power-onagawa-reactor-restart/)

As recently as December last year reactors had restart approval.

------
gatherhunterer
This is the perfect example of cutting off one’s nose to spite the face.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22262467](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22262467)

------
hurricanetc
Environmentalists just can’t get out of their own way. Solar and wind were
never viable alternatives to replace nuclear in Japan. It was always going to
be coal.

But when good is the enemy of perfect this is what you get. So let’s raise our
glasses to the next decade of coal energy in Japan. Congratulations
environmentalists, you won! You killed nuclear!

~~~
crispinb
Nonsense. "Environmentalists" (a crude & politically inactive umbrella term)
can't even get nations to do the minimum necessary for long-term survival
(stop catastrophic rates of wetland & forest destruction even in wealthy
nations, reduce CO2 emissions, etc, etc, etc). Greens (for example) hardly get
elected anywhere outside of a couple of European nations.

It is true there is public resistance to nuclear power, almost everywhere. And
the _very same citizenries which don 't want nuclear power_ also vote against
action on climate change, for the corporatacracy, & for the generalised
sacrifice of the biosphere for fake 'economic growth'.

People don't want nuclear power because they are scared of it being near them
(rightly or wrongly). This has zip to do with environmentalism.

~~~
hurricanetc
Nonsense. Fear or nuclear is a result of decades of lobbying and fear
mongering by anti nuclear environmentalists.

~~~
imtringued
There also were decades of lobbying and mismanagement that made the fear
mongering possible. Nuclear has a bad reputation because it deserves one.

------
fiblye
I have to wonder if this is a deal with China, since it makes Japan less
energy independent and the leading political party is known for nonstop
corruption scandals and some ties to China. China will likely be a big seller
of that coal and profit off this big time, same as they will with the recent
bizarre casino legalization plan.

~~~
keanzu
The world production of coal is dominated by the People’s Republic of China
with 47.4% of global production. China also dominates the global consumption
of coal with 51.6% of the world demand in 2017.

[http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/2020991907](http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/2020991907)

China has no coal to spare to sell to Japan, they need it all. As the world's
fastest growing major economy their electricity and thus coal demand will go
up, not down.

------
Mountain_Skies
I'm generally in favor of nuclear power but the overruns and delays for
constructing units 3 and 4 of the Vogtle nuclear plant is frustrating,
especially since rate payers rather than investors are footing most of the
extra cost. Shamefully the exact same thing happened during construction of
units 1 and 2.

------
ciconia
There's another solution to the problem of the environmental cost of energy
production: reduce consumption. Is there anyone who would not agree that we,
humans, are over-consuming?

~~~
p1mrx
Reducing consumption on a meaningful scale is completely impractical,
particularly when you include emerging economies, who need to _increase_ their
energy consumption in order to attain a reasonable standard of living.

------
spullara
Japan and Germany should be ashamed of themselves. Tragic.

------
Eleopteryx
Funny how quickly this Bloomberg article manages to segue into "Bernie Sanders
doesn't want poor people to have electricity"

------
bamboozled
What’s safer at this point, nuclear or coal?

A meltdown is terrible, burning coal which intensifies climate change is
spelling the end of civilization.

I don’t really think it’s optional anymore. Shut the coal down, move with
other technologies.

------
adamnemecek
Fukushima reactor design was terrible. Like legit bad. I wonder if open source
nuclear power plants plans are the future.

~~~
arianestrasse
I'm a big advocate of open source but if a nuclear reactor based on an open-
source project would be opened close to me, I'd pack up and move as far as I
could.

~~~
_ph_
Open source in this context would mean that the design is open for public
review, not that random people get commit rights to the design data. An open
source project could easier combine energineering efforts by several
professional sources than a design created by a single company though.

