
Japan split over restart of first nuclear reactor since Fukushima disaster - shinji97
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/09/japan-split-restart-first-nuclear-reactor-since-fukushima-disaster
======
owen_griffiths
Japan's CO2 emissions are up 11% relative to 1990, when they are supposedly
planning to go down 21% by 2030.

“They’re aware that Japan has fared perfectly well without nuclear power for
almost two years.” is not really accurate CO2 into account.

~~~
mrschwabe
Which would you prefer floating in our air, CO2 (that plants breathe) or
invisible, cancer-causing radioactive particles?

~~~
naturalethic
Your comment is becoming invisible because you are a denier. Suck it
contrarian.

~~~
dang
Please stop posting uncivil and unsubstantive comments to HN.

------
userbinator
Does this reactor have better safeguards and protection than the ones at
Fukushima? I think that's the most important point to consider here.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Better safeguards"? 9.0 earthquake. Tsunami. Fire. Complete loss of power to
all control systems.

Still didn't kill anybody.

Just how safe do you expect something to be?

By comparison the earthquake and tsunami killed over 18,000 people.

~~~
mistermann
> Just how safe do you expect something to be?

Personally, I expect someone to have at least the foresight to put the backup
generators on a platform.

~~~
Turing_Machine
There was a ten meter sea wall. The tsunami was 13 meters tall. How many 13
meter tall backup generator platforms have you ever seen?

~~~
mistermann
I'd like to see one in Japan before they reopen this reactor. Would you argue
against that recommendation? A reactor is a billion dollar capital project, I
think you can include a "tall" tower into the budget without making it
uneconomical.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Dude, it was a _9.0_ earthquake, so yes, I think requiring that the
infrastructure be designed to withstand it would have been unwarranted.

The structure was clearly adequate to withstand any earthquake that could
reasonably be expected over the life of the plant, and didn't do all that bad
even when a drastic, catastrophic, unprecedentedly large earthquake struck.
Once again: no one died.

What do you think is going to happen if a 9.0 earthquake hits near (say) the
Three Gorges Dam in China, or the Grand Coulee Dam in the United States? I
guarantee you that the number of fatalities is going to be a lot higher than
zero.

~~~
mistermann
The logic being since you can't earthquake proof the 3 Gorges Dam (genuinely
financially impractical), therefore don't put backup power on a high tower?

I understand the "who woulda thunk?" angle, except I bet someone did think
about it and likely got overpowered in the discussion.

------
jpatokal
Too late: the reactor has been restarted.

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/11/japan-
res...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/11/japan-restarts-
first-nuclear-reactor-fukushima-disaster)

Note that the "Sendai" here is the small town of Satsumasendai in Kagoshima
prefecture, Kyushu; not the big city of Sendai north of Tokyo.

------
stevedekorte
Is there a good reason to use nuclear when solar is at cost parity now?

~~~
joshkpeterson
Some big Japanese companies are in the nuclear technology business, and they
export to other countries.

------
rancur
is 2000 protesters a split?

is clickbait?

~~~
jsmeaton
From the article:

> A nationwide Kyodo News poll last October found that 60% of respondents
> opposed an immediate return to nuclear energy, while 31% were in favour.

~~~
rancur
oh, hm. thanks

