Japan: nuclear power free, for now

[sod]

I was surprised as I haven t found a thread on this...

here is one of the many reports about it:

www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-05/japan-to-be-nuclear-power-free-as-sole-working-reactor-shuts

I think that nuclear power is using a strange argument again:

the argument that nuclear is needed to meet summer peak demand is deeply flawed. nuclear power is base load power and not good in providing peak power (though i understand that adding nuclear might free better peak load plants that are providing base power at the moment)
the solution to summer peak power is flexible demand (can we convince japanese to switch of heated toilet seats during summer?!?) and in the longer run solar to tackle the demand of climate systems.

the other argument brought forward quite often is the trade deficit.

www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/business/T120427005858.htm

But i haven t seen any analysis, which demonstrates how much of the deficit is caused by additional fossil fuel imports and what amount is caused by dropping exports caused by quake/tsunami damages.

---------------------------------------

i think there are much better arguments, for example from a CO2 perspective. i also think that it would help nuclear power in japan, if they would decide to permanently switch of a couple of very exposed and vulnerable reactors/plants. I would also advice the japanese energy industry to offer temporary use of nuclear power and plans for phase out of nuclear with detailed (and true!) cost and CO2 analysis.

[anonposter]

Japan despite reduced power demand has had its CO₂ emissions increase though the trade deficit one is what the public is more likely to care about.

One thing worth noting though is that even the worst of nuclear is still safer than fossil fuels* so any nuclear power plant which can run should be run so that the more dangerous fossil fuel burners can go off-line (nuclear exceptionism is harmful).

*You might be able to argue that the RBMK is worse than fossil fuels (though even that I doubt) but I can't see any way to argue that any non-Soviet reactor is without just making things up.

[sod]

since fukushima, most japanese people disagree with you about nuclear power being safe.

whether they are right or not, doesn t really matter. This is a fact, which currently stops nuclear reactors from going back online.

i think it makes more sense to deal with facts, than to try to persuade people to change their risk perception. especially in the short run.

----------------

i am really interested in your answer to this.

do you think that it is a clever strategy, when japanese energy companies and proponents of nuclear power use the summer shortages and the trade deficit (without giving information about real causes/numbers) as their main arguments?

[David B. Benson]

The numbers are starkly real. There is a trade deficit occasioned by buying much more coal and very expensive LNG. There will be a power shortage as the coal and natgas burners cannot take up the full summer time demand.

[grlcowan]

The very expensive LNG has made the refusal by Japanese government to allow nuclear plant restarts, so far, quite lucrative for Japanese government --

Of the revenues on a general-account basis, those from petroleum and coal tax expanded 12.1 percent to 39.57 billion yen due apparently to more consumption of liquefied natural gas by utilities

at the expense of the rest of Japanese society --

Among other key components, revenues from personal income tax dropped 3.1 percent to 563.52 billion yen and corporate tax slid 4.1 percent to 839.08 billion yen.

If the decision-making class ceases to benefit from the shutdowns, perhaps they'll begin find the street protests less persuasive of the need to continue them.

It's even conceivable they had some hand in getting those protests to happen.

[proteos]

May 6, 2012 21:55:37 GMT 9.5 @sod said:

i am really interested in your answer to this.

do you think that it is a clever strategy, when japanese energy companies and proponents of nuclear power use the summer shortages and the trade deficit (without giving information about real causes/numbers) as their main arguments?

Using black-outs is a bad idea. It would damage the utilities also I think. However, it may turn out like that.

The current account balance argument is stronger. Anyway, when you look at all the countries where nuclear power has a large presence, they generally do not have any meaningful domestic fossil resources. That's the case of France, Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Taiwan. That was also one of the reasons why Japan had some nuclear power plants.
You can run a patriotic argument like this: the major value of nuclear power is spent inside the country whereas it's the reverse for fossil fuels.