Japan lags in wind, solar and biomass energy, areas the government plans to develop [EPA]
Japan to rethink nuclear power - might I offer up the suggestion that the United States rethink their alternatives as well.
This from Al Jazeera News:
Naoto Kan, the Japanese prime minister, has said that renewable energy would be a key pillar of the country’s new energy policy after one of the worst nuclear crisis in years, but that it would still rely on nuclear power for much of its electricity needs.
Kan also said on Tuesday that Japan's basic energy plan to build new atomic reactors to increase the share of nuclear power in electricity supply in the future must be reviewed from scratch.
The massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11 badly damaged the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in northeast Japan, and the prolonged crisis could hamper Japan's efforts to reduce its use of fossil fuels.
"The current basic energy policy envisages that over 50 per cent of total electricity supply will come from nuclear power while more than 20 per cent will come from renewable power in 2030. But that basic plan needs to be reviewed now from scratch after this big incident," Kan told a news conference.
"I think it is necessary to move in the direction of promoting natural energy and renewable energy," he said, citing wind, solar or biomass energy as possible alternative sources - areas that Japan lag globally.
Japanese engineers are still trying to gain control of the Fukushima plant, 240km north of Tokyo, whose cooling system was knocked out after the twin disasters and four out of the six reactors at the plant remain volatile.
Kan, under fire for his handling of the nuclear crisis, last week called for Hamaoka nuclear plant, run by Chubu Electric, in central Japan to halt operations until it can be better defended against a major tsunami, and Chubu on Monday reluctantly agreed to this.
While some have lauded Kan's calls, several business leaders and media, which tend to be close to the politically influential nuclear power industry, have criticised his move as being too abrupt and lacking a sound explanation.
Kan defended his decision, saying that the request was made after careful deliberation.
Japan will need to conduct a thorough investigation into the nuclear incident, Kan said, adding he wants to call on the international community for safer use of nuclear power.
The prime minister, who is the fifth leader of Japan in as many years, is likely to speak about his country's atomic crisis at the Group of Eight summit at the end of May in France.
~ ~ ~
Annie, please expand upon your thoughts from above about the US rethinking alternative energy sources, too. I'm not sure I'm reading you loud and clear. :)
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't read by blog post Wednesday, April 27, 2011 Nuclear Power Plants in the United States - Status check it out.
ReplyDeleteMy own personal belief is that we should move to shut down all of our aging nuclear power plants and eliminate the building of new ones.
We have one nuclear plant here in Missouri with plans to build a second one. On the surface the reports will say it is 'suspended indefinitely' but there has been lots of activity popping up in various bills in the state legislature this session that makes me feel it is more of a "go" than a "no".
There is a vast number of alternatives; to name a few in no particular order, solar, wind, natural gas, tidal... Today is when money should be spent to develop these alternatives. Instead money is being spent in building new nuclear plants.
There are a few spots in the US with no nuclear plants, but there are too many existing with major problems or located in very hazardous areas. Chernobyl and Japan should be major wake up calls. Even our own Three Mile Island in 1979 put a stop on building new plants, but I think it is now so long ago people will forget. The 104 existing plants are old and could be dangerous soon.
The other issue is what to do with all the spent fuel? Nuclear fuel is not just used up and you are left with an clean empty reactor, you have what is called spent fuel, still radioactive that must find a safe spot to be stored for the next several hundred years.
We need to educate ourselves and then speak out, be vocal and see that over time all these plants are closed.
THERE HAS TO BE A SAFER WAY THAN NUCLEAR.GO GREEN SUN AND WIND.
ReplyDeleteGRANNY
You'd think Japan would be in a position to make sensible choices, given what's happened, but it doesn't sound that way. In fact, it sounds like the US situation, where business interests trump human interests. Let's see how this plays out in Japan. Surely their people will push nuclear power out of their country, if not now, then fairly soon. And yes, I wish we would stop creating new nuclear facilities. It's irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm so happy! That's just what I was hoping you'd say, Annie! For a minute there I thought you were going to say you support nuclear power and then I thought I'd have to write a long reply. Not that I'd mind that much! I have been against nuclear power plants since the first time I learned about one, probably in the 70s. The ARE dangerous and irresponsible. I agree with you Writenow! There's a place in Washington State on the barren side of the state where they bury spent nuclear fuel and it scares the shit out of me. I wouldn't even DRIVE near there! And people are living not too far away. That's my home state so I know more about that than other places. Though I live next to Pennsylvania right now!
ReplyDeleteI really don't understand why the accident in Japan hasn't begun new talks about the dangers of this. Maybe because the Republicans think nuclear power plants are just great?
It's also my biggest pet peeve, coincidentally -- hearing people mispronounce "nuclear". Bush did it. Lots of people do. But broadcasters and politicians bother me the most. Grrrrrr
Katie