After Fukushima, Japan says no more nukes

  • Published on May 11th, 2011

Japan is scrapping plans to get half  its power from nuclear reactors. Leaving us to wonder what took them so long.

Two months after the earthquake that trashed the Fukushima reactor complex they appear no closer to getting that mess cleaned up, while the experts debate whether this disaster is as bad as Chernobyl, or worse.

Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan told a news conference that his country will now focus on renewable energy such as wind and solar, and conservation.

“I believe the government bears a major responsibility for having promoted nuclear energy as national policy. I apologize to the people for failing to prevent the nuclear accident,” Kan said.

80,000 people have been forced to leave their homes, and it could be six to eight more MONTHS before these people can return to their lives. You don’t have that kind of problem after a breakdown of a wind or solar plant.

Meanwhile, on Monday the Hamaoka nuclear power facility was shut down pending a safety review and upgrade. The plant has the same design as Fukushima, is likewise sited by the sea, and is likewise in a critical earthquake zone on a major fault line.

Again, the only question is – What were they thinking, building in the first place?

More on the quake and nukes:

About the Author

Jeremy Bloom is the Editor of RedGreenAndBlue. He lives in New York, where he combines his passion for the environment with his passion for film, and is working on making the world a better place.


  • Be well people of Japan!!!the world could take a good lesson from the way the Japanese have come together and with no whining, no finger-pointing, they have simply begun the daunting task of recovering. The do themselves proud with their sense of community and hard work. It is sad that they must be tested like this , yet it shows their best qualities.

  • Here is what is going to derail that dinosaur.

    Please take 15 min and explore the link provided

    Rossi has given three demonstrations so far including with professors from Bologna University and the Swedish skeptics society and the Chairman of the Swedish Physics Union. This is a link to the LENR site where detailed information about cold fusion efforts is available. The Naval Research lab has been working on this with positive results for over 10 years. Yet the major scientific magazines refuse to touch this issue since it was purportedly discredited by some researchers and an institution that stood to lose 10s of millions in funding per year and numerous PHD candidates and hundreds of grad students who were working on the government funded hot fusion reactor. This funded hot fusion system has never produced surplus energy after billions have been spent and years of research.

    Rossi has announced a 1MW Cold Fusion facility to be opened in Greece this Oct. Yet top line periodicals have yet to publish even one article. This will change the economics of the world lifting many people out of poverty and it will also threaten many vested interests.

    FROM LENR-News
    Rossi 6-hour demonstration convinces Swedish experts
    April 2011
    On March 29, 2011, a test of a smaller Rossi device was performed. It was attended by two new observers: Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics and chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, and Sven Kullander, chairman of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Energy Committee. They agree with other independent observers that the device must be producing a nuclear reaction. See NyTeknik: Swedish physicists on the E-cat: “It’s a nuclear reaction.”
    This test employed a new, smaller device with a 50 cm3 cell. It produced ~4.4 kW for 6 hours, or 25 kWh (90 MJ).
    Essén and Kullander wrote a report, also in NyTeknik, Experimental test of a mini-Rossi device at the Leonardocorp, Bologna 29 March 2011. Focardi gave a revealing radio interview. Here is an English translation.
    NyTeknik has published a number of articles about Rossi. They are all listed here. The New Energy Times is keeping a close watch on news articles about Rossi. They have a list of articles here.

    Plans to begin commercial cold fusion reactor production this year
    March 2011
    A company has been formed in Athens, Greece, Defkalion Green Technologies S. A., for the purpose of manufacturing and selling Andrea Rossi Energy Catalyzer cold fusion reactors. According to the Greek newspaper “Investor’s World” and other sources, the company is capitalized at €200 million, which includes €100 million to be paid in as royalties, presumably to Rossi. The Greek press says the company plans to manufacture 300,000 machines a year for the Greek and Balkan market. The company website says it has exclusive rights to sell the machines everywhere except the Americas.

    Rossi has announced that he is fabricating a 1 MW reactor to produce hot water (not steam or electricity), scheduled for October 2011. He is building the machine in Florida before shipping it to the Defkalion factory. It will consist of 100 small devices similar to the one demonstrated at U. Bologna.
    We have uploaded a new paper from Scott Chubb describing the Rossi device and recent events about it.

    Rossi 18-hour demonstration
    February 2011, updated March 2011
    On February 10 and 11, 2011, Levi et al. (U. Bologna) performed another test of the Rossi device. Compared to the January 14 test, they used a much higher flow rate, to keep the cooling water from vaporizing. This is partly to recover more heat, and partly because Celani and others criticized phase-change calorimetry as too complicated. There were concerns about the enthalpy of wet steam versus dry steam, and the use of a relative humidity meter to determine how dry the steam was. A source close to the test gave Jed Rothwell the following figures. These are approximations:
    Duration of test: 18 hours
    Flow rate: 3,000 L/h = ~833 ml/s.
    Cooling water input temperature: 15°C
    Cooling water output temperature: ~20°C
    Input power from control electronics: variable, average 80 W, closer to 20 W for 6 hours
    The temperature difference of 5°C * 833 ml = 4,165 calories/second = 17,493 W. Observers estimated average power as 16 kW. A 5°C temperature difference can easily be measured with confidence.
    3,000 L/h is 793 gallons/h, which is the output of a medium-sized $120 ornamental pond pump.
    The control electronics input of ~80 W is in line with what was reported for tests before Jan. 14. Input power was high on that day because there was a problem with cracked welding, according to the Levi report.
    18 hours * 16 kW = 288 kWh = 1,037 MJ. That is the amount of energy in 26 kg of gasoline (7.9 gallons). Given the size and weight of the device, this rules out a chemical source of energy.
    NyTeknik published a fascinating description of the latest experiment (in English). This includes new details, such as the fact that the power briefly peaked at 130 kW. NyTeknik also published an interview with two outside experts about the demonstration: Prof. Emeritus at Uppsala University Sven Kullander, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Energy Committee, and Hanno Essén, associate professor of theoretical physics, Swedish Royal Institute of Technology. Two versions are available, in English and Swedish.
    On March 3, Rossi conducted an informative on-line chat with NyTeknik readers.
    Rossi and U. Bologna have announced that tests on the device will continue for a year.

  • […] Living green in the great NorthwestRed, Green, and BlueJapan is scrapping plans to get half its power from nuclear reactors. Leaving us to wonder what took them so long. Two months after the earthquake that trashed the Fukushima reactor complex they appear no closer to getting that mess cleaned up, …HOTLINE TO NAGATACHO Nuclear regulators leave Kan to fill in the blanksThe Japan TimesJapan Earthquake: Two Months LaterKGO-AMJapan nuclear evacuees make brief trip homeSin Chew Jit PohBloomberg -RTT News -Monsters and Critics.comall 3,462 news articles » […]

  • The nuclear energy has been pushed as a cheap, clean source of electricity. Yet, the Japanese still bear some of the highest electricity costs in the world.

    Cost Should Scrub Nuclear Power !

    The nuclear industry had succeeded in convincing the public and policymakers that nuclear power was a cheap and effective means to reduce global warming. However, when exposed to open scrutiny, the numbers just don’t add up that way.

    Set aside its escalating, staggering cost trajectory, as for Japan, nuclear energy production costs must include these :

    Plus, the cost of waste disposal.
    Nobody is considering the cost of storing radioactive waste for 100,000 years. If that is considered, no electric company could make a go of nuclear power.

    Plus, the trillions worth of unlimited liability costs. (Tepco had no disaster insurance)

    Plus, massive costs to defend against tsunami including sea wall, new backup power.

    (Worse still, most nuclear reactors in Japan would fail to achieve a stable condition in the event that all regular power sources are lost, even though plant operators have prepared new backup power sources as well as electric generators amid the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, according to utility industry sources.

    The possibility of a failure to secure the safety of the reactors is because the backup power sources do not have enough capacity to operate all of the devices needed to keep the reactors cool.

    Many reactors still effectively have no alternative power source should emergency diesel generators fail to work, as was the case at the Fukushima plant after it was hit by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11.)

    Plus, the added costs for new designs to require ever more stringent safety features. (The tremors that shook the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant during the March 11 earthquake exceeded plant’s quake-resistance standards, meaning that that quake-resistance measures currently in place at nuclear power plants throughout the country are insufficient.)

    Plus, huge lobbying costs for politicians, academies, media…

    Plus, in exchange, huge subsidies for nuclear industry from the govt.

    Plus, subsidies for hosting the nuclear plant.

    Plus, Nuclear’s history of cost overruns.
    Another major business risk is nuclear’s history of construction delays. Delays would run costs higher. No nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.

    Plus, the cost of eye-popping costs for transmission upgrades.
    For instance, Florida Progress will require $3 billion in transmission upgrades to accommodate its new nuclear plants.

    Plus, the waste of premise :
    Time to build the plant, 6-8 years.
    Time to completely depreciate the plant: 20 years.

    In the U.S., power purchase agreements for wind power are currently averaging 4.5 to 7.5 cents a kilowatt hour, including the federal wind tax credit,
    but, the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants stand at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour —triple current U.S. electricity rates!

    It might be worth noting that worldwide, there is not a single private investment in a nuclear power plant. No private investor wants to put his money into nuclear energy! ( at least as of 12 September, 2008)
    Why? Simply because the risks are too high and the return on investment is much too low.

  • […] After Fukushima, Japan says no more nukesRed, Green, and Blue80000 people have been forced to leave their homes, and it could be six to eight more MONTHS before these people can return to their lives. You don't have that kind of problem after a breakdown of a wind or solar plant. Meanwhile, on Monday the Hamaoka …HOTLINE TO NAGATACHO Nuclear regulators leave Kan to fill in the blanksThe Japan TimesJapan Earthquake: Two Months LaterKGO-AMJapan after Fukushima: village of nuclear evacuees forced to start over – againChristian Science MonitorSin Chew Jit Poh -Bloomberg -EastDay.comall 3,429 news articles » […]

Comments are closed.