Japan shuts last of nuclear reactors

[tommy525]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/japan/ ... -march.htm

The nuclear disaster in Japan is unprecedented in modern times. Ultimately perhaps more costly then Chernobyl. Japan shuts down its last of 50 nuclear reactors. Is it time for Taiwan to do so too? The 23 million people of Taiwan have nowhere to run if what happens in Japan happens in Taiwan. And it could because Taiwan sits on an earthquake belt and its reactors are all vulnerable to tsunami as was Japans.

The current six operational reactors are actually beyond their safe lives. Currently extended with unknown risks.

I say the govt should shut all six current reactors but keep the newest , yet unstarted two units in Kungliao as they are near finished and have the latest technology.

Then perhaps when possible shut those down too, perhaps after only 20 years of operation.

Taiwan should go NON nuclear as well. It cant afford a nuclear disaster like Japans. And we know know what can happen.

[Chris]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/japan/2012/05/06/340169/Thousands-march.htm

The nuclear disaster in Japan is unprecedented in modern times. Ultimately perhaps more costly then Chernobyl. Japan shuts down its last of 50 nuclear reactors. Is it time for Taiwan to do so too? The 23 million people of Taiwan have nowhere to run if what happens in Japan happens in Taiwan. And it could because Taiwan sits on an earthquake belt and its reactors are all vulnerable to tsunami as was Japans.

The current six operational reactors are actually beyond their safe lives. Currently extended with unknown risks.

I say the govt should shut all six current reactors but keep the newest , yet unstarted two units in Kungliao as they are near finished and have the latest technology.

Then perhaps when possible shut those down too, perhaps after only 20 years of operation.

Taiwan should go NON nuclear as well. It cant afford a nuclear disaster like Japans. And we know know what can happen.

What should Taiwan replace its nuclear reactors with to make up for the energy shortfall? More coal-fired plants?

[headhonchoII]

Let's shut down the refineries or coal power plants first. Are Taiwanese ready for a doubling price of electricity , and even worse polluted skies than we have now?

Japan is not necessarily shutting them down for good, some will probably come back online.

[tommy525]

of course thats the catch 22 isnt it.

taiwan already has the worlds single most polluting coal fired plant in taichung.

[trubadour]

I like the Japanese attitude. they say they will import fuel and economise until they have figured out a technological solution. I've a feeling they will need to do a hell of a lot of economising. Taiwan would, too. Still, I can't see the problem with turning off the advertising, banning scooters and cars, turning off the displays, most of the A/C, etc. It would be fun.

[grandfeller]

Reactors can be made safe. Going non-nuclear is impractical and bad for the environment. Problem is that Japan's nuclear industry and government have shown themselves incompetent and unreliable. The right thing for them to do after such a disastrous failing would have been over-correct, to be more cautious and pessimistic than really needed. Instead, they played down the seriousness of the situation and time after time have been forced to revise their assessments in the amount of damage done. This, of course damages credibility further, destroying any public confidence that might have remained.

Folks in other countries are right to scrutinize their own nuclear industry and government regulators. However, it would be disastrous again to the environment and the economy to ban nuclear outright. Instead, regulators and the industry need to transparently evaluate safety, make improvements where necessary, and shut down only those nuclear power plants that cannot be made to meet improved safety requirements. Voters need to elect leaders who will drive such change and remove those who do not. True there will not exist certain guarantee that all future accidents will be avoided. However, giving in to the knee-jerk reaction of eliminating all nuclear power would indeed carry a guarantee - that of increased mining, drilling, and burning of fossil fuels and economic arrest.

[headhonchoII]

I like the Japanese attitude. they say they will import fuel and economise until they have figured out a technological solution. I've a feeling they will need to do a hell of a lot of economising. Taiwan would, too. Still, I can't see the problem with turning off the advertising, banning scooters and cars, turning off the displays, most of the A/C, etc. It would be fun.

It's not a technological solution that is required. Most of the plants in Japan have no tsunami risk. They just need to do things more openly and maintain safety standards.

Look at the situation in Germany, what a mess, the renewables are wasted as they need coal fueled power for base load.
Japan can and will do more to improve energy efficiency but it will not do much good overall if they are going to have to rely on fossil fuels for all their power supply.

[trubadour]

I like the Japanese attitude. they say they will import fuel and economise until they have figured out a technological solution. I've a feeling they will need to do a hell of a lot of economising. Taiwan would, too. Still, I can't see the problem with turning off the advertising, banning scooters and cars, turning off the displays, most of the A/C, etc. It would be fun.

It's not a technological solution that is required. Most of the plants in Japan have no tsunami risk. They just need to do things more openly and maintain safety standards.

It's not only tsunami risk we are talking about, obviously. The point is that given safety standards are, as it happens, never enough. There will always be something bigger and worse than was planned for. It's inevitable. The pro-neuclear lobby would have us believe the risk is so low that it is like winning the lottery with the same number a million times, or whatever; but then hey presto! here comes a wave.

It seems to many that a technological non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel solution has to be found. The elephant in the room is we live unsustainable lifestyles which cost us massively in terms of natural resources. It can not continue because supplies will run out and (if they did not, the environment would become terminally degraded as far as we are concerned, by and large). Nuclear should not be the solution because the consequences of the inevitable 'unforeseen event' are also too costly. It's like getting into debt to pay for an unhealthy lifestyle.

We are going to have to change the way we live.

[headhonchoII]

For all the furor over Fukushima how many people died or got radiation poisoning? And that was at an old plant that was extremely badly designed for its location with fuel cooling in pools on the roof. The new designs do not need electrical power to cool the rods in emergencies.

All this being said, nuclear power has another problem namely cost and speed of implementation.

[trubadour]

indeed, nuclear power garners huge subsidies which hide the enormous overall cost

FYI: http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/private/nuclear_subsidies1.pdf