Live stream by Ustream
2:00 AM(PST) on the 29th of June in front of the premier's residence, people will gather for demonstrating against the restart of Oi nuclear power plant.
Turnout on last Friday was 45,000.
Ustream is a private internet TV.
Embeded code didn't work.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/iwakamiyasumi4 direct link to view from the sky
I click through and see puppies. :-/
ReplyDeleteYeah in GMT it starts at 23:00 on 29th of June. It's off line till then.
ReplyDeleteJapan's economy is on the ebb and more and more heading for a totalitarian society. Restart of nuclear power plant, spread of radioactive contamination to all Japan, tax increase, etc..Recent movement is a threat to democracy.
You do realize that the combustion of coal (which is part of what's replaced the missing nuclear capacity) releases radioactives in the gases and fly ash?
ReplyDeleteWe don't need replacement for nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power has been used in replacement of fossil energy for generating electricity. That's the problem. We need to start R&D of using nuclear energy directly converting to electricity.
Decommission them or we are decommissioned.
Well, only if you don't want lights, air conditioning, water, jobs...
ReplyDeleteNature recently published that some scientists are attempting to block the restart.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the threat of earthquakes 'is underestimated'.
If the other faults haven't ruptured in 120,000 years, it's vanishingly unlikely that they'd go during the remaining life of the Ohi plant.
ReplyDeleteAnd vice versa. Months ago, while many Japanese nuclear plants were still running, Japan's oil imports had already risen by over 110,000 barrels/day to supply replacement electricity. That is in addition to increased imports of coal and LNG.
ReplyDeleteJapan cannot stand to pay for all this fuel, nor can it stand the pollution it creates. Japan's fate is tied to its nuclear energy systems: Decommission them, and you WILL be decommissioned.
This raises the question: what are these scientists doing?
ReplyDeleteIf it is rational to persist with the nuclear programme, shouldn't they be reassuring the population?
True in a bad sense, in a good sense too.
ReplyDelete>Decommission them, and you WILL be decommissioned.
We have 54 reactors, if 4 or 5 old ones go to decommissioned, our national budget disappears.
So some people think it's better to wait earthquake to happen, and we don't need long laborious work for decommission.
I mean nuclear energy has much deeper potential than other conventional energy. But current system, boiling water by heat emitted from nuclear fusion, is not efficient enough for it to make the most of.
ReplyDeleteThis does not make sense in English. Explain, if you would.
ReplyDeleteDecommissioning means removing fuel, demolishing structure and putting contaminated components in safe storage. The quake and tsunami at Fukushima Dai'ichi neither removed fuel nor put contaminated components in storage. Exactly what you mean by "waiting for an earthquake to happen" is not obvious.
Suppose the quake happens. The plant SCRAMs when the P-waves hit. The S-waves strike. Either the plant requires repairs afterward, or it does not. What is the labor saved either way?
People just ignore the fact that disaster would happen.
ReplyDeleteWe need more energy than nuclear energy to stop nuclear energy.
Perhaps you can get close to 50% efficiency using supercritical CO2 instead of boiling water as the working fluid. Still, boiling water was a pretty good option in 1970, and uranium is too cheap to worry much about small differences in thermal efficiency.
ReplyDeleteIf the population is hyperventilating about levels of radiation exposure within 20% of the world average, would rational discussion go anywhere?
ReplyDeleteEven Fukushima Dai'ichi is not a disaster. The tsunami killed close to 30,000; that was a disaster. The problems with the reactors are unlikely to harm even 1/1000 as many.
ReplyDeleteLook at Fukushima Dai'ini; no problems at all! Onagawa plant was a center for refugees after the disaster. Future plants will be stronger and safer. Where is Japan's confidence in its abilities and its future?
Several reactors are over 30 years, and it takes huge money for decommission, so electric company people are reluctant to do so. Suppose after 30 years from now, many reactors reach their lifespan. Can electric company decommission many reactors at the same time?
ReplyDeleteI wrote they are reluctant to do so, but it's not true. They don't intend to decommission any of them from the beginning. After they earned enough, they would abandon Japan.
For these two or three years, we have heard number of minor accidents and malfunction in old nuclear power plants. But they were able to attribute to earthquake and tsunami. They were laughing behind the scenes that they were able to get away with the mistakes they made and now government is decommissioning 6 reactors in Fukushima dai'ichi with tax.
They must have thought that they were luckiest people in the world.
They'd be reluctant to decommission anything that was still working and profitable. Remember, the first-generation reactors were designed for a minimum lifespan of 40 years, assuming worst-case conditions. The actual wear and tear from operation turned out to be a lot less than the worst-case, so the plants are still good for some decades yet. Why would you throw away a tool that still works?
ReplyDelete(I don't know why this comment posted prematurely. I thought I was doing a paste.)
Suppose after 30 years from now, many reactors reach their lifespan. Can electric company decommission many reactors at the same time?They don't have to. Once they've been turned off and the fuel and water removed, there is nothing that needs to be done right away. Trace radioactive contaminants decay over time; the longer you let things sit, the less of a problem there is and the less dangerous it is to decommission.
They don't intend to decommission any of them from the beginning. After they earned enough, they would abandon Japan.Several US reactors have been decommissioned, including Shippingport, Maine Yankee and Big Rock Point. The utilities have not abandoned the USA. Are you saying that American utility managers are more ethical than Japanese?
For these two or three years, we have heard number of minor accidents and malfunction in old nuclear power plants. But they were able to attribute to earthquake and tsunami. They were laughing behind the scenes that they were able to get away with the mistakes they madeThat's speculation. On the other hand, the Japanese cultural feature of "saving face" appears to make it more difficult to compromise because it would imply that someone is wrong, so fixing things like tsunami walls and adding wave-proofed backup generators requires more than just a technical assessment. Maybe this is where the USA does nuclear power better than Japan. On the other hand, the Dai'ichi plants were GE designs down to the diesels in the basement; the Toshiba reactors elsewhere on the coast did not have problems.