Author - Elaine Kurtenbach & Mari Yamaguchi
Publisher - The Washington Times
Date - March 10th, 2012
Article Link - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/japan-for-now-not-using-any-of-50-nuclear-plants/?page=all
Picture - http://www.onlineusanews.com/japan-nuclear-meltdown-12351.php
This picture shows what happened to one of Japan's nuclear power plants after the tsunami in March, 2011. The power plant had a meltdown, and as seen it was set ablaze and burnt the surrounding area. This is one of the problems with nuclear energy.
Article Summary - Japan has officially closed down the last of it's 50 nuclear reactors after having meltdowns from the March 2011 tsunami. The nuclear plants supplied nearly a third of Japan's energy, and now Japan has to find other sources. Seeing that nuclear was a bad solution, Japan will switch to power from solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable resources. The target is to have 25-35% of Japan's energy be from renewables by 2030. The Japanese government is ready to switch to renewables, but is pressured by energy companies to stick to fossil fuels. The companies have invested their money already in fossil fuels, and don't want to switch to environmentally friendly, renewable resources. Fossil fuels now account for 90% of Japan's energy after the closing of the nuclear reactors. The reactors themselves have left much of Japan devastated, and it will take time to fully recover from the meltdowns.
Opinion - We learned in class about how nuclear energy is a good alternative, but needs to be heavily protected to prevent catastrophic disasters. Sadly, a catastrophic disaster hit Japan, and they couldn't stop the nuclear plants from melting down. It's amazing how nearly a third of Japan's energy came from nuclear. That's a good sign that people rely less on fossil fuels, but with the plants closed the problem has aroused again. I believe that the energy companies in Japan shouldn't be able to influence the government not to switch to renewables. The energy companies should have invested in renewable energies instead of fossil fuels. By 2030 though, I think it will be too late to have only a quarter of the energy come from renewables. I know that if I were in charge of an energy company, I would want to switch to renewables. Me being alive by 2030, I do not think that people in charge now should be able to negatively change my future that they will not be a part of. People should have more of a say than companies in what energies a country uses, as the people see the affects everyday of fossil fuel usage, whether it be fracking or coal mining.
Questions
1) Do you think that 25-35% of energy by 2030 be renewable for Japan is enough to stop our dependence on fossil fuels? Why?
2) If the tsunami never hit Japan and the nuclear plants were still running, do you think Japan would be in a better or worse situation? Would it effect the amount of nonrenewable resources we have left?
3)Do you think that energy companies should have control over what resources are used (renewable/nonrenewable)? Should they have to pay more for choosing fossil fuels?
Picture - http://www.onlineusanews.com/japan-nuclear-meltdown-12351.php
This picture shows what happened to one of Japan's nuclear power plants after the tsunami in March, 2011. The power plant had a meltdown, and as seen it was set ablaze and burnt the surrounding area. This is one of the problems with nuclear energy.
Article Summary - Japan has officially closed down the last of it's 50 nuclear reactors after having meltdowns from the March 2011 tsunami. The nuclear plants supplied nearly a third of Japan's energy, and now Japan has to find other sources. Seeing that nuclear was a bad solution, Japan will switch to power from solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable resources. The target is to have 25-35% of Japan's energy be from renewables by 2030. The Japanese government is ready to switch to renewables, but is pressured by energy companies to stick to fossil fuels. The companies have invested their money already in fossil fuels, and don't want to switch to environmentally friendly, renewable resources. Fossil fuels now account for 90% of Japan's energy after the closing of the nuclear reactors. The reactors themselves have left much of Japan devastated, and it will take time to fully recover from the meltdowns.
Opinion - We learned in class about how nuclear energy is a good alternative, but needs to be heavily protected to prevent catastrophic disasters. Sadly, a catastrophic disaster hit Japan, and they couldn't stop the nuclear plants from melting down. It's amazing how nearly a third of Japan's energy came from nuclear. That's a good sign that people rely less on fossil fuels, but with the plants closed the problem has aroused again. I believe that the energy companies in Japan shouldn't be able to influence the government not to switch to renewables. The energy companies should have invested in renewable energies instead of fossil fuels. By 2030 though, I think it will be too late to have only a quarter of the energy come from renewables. I know that if I were in charge of an energy company, I would want to switch to renewables. Me being alive by 2030, I do not think that people in charge now should be able to negatively change my future that they will not be a part of. People should have more of a say than companies in what energies a country uses, as the people see the affects everyday of fossil fuel usage, whether it be fracking or coal mining.
Questions
1) Do you think that 25-35% of energy by 2030 be renewable for Japan is enough to stop our dependence on fossil fuels? Why?
2) If the tsunami never hit Japan and the nuclear plants were still running, do you think Japan would be in a better or worse situation? Would it effect the amount of nonrenewable resources we have left?
3)Do you think that energy companies should have control over what resources are used (renewable/nonrenewable)? Should they have to pay more for choosing fossil fuels?
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteThat really stinks for Japan who had a third of their energy from clean renewable resources. I forgot all about this crisis in Japan even though it was a year ago. I remember it was all over the news and very big and after awhile it just disappeared. I can’t believe that they just shut down all their nuclear reactors. I did not realize how bad the reactor damage was to their country. But through all that Japan is still trying to switch to other renewable clean resources. I think all countries should try and switch to other renewable resources like Japan. Look how they are already trying even though they were hit by a natural disaster and other countries are behind them.
Answer to question 2.
If the tsunami never hit japan they would be in a better situation. One is that they would be better because no damage from the reactors would have hurt anyone. Also none of their reactors would have shut down. Two is that they would not have lost a lot of money shutting down reactors and switching back to fossil fuels. Also they might be using more renewable resources than they did before the tsunami and so would be less dependent on fossil fuels. It would affect the amount of fossil fuels a small amount. That is because Japan is only one country and eventually those fossil fuels would have been used. But there would be more because Japan would keep switching. That is what I think if the tsunami never hit Japan.
Opinion:
ReplyDeleteI think that Japan changing from nuclear energy to solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable types of energy is beneficial and smart. It is actually amazing to see that a country changing from one main type of energy to different renewable types. It surprises me because change like this does not really happen to everyone or even most people here in America. Even though there was a nuclear meltdown in Japan last year which caused a big uproar and mess in Japan I believe there are now some good sides to see about it. The fact that they are changing to less dangerous types of renewable energy is a great thing for the environment and its country. However there are still many bad things about the change which surprise me. I think it is really bad for many of Japan’s companies to invest into fossil fuels instead of renewable energy. I think in the later future of Japan the air will be really polluted because of the 90% of Japan’s energy coming from fossil fuels. I cannot imagine that a change could happen really quickly with using renewable energy. Even here in America many of us do not change to renewable energy so how can Japan which is in a bad state change so quickly to renewable. This feels like my experience with having to change throwing paper into a recycling can instead of a trash can. It is hard to do but will get easier later on.
Question 2:
If the tsunami did not occur than I believe that Japan would be in an overall good condition. However I believe that it is dangerous to use nuclear energy and sooner or later some type of meltdown would happen even without the tsunami happening. So Japan would be in a better condition if the tsunami did not happen compared to the condition Japan is in right now. For 90% of Japan’s energy coming from fossil fuels makes the previous nuclear condition look good because fossil fuels have better chance or more effectiveness to contaminate the atmosphere. Also if the tsunami did not happen it would affect the amount of nonrenewable resources to decrease in use. This would help save the atmosphere from getting polluted so badly. I think that within the later future of Japan they will start to use renewable resources.
Opinion
ReplyDeleteFor anything I think there are many factors to considers. Some of the main are safety and the economy. By Japan switching to renewable sources is a great idea. However, with every country, there are the factors to consider. The nuclear power plants had to be shut down because they interfered with safety. Now wanting to switch to “solar, wind, geothermal and biomass” resources is the next option. Of course businesses are wary because they have a stake in the economy, just as much as the individual. The real problem is that switching involves a huge hit to the economy at both the business and individual levels. The current economic reality is that “solar, wind, geothermal and biomass” energy sources are substantially less efficient, so each unit of usable energy will cost both businesses and individuals more. The effect of the switch will be to make everyone significantly poorer. What is involved here is not just a simple wish: “I wish we had economically equal power sources from which to chose.” We don’t. Neither does Japan. The implication of the switch touches us all, because in a global economy, the unit cost of energy touches everyone, business and individual alike. If everyone has to pay significantly more for each unit of energy, everyone is poorer. In a global economy teetering on the edge of another recession that threatens social disorder and political turmoil, there is much to consider that has great consequences for every one of us on this planet.
Questions
Do you think that 25-35% of energy by 2030 be renewable for Japan is enough to stop our dependence on fossil fuels? Why?
No, because 95% of fossil fuels are still being used and Japan is not a huge country. 25-35% of renewable energy on a small country is not going to make a huge difference when countries like China, Russia, America are still using fossil fuels. Anyway, this matter is about more than simple percentage goals. The real challenge is to find alternative energy sources at an equal economic price. Otherwise, the move to alternative energy sources is a move to the lowering of everyone’s standard of living—and that’s personal, as personal as anything can be.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOpinion:
ReplyDeleteLong term effects from the 2011 tsunami are present in Japan's society today. As we just learned in class, Japan was one of the three largest producers of nuclear energy. Because of this, I believe it was illogical for Japan to shut down all of its nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy exhausts no greenhouse gases and Japan was using this to their energy advantage. But, now because of one NATURAL disaster, all were shut down? This I highly disagree with because once again, the fossil fuel companies are using the power and greed of money to neglect the earth. I agree with Nick that the fossil fuel companies should not influence the government in anyway. And by the government shutting down the nuclear reactors, the fossil fuel companies are running Japan, not the government. However, the government still has the power to think, which is good because the scientists are discovering new ways to use renewable energies, such as solar, wind and hydroelectric. This is the only bright side I see from the action of shutting down the nuclear reactors. Still, it is great to see that new research is coming about the renewable energies, but only 25-30% of Japan'snenergy will be renewable by 2030. I believe this will be too late to slow global climate change. Therefore, Japan's government needs to step up and take control of this energy situation.
Expansion:
I found this article that is very interesting because it is the opposite of Nick's article. It is about a nuclear reactor being opened in Oi, Japan. Debates are proceeding whether to restart the reactor based on the economy, environment, and the community. Government officials want to restart two reactors, due to rolling power outages. However, Greenpeace Japan wants the reactors to stay shut down in order to prevent another disaster. Both views are given in the following article.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/japanese-nuclear-plants-to-power-up/story-e6frg6so-1226355227438
Here are some questions a Nuclear Expert from the University of California would ask relating towards the topic:
ReplyDelete1) How do the direct consequences of the tsunami compare to the consequences of the accident at the Fukushima plant? Direct deaths are clearly much larger. How many people lost their homes directly due to the tsunami? The Japanese authorities have determined that it's not practical for most communities to create protection for homes against tsunamis this large--so should these homes be rebuilt?
2) How do the consequences of a nuclear accident like Fukushima compare to the consequences from the use of fossil fuels instead (to produce a similar amount of total power)? Fukushima was the oldest nuclear plant in Japan. If new nuclear plant designs are safer (as are new cars, compared to those designed in the 1960's), what does this imply?
3) Germany chose to shut down several nuclear plants. How different would the effects on public health and the environment be if they had shut down their coal plants instead?
The accident at the nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan last March was a very significant event. It has rightfully opened the world up to debate about energy technologies. However, as we proceed with this healthy debate, it's important to stray away from the plethora of misinformation out there and focus on real, technical facts.
ReplyDeleteNuclear energy, like all energy technologies, brings with it a set of risks. We saw in Japan the risks come to life. However, it's important to put things in perspective. Not a single person has been killed due to radiation resulting from the Fukushima accident, and it's not likely that anyone ever will. This is in stark contrast to the devastation from the tsunami itself, which took the lives of many thousands of individuals. However, this is not to say that there were no consequences from the nuclear accident. The six reactors on that site will never be operated again, which is a huge economical impact on TEPCO and on the Japanese economy. Also, this has led to a sociopolitical disaster, where many people have been forced away from their homes.
Nuclear energy has an incredibly sound safety record, as there have only been three major accidents at commercial plants in the technology's history. Per unit energy, nuclear power has by far resulted in the fewest fatalities of any energy source. Also, nuclear power has one of the highest reliability ratings, as the plants can operate at full power nearly 24/7.
Renewables could be the energy source of the future, and I certainly support their development. But it's important to note that we will not see a significant amount of power coming from renewables unless they can compete economically with other technologies. This world is dominated by money, not just by ideals. Also, it's important to note that renewables do not have a very high reliability factor (wind doesn't always blow, sun doesn't always shine), and they take up a much larger footprint in terms of land. If you were to take all the nuclear reactors in the United States and replace them with windmills, you would need to invest a land area approximately the size of Texas, when the nuclear plants take up only a few hundred acres.
I am very excited to see our young generation talking about the important issues related to energy in schools today. I challenge you to find factual information, and I think you will see that nuclear energy is a hugely beneficial technology, given its great safety record (even considering recent events) and its ability to produce baseload power without carbon emissions and without reliance on politically unstable areas.