Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Nuclear power

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has created the “best opportunity” for Japan’s nuclear industry to stage a comeback since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, according to the country’s largest reactor maker.
Akihiko Kato, nuclear division head at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, said in an interview with the Financial Times that nuclear energy was a geopolitically safer alternative to Russian energy. “It may be challenging to import fuel from Russia in the future.
People are realising that as long as we import fuel from overseas, there will always be fear of instability,” Kato said, speaking at the company’s Tokyo headquarters. “Many have changed their views on nuclear power, which is a stable and a domestic source of energy.”
Japan’s heavy reliance on Russian gas imports has rekindled the debate over nuclear power in the country more than a decade after regulators took most plants offline following one of the worst nuclear disasters in history. The world’s third-largest economy has been plunged into a power crisis exacerbated by the soaring cost of liquefied natural gas and oil. Japan imports about 9 per cent of its LNG from Russia, putting it in a difficult diplomatic position as its western allies impose sanctions on Moscow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Mtn Man
Russia’s war in Ukraine has created the “best opportunity” for Japan’s nuclear industry to stage a comeback since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, according to the country’s largest reactor maker.
Akihiko Kato, nuclear division head at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, said in an interview with the Financial Times that nuclear energy was a geopolitically safer alternative to Russian energy. “It may be challenging to import fuel from Russia in the future.
People are realising that as long as we import fuel from overseas, there will always be fear of instability,” Kato said, speaking at the company’s Tokyo headquarters. “Many have changed their views on nuclear power, which is a stable and a domestic source of energy.”
Japan’s heavy reliance on Russian gas imports has rekindled the debate over nuclear power in the country more than a decade after regulators took most plants offline following one of the worst nuclear disasters in history. The world’s third-largest economy has been plunged into a power crisis exacerbated by the soaring cost of liquefied natural gas and oil. Japan imports about 9 per cent of its LNG from Russia, putting it in a difficult diplomatic position as its western allies impose sanctions on Moscow.
How stupid!
Nuclear is unreliable.
Imported fossil fuels are unreliable.
Too bad there isn't a reliable domestic renewable energy resource that is safe.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: ReddyLeaf
How stupid!
Nuclear is unreliable.
Imported fossil fuels are unreliable.
Too bad there isn't a reliable domestic renewable energy resource that is safe.

Got to love headline writers.

Here's the full speech:

The Japanese Horse's Mouth said:
Last but not least, investment in green and digital initiatives.

Russia's aggression against Ukraine has made clear the importance of energy security.
Climate change remains an urgent issue.

In addition to renewable energy, we will utilise nuclear reactors with safety assurances to contribute to worldwide reduction of dependence on Russian energy. Restarting just one existing nuclear reactor would have the same effect as supplying 1 million tonnes of new LNG per year to the global market.

So, he mentioned renewables first.
He didn't talk at all about building new nuclear reactors, just that it would use nuclear.
He specifically talked about restarting nuclear reactors. Japan is already in the process of restarting 3 reactors that were shut down because of Fukushima, with 2 of them to be restarted in 2023:
So he was probably responding to current pressures to do something about their natural gas imports from Russia, by saying that restarting the nuclear plants will help cut some of their NG use.

Japan is adding solar. It had a target of 53GW for 2020 that was passed in 2014. The current target is 108GW by 2030.
Of course, solar growth is globally supply-constrained.

Japan doesn't have as much wind power. Only 4.2GW in 2020, although it has much more potential. Like the USA it has little offshore. It has a target of 10GW of offshore wind by 2030, 6GW fixed and 4GW would be floating. It has large wind potential, but I can't find out how much of that would depend on floating turbines.

2017 Japan peak generation was 156GW.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: iPlug
Got to love headline writers.

Here's the full speech:



So, he mentioned renewables first.
He didn't talk at all about building new nuclear reactors, just that it would use nuclear.
He specifically talked about restarting nuclear reactors. Japan is already in the process of restarting 3 reactors that were shut down because of Fukushima, with 2 of them to be restarted in 2023:
So he was probably responding to current pressures to do something about their natural gas imports from Russia, by saying that restarting the nuclear plants will help cut some of their NG use.

Japan is adding solar. It had a target of 53GW for 2020 that was passed in 2014. The current target is 108GW by 2030.
Of course, solar growth is globally supply-constrained.

Japan doesn't have as much wind power. Only 4.2GW in 2020, although it has much more potential. Like the USA it has little offshore. It has a target of 10GW of offshore wind by 2030, 6GW fixed and 4GW would be floating. It has large wind potential, but I can't find out how much of that would depend on floating turbines.

2017 Japan peak generation was 156GW.
Russia’s war in Ukraine has created the “best opportunity” for Japan’s nuclear industry to stage a comeback since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, according to the country’s largest reactor maker.
 
Russia’s war in Ukraine has created the “best opportunity” for Japan’s nuclear industry to stage a comeback since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, according to the country’s largest reactor maker.

Sorry, you're correct. When I was looking it up, I was sidetracked by other Reuters-led pro-nuke articles that misrepresented the Prime Minister's speech.

So this was just press-release journalism.
 
Looks like not everyone is on the same page in Japan.

I'm sure that Japanese companies are hoping that this is an opportunity, but their nuclear power plants are old, including the 3 that are being restarted.

If they want to build new ones, there's going to have to be some hard selling, given Fukushima and how long it would take to build new power plants.
The


Japan's imports of liquefied natural gas fell 0.2% in 2021 to 74.32 million tons, giving up the world's largest buyer spot to China which increased its imports of the super-chilled fuel by 18% to a record high.


Russia accounted for 9% of Japan's total LNG imports of 74.32 million mt as the fifth largest supplier in 2021 and 4% of total crude oil imports of 2.48 million b/d, according to the Ministry of Finance data.

...

"Sakhalin-1 is a rare crude oil procurement source outside Middle East for our country, which relies on about 90% of crude oil imports from the Middle East, and Sakhalin-2 supplies roughly 9% of the country's LNG imports and accounts for about 3% of the electricity supply volume," Hagiuda said.
9% x 74.32 = 6.69.

The Prime Minister said "Restarting just one existing nuclear reactor would have the same effect as supplying 1 million tonnes of new LNG per year to the global market."
So, restarting the two in 2023 could reduce imports.

So, based on the prior plans, it would make a small dent in imports.

In the time taken to build new nuclear power plants, they should be able to add some significant chunks of solar and wind.


Renewables are steadily increasing, but it's largely solar and some biomass. Offshore wind is the one to watch.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mspohr
11625_2021_907_Fig3_HTML.png

11625_2021_907_Fig4_HTML.png

Large-scale integration of offshore wind into the Japanese power grid - Sustainability Science
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr and nwdiver
There is of course the possibility that some of recent PR from companies about production of cheap green hydrogen turns out to be true and scalable, and that re-energizes the HFCV lobby.

Hopefully. But that's a little like finally landing a great job at 40 when you're married with 7 kids, a mortgage, student loans, Timmys medical bills, etc, etc. There's a lot of places that H2 needs to go before a fancy car will make any sense.

Globally we need 30B kg just for Fertilizer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr and nwdiver
Political/?Economic? pressure on governor Newsom increased now to keep Diablo Canyon running beyond 2025.

Newsom Considering Applying for Federal Aid to Keep State's Last Nuclear Plant Operating | San Jose Inside

I personally think if he is going to play realpolitik, he should extend it a few years in political exchange for getting accelerated offshore wind or some other reasonable trade-off.
So... stupid questions... Why would it cost $6 Billion to keep it running?
Why not spend $6 Billion on renewables?

From TFA:
PG&E also would have to address aging infrastructure problems and make investments to comply with the state’s water-cooling regulations, according to Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy organization.

Delaying the closure could potentially be more expensive for ratepayers. A better alternative would be to improve the state’s energy storage capacity for renewable energy, he said.

“Since the continued operation of Diablo Canyon could prove to be very expensive, any proposal to keep the plant alive must be accompanied by binding cost containment and protections for ratepayers,” Freedman said. “PG&E’s rates have already been skyrocketing and we want to do everything we can to bring it down. So we’re definitely against any proposal that would give PG&E a blank check.”
 
So... stupid questions... Why would it cost $6 Billion to keep it running?
Why not spend $6 Billion on renewables?

From TFA:
PG&E also would have to address aging infrastructure problems and make investments to comply with the state’s water-cooling regulations, according to Matthew Freedman, a staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy organization.

Delaying the closure could potentially be more expensive for ratepayers. A better alternative would be to improve the state’s energy storage capacity for renewable energy, he said.

“Since the continued operation of Diablo Canyon could prove to be very expensive, any proposal to keep the plant alive must be accompanied by binding cost containment and protections for ratepayers,” Freedman said. “PG&E’s rates have already been skyrocketing and we want to do everything we can to bring it down. So we’re definitely against any proposal that would give PG&E a blank check.”

Because keeping it running means nuclear power _now_, while building renewables would take 2 years.
 
Because keeping it running means nuclear power _now_, while building renewables would take 2 years.
How long will it take to upgrade the plant with the$6 billion?
Delaying the closure could potentially be more expensive for ratepayers. A better alternative would be to improve the state’s energy storage capacity for renewable energy, he said.

Energy storage sounds like a better option. Capture and use surplus renewables.
 
How long will it take to upgrade the plant with the$6 billion?
Delaying the closure could potentially be more expensive for ratepayers. A better alternative would be to improve the state’s energy storage capacity for renewable energy, he said.

Energy storage sounds like a better option. Capture and use surplus renewables.

Energy storage is being done separately.

Solar PV is already being installed as fast it can be globally. Even the current freeze that's happening in the USA due to legal action is just going to mean that more panels will be sold to other countries.

More wind capacity could be added, but that also needs other infrastructure and it takes 2 years to get a wind farm up and running. And even wind power has global supply constraints. And offshore wind can't be installed rapidly in the USA, because they need to build the ships that can do it (due to US shipping law), build up local experience, and have floating turbine technology mature enough for a significant expansion.

If we lived in a world where Russia hadn't taken advantage of the global supply chain crisis to invade Ukraine, then policy would be different. But we don't. We need to keep nuclear and coal plants open, while we continue to expand renewables and storage, plus continue to expand LNG facilities, plus continue to electrify transportation, plus electrify heating with heat pumps, so so we can bring down oil and natural gas demand and allow countries to decouple from Russian energy supplies.

Yes, nuclear is more expensive, but supplying tens of billions of dollars of weaponry to Ukraine is also expensive.

You really don't seem to get just how economically and politically devastating the global crisis in natural gas supply is.
 
Energy storage is being done separately.

Solar PV is already being installed as fast it can be globally. Even the current freeze that's happening in the USA due to legal action is just going to mean that more panels will be sold to other countries.

More wind capacity could be added, but that also needs other infrastructure and it takes 2 years to get a wind farm up and running. And even wind power has global supply constraints. And offshore wind can't be installed rapidly in the USA, because they need to build the ships that can do it (due to US shipping law), build up local experience, and have floating turbine technology mature enough for a significant expansion.

If we lived in a world where Russia hadn't taken advantage of the global supply chain crisis to invade Ukraine, then policy would be different. But we don't. We need to keep nuclear and coal plants open, while we continue to expand renewables and storage, plus continue to expand LNG facilities, plus continue to electrify transportation, plus electrify heating with heat pumps, so so we can bring down oil and natural gas demand and allow countries to decouple from Russian energy supplies.

Yes, nuclear is more expensive, but supplying tens of billions of dollars of weaponry to Ukraine is also expensive.

You really don't seem to get just how economically and politically devastating the global crisis in natural gas supply is.
Please don't tell me what "I don't get".
We need to move away from fossil fuels as fast as possible. Sending billions to defend Ukraine is only the latest demonstration of the evils of fossil fuels.
Nuclear is a dead end. If it could be kept running for a short time without spending billions and years on an expensive upgrade, that would be a good thing.
However, spending $6 billion and years of construction on an aging dangerous plant to patch it up for the short term is a complete waste of money. Much better to invest that money in renewables/storage which will have a long term benefit in lower cost energy. Energy monopolies don't like it because it will reduce their profits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merrill
Please don't tell me what "I don't get".
We need to move away from fossil fuels as fast as possible. Sending billions to defend Ukraine is only the latest demonstration of the evils of fossil fuels.
Nuclear is a dead end. If it could be kept running for a short time without spending billions and years on an expensive upgrade, that would be a good thing.
However, spending $6 billion and years of construction on an aging dangerous plant to patch it up for the short term is a complete waste of money. Much better to invest that money in renewables/storage which will have a long term benefit in lower cost energy. Energy monopolies don't like it because it will reduce their profits.

I'm going to tell you you don't get it until you get it .

Subisidizing existing nuclear has nothing to do with growth of renewables. Nothing.
Nuclear power is being replaced by natural gas.
Natural gas generation is being replaced by renewables.
If you keep nuclear open, you avoid growth in natural gas generation.

Natural gas is the big problem right now.

Dead end doesn't matter. What matters is lowering natural gas usage.