« [SSJ: 7242] Re: Why Noda is pushing for a tax increase | Main | [SSJ: 7244] Re: A couple of reasons why the electricity has keptflowing despite the nuclear shutdowns »

March 4, 2012

[SSJ: 7243] Re: A couple of reasons why the electricity has keptflowing despite the nuclear shutdowns

From: Fred Uleman
Date: 2012/03/04

I was hoping someone else would respond to Paul's note in which he refers to unnamed Forum members who pretend that finding a suitable energy mix for Japan without nuclear power is an easy choice and then says that renewable energy activists are in thrall to an ideology.

Nobody I know pretends this is easy. But the very obvious -- repeatedly demonstrated -- danger of nuclear accidents would seem to indicate that major money should be spent on finding/harnessing non-nuclear resources. There is talk of energy stability, but losing Fukushima was a major blow to stability. And stability is nuclear's best case? There is also talk of costs. But the money spent on cleaning up after Fukushima could pay for considerable research into renewables. There is the question of whether Japanese have long been adverse to nuclear plants or if this is a new-found passion. But if it were not long-standing, the government and power companies would not have needed to spend so much bribing local communities to accept nuclear power plants in their midst. There is talk of CO2 emissions. Which is why I, for example, am not arguing for massive use of coal or other fossil fuels but favor solar, geothermal, biomass, and more that do neither incur massive CO2 costs nor have nuclear's very massive baggage of what to do with the spent fuel.

In pointing out the many difficulties facing Japan as it seeks to go non-nuclear, Paul mentions the 50Hz/60Hz grid mismatch problem. Good of him to mention it, but that problem is, of course, not unique to renewables.
He mentions storage, another issue that is not unique to renewables.

So rather than looking for ways to get back to business as usual, it would be more useful to look for ways to get forward to sustainability. Fix the grid. In fact, split production and distribution. (And this "split"
does not mean simply making them separate divisions within the same company.) Facilitate grid access for smaller, decentralized producers. Break the power companies' monopolies (and their cost-plus pricing arrangements, since cost-plus gives them the same incentive to buy fuel economically that cost-plus gives the military-industrial complex to buy economically).
Fund research and development for renewables rather than slush funds for host communities. Promote conservation. There is a lot that needs to be done.
None of it easy. But it needs to be done. And it needs to start with the recognition that, for very real health, economic, and other reasons, nuclear is not an viable option.

- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
Fred Uleman, translator emeritus

Approved by ssjmod at 11:06 AM