New nuke power in Japan, India

Some updates on nuke power in Asia here, reposting these two reports.

nuclear-reactor-japan-afp_650x400_71495021691(1) Japan Restarts Another Nuclear Reactor After Fukushima Crisis
NDTV, Agence France-Presse | Updated: May 17, 2017

TOKYO, JAPAN:  A Japanese utility on Wednesday switched on a nuclear reactor, the latest to come back in service despite deep public opposition in the aftermath of the Fukushima crisis.

Japan shut down all of its dozens of reactors after a powerful earthquake in March 2011 spawned a huge tsunami that led to meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear plant, causing the world’s worst such accident since Chernobyl in 1986.

But only a handful of reactors have come back online due to public opposition and as legal cases work their way through the courts.

On Wednesday, Kansai Electric Power (KEPCO) restarted the No 4 reactor at the Takahama nuclear plant after a court in March cleared the move.

The latest restart at the plant in Fukui prefecture, some 350 kilometres (215 miles) west of Tokyo, came after court battles that lasted more than a year during which a district court near Fukui ordered KEPCO to suspend operations.

(2) India will build 10 new reactors in huge boost to nuclear power
BBC, 18 May 2017

India currently operates 22 nuclear plants, with a capacity of 6,780 megawatts.

India will build 10 heavy water reactors to boost its nuclear power capacity, the government has announced.

India is one of the world’s largest consumers of electricity, and the bulk of it is generated from coal.

The new reactors amount to more than the country’s present installed capacity of nuclear power. But it is not clear when they will begin working.

India currently operates 22 nuclear plants, with a capacity of 6,780 megawatts.

“A total of 7,000 megawatts will be added. It will help produce clean energy,” Power Minister Piyush Goyal told reporters.

The planned nuclear units will generate business worth $11bn (£8.48bn) and create more than 33,000 jobs, the government said.

The homegrown reactors will be built under the ambitious “Make in India” initiative, with the government saying it will boost India’s nuclear manufacturing capability.


Paris COP and France’s nuke power

The UN’s Conference of Parties (COP) 21 meeting in Paris ended yesterday. The planet saviours, UN and high government climate/environment officials were happy that they produced a non-binding agreement.

A week before that, many were complaining about climate money. Take this story for instance last December 04, 2015:

“PARIS, France – Angry developing nations warned Thursday that increasingly tense UN talks aimed at averting catastrophic climate change would fail unless a bitter feud over hundreds of billions of dollars was resolved.

Negotiators from 195 nations are haggling in Paris over a planned universal accord to slash greenhouse-gas emissions that trap the Sun’s heat, warming Earth’s surface and oceans and disrupting its delicate climate system.”


Some stories at the end of the COP 21 meeting, December  11, 2015:

“Britain and other rich countries face demands for $3.5 trillion (£2.3 trillion) in payments to developing nations to secure a deal in Paris to curb global warming. Developing countries have added a clause to the latest draft of the text under which they would be paid the “full costs” of meeting plans to cut emissions.”

“The night saw an ugly brawl as US Secretary Of State John Kerry threatened that developed countries would walk out of the agreement if they were asked to commit to differentiation or financial obligations. “You can take the US out of this. Take the developed world out of this. Remember, the Earth has a problem. What will you do with the problem on your own?” he told ministers from other countries during a closed-door negotiation on the second revised draft of the Paris agreement.”

“Reacting to second version of the draft, Adriano Campolina, ActionAid Chief Executive, said, “In the closing hours of the Paris talks we have been presented with a draft deal that denies the world justice.

“By including a clause for no future claim of compensation and liability, the US has ensured people suffering from the disastrous impacts of climate change will never be able to seek the justice owed to them.”…/50136956.cms

So here are some of the ironies and hypocrisy of climate alarmism movement.

Irony/hypocrisy 1: more alarmism, more extortion for climate money, more anger and disappointent.

Irony/hypocrisy 2: more hatred of fossil fuel, more use of fossil fuel with thousands of airplane flights to reach Paris from tens of thousands of climate negotiators + hangers on.

Irony/hypocrisy 3: many planet saviours hate nuclear power, then they go to France, enjoy uninterrupted electricity while France is the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. In 2013, 76% of its total electricity output came from nuke.

Greenpeace irony/hypocrisy very clear. They oppose nuke power, declaring, “End the nuclear age”…/en/campaigns/nuclear/

And they are in France, the #1 nuke-dependent country in the planet. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th nuke-dependent countries are Ukraine, Sweden, S. Korea and the US, 2012 data.

Source: International Energy Agency (IEA), 2014 Key World Energy Statistics.

The planet is fine, just undergoing the old and tested climate cycle of warming-cooling-warming-cooling, endlessly, with or without humans, their SUVs and nuke/coal plants.

The planet’s inhabitants need to be spared from self-styled planet saviours whose goal in spreading climate alarmism is more government, more global ecological and energy central planning.

UK candles, US coal and nuke, and UN FCCC drama in Durban, S. Africa

* Originally posted on December 03, 2011.

Last March, I saw this report. I did not realize that the climate armageddon campaigners in UK (and other rich countries) would go to the extent of preparing their people to a drastic change in lifestyle, to accept that constant electricity is going to end by next decade, to “consume it when it is available.”

1source: The Empire Strikes Out

Really lousy.

On March 15, 2009, I wrote this, 
US Carbon and Energy Restrictions

As of 2008, the US’ power sources were (in percent):
1. Coal, 59
2. Nuclear, 17
3. Natural gas, 13
4. Hydropower, 10
5. Other, 1.

Its heavy reliance on those base-load plants (coal, nuclear and natural gas) means it is not easy to drastically restrict those “dirty” and “non-renewable” energy sources and move to “clean and renewable” energy sources like wind, solar. Doing so will mean drastic reduction in power supply (brown-outs) and/or drastic rise in energy prices.

But with the current moves by the US administration to cut CO2 emissions to “fight” global warming, restrictions on current production and future construction of coal power plants will naturally result in the above scenario.

A number of coal companies are “standing still” despite increasing demand for energy (Alliant Energy in Iowa, NV Energy in Nevada, Peabody Energy in Kentucky, etc.) as “clean coal” technology to bury CO2 emissions won’t be available for a decade or more. Less coal means more natural gas which is subject to big price swings and ultimately, higher price as demand will suddenly shoot up. Regulations for nuclear energy is also very strict, nuke power plant builders make about 15 years allowance for construction and getting the necessary permits. And there is danger that after 15 years, the permit may not even come with the on-going emissions cut, cap-and-trade legislative moves.

Aside from current policies of over-spend, over-borrow and over-tax in the future, current restrictions in carbon emission and energy over-regulation will put the US in a less competitive position in the future.

This should be a signal for other economies (China, Japan, India, Europe, other emerging economies) to prepare themselves for out-migration of many big companies and rich people of America, but only if they will avoid – and offer the reverse – of those two pitfalls of the current US government.

Meanwhile, there is an on-going UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) global meeting in Durban, South Africa, from November 28 to December 9, to ask governments around the world to have a post-Kyoto Protocol agreement which will expire by end-2012. Their goal is to “limit man-made global warming” via global ecological central planning.

This global plan includes, among others: (a) move away from hydro-carbon based power to renewable power, so we should get wind and solar power technologies from the west and other countries, (b) we should swallow more carbon taxes and various environmental fees, (c) pay more subsidies to solar and wind farms, (d) have more climate bureaucracies, (e) have more UN global climate meetings, (f) have  more climate and energy loans with the WB and ADB,

The Philippines now has the most expensive industrial power rates in the whole of Asia, more expensive than power rates in Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, S. Korea and and other expensive countries in the continent.

And we have the Renewable Energy (RE) law that mandates certain schemes like the feed-in-tariff (FIT) to make already expensive power rates here become even more expensive. Estimates of projected FIT is something like P9 to P10 billion per year (about US$209 M a year) of FIT subsidies to RE power plants for the next 20 years This will be another big money transfer from the public to the super rich.

And this is one reason why many big corporations and banks are riding this climate racket because they will receive big amount of tax money and energy subsidies as energy consumers will endure higher electricity bills.

Unfortunately for this movement, it is suffering downhill in credibility. The world is experiencing more global cooling, not warming. More heavy rains and flooding, not more drought; more brutal winter, not less snow, have been the experience for many countries in all continents in recent years.

If we are to pay even higher energy prices, we pay even more environmental taxes and fees,  because of this highly questionable “science” from the UN IPCC, Al Gore, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and other big warming network, we are fooled and plundered. The climate racket insistence that “more cooling and more rains are proof of global warming” is simply wrong and idiotic.

Why we need nuclear power plants

* This is my article in TV5’s news portal last April 19, 2012.

To have no electricity for whatever reason – failure in power generation, transmission and distribution – is terrible. Thus, various sources of electricity, renewable or otherwise, fossil fuel or otherwise, should be explored.

Last week, a “Power Summit” in Davao highlighted the supply constraints in Mindanao. Among the alternative power sources that were proposed by some sectors was nuclear energy.

Many of the sources of public fear about nuclear power are more fiction than reality. These include: (1) nuclear power is highly dangerous to human lives, resulting in thousands of deaths in case of a meltdown; and (2) many countries around the world shun nuclear power because of the high risks involved.

On the first fear, nuclear power actually has the least casualties compared with all other energy sources. Death or contamination from nuclear plants is lower than death from road accidents or from smoking-reIated diseases.

The worst accident was in Chernobyl, Russia in 1986. After that, no major nuclear accident occurred. Even the Three Mile Island accident in the US produced zero casualties. The Fukushima accident last year after the huge earthquake-tsunami in Japan resulted in very few, if any, casualties.

The second fear has no basis. Asia’s biggest economies – China, Japan, India and South Korea have nuclear power reactors. As of April 2012, the number of reactors operable, reactors under construction, planned reactors, and proposed reactors of these countries are 15, 26, 51 and 129, respectively, for China; 2, 7, 16 and 40 for India; 51, 2, 10 and 5 for Japan; and 23, 3, 6, and 0 for South Korea.

Our neighbors Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia have two or more proposed reactors and would have these ready soon. And this could be a shocker for some people: petroleum giant Saudi Arabia is proposing 16 nuclear reactors.

One fear about reviving nuclear power in the Philippines is securing those reactors from terrorists. But should a nuclear plant be built in Mindanao, it should be in relatively safer places like Davao or Misamis Oriental, obviously not Basilan, Cotabato or Sulu. I also think that it is standard operating procedure that the walls of any nuclear reactor are super-strong. Not even bazooka or tank shells can penetrate them.

We need to explore more power sources, especially those that do not need taxpayers’ subsidies to make them affordable. Let more power plants from more companies come in and let the players compete with each other in producing stable, more affordable electricity.

Meanwhile, here are the two tables that were not accommodated in the article due to space constraints:

Table 2. Nuclear Reactors as of April 2012, Selected Countries

source: World Nuclear Association,