Comments on: Realists and idealists on the cost of adopting renewable energy

By: bunkerbuster

bunkerbuster — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:37:52 +0000

The economy is structured so that growth depends on cheap energy and far too few critics or supporters of nuclear power are willing to acknowledge that. Until they do, nuclear power supporters will keep winning the debate by default.
Nuclear power supporters stick to the argument that we can’t get by without it, since solar and wind don’t make enough power and oil, coal and gas are too dirty/nonrenewable.
Opponents of nuclear power keep saying that solar and wind can replace nuclear.
Both are correct, on their own terms, but beside the point because consumers simply aren’t prepared to pay the true cost of safe, clean energy. Our politicians know that and configure the power monopoly accordingly, with heavy subsidies and the political corruption that engenders.
If consumers suddenly become willing to pay the full energy price, they’ll have a lot less money to spend on cars and beer and iPhones, etc, slashing economic growth.
What if Tepco sent you a bill that gave you a choice of paying, say, 5,000 yen for a month’s worth of coal power, or 7,000 for the same month by nuclear or 15,000 for solar/wind. Surveys show more than 70 percent of Japanese say they oppose nuclear power, but how many would put their money where their mouth is?
It’s unlikely we’ll have a fruitful discussion on energy policy until we can compare the real total costs of energy and figure out a way to pay for that without sinking the economy…

By: Philip Brasor & Masako Tsubuku

Philip Brasor & Masako Tsubuku — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:35:47 +0000

I don’t necessarily think coal and oil power are the elephant in the room. As mentioned above, the main reason METI wrote the bill was to meet promises made by the Japanese government (specifically, former prime minister Hatoyama) to reduce carbon output. And just because they’re going to promote more renewables, it doesn’t mean they’re going to abandon nuclear power. The goal is only 13 percent in ten years. As pointed out last night on TV Asahi’s political talk show “TV Tackle” most of the government’s “datsu-genpaku” stance is nothing more than PR. They have every intention of keeping nukes around for the foreseeable future. That’s why the Japan Science Council’s estimate of what an electric bill would be if the Renewable Energy Act is passed is implausible–it assumes that nuclear energy will no longer be a factor in Japan’s energy calculations, an unrealistic assumption at best.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:10:47 +0000

Hey Philip,
I just don’t understand why the media is opposing nuclear vs renewables, and is not talking about the elephant in the room, ie coal/gas. Did I not follow the latest debates or am I right?
I am working in the nuclear business and I sincerely think we need CO2 free energy, nuclear for baseload and renewables for peakload (as much as 20% if available/affordable).