Nuclear power advocates say it is a necessary energy source that will buy the time needed to develop cleaner and safer alternatives. Do you agree with this view?

Absolutely not. I have friends who have installed solar panels on their houses. They have a surplus of energy which they actually sell back to Tepco every month (bar the middle of winter and summer where they use the AC more). If EVERY house, building, school, and factory installed solar panels on their roofs we could greatly reduce the carbon footprint. Whether or not solar would be enough to reach 0 emissions remains to be seen, BUT a new law stipulating that all building structures be equipped with solar panels would go a long way to curb the carbon footprint.

We have the technology to do it, but there are too many vested interests and brown envelopes being passed between Tepco and the corrupt LDP to effectively implement this.

No, because they've been saying this since the 1980s.

NO. An excuse to delay new and/or other sources.

How many more nuclear disasters do we need before people give up on this stupid idea?

NO, NO, NO,....Hell NO. The most hideous discovery humans have ever discovered.

Nuclear power advocates say it is a necessary energy source that will buy the time needed to develop cleaner and safer alternatives. Do you agree with this view?

This questions imposes the idea that nuclear energy will be used as a temporarily until we can find alternatives. Now why would we do that? If it will be used long-term I would say perhaps, but short-term will be a huge pass for me. Decommissioning a plant isn't as easy as demolishing perfectly good houses here in Japan.

How many more nuclear disasters do we need before people give up on this stupid idea?

So how many have died from these disasters? Compared with those in coal mines, oil rigs, wars for oil and pollution from power stations?

Nuclear power does not have to be dangerous, it just tends to be because the plants are ancient relics. There are ways to make completely safe plants with zero meltdown risk, and safer waste products.

Look into Molten Salt Reactors.

No

Dumb

2 reasons:

waste

disasters

Believe if you like, but …

Yes, but only for the part ‘as a necessary energy source’. It won’t and don’t need buy time, because there won’t be other than a few small insignificant niche alternatives, especially when the fossil resources are emptied. It’s an illusion to cover needs with solar panels and wind turbines. You want also something to eat from the agricultural fields or fish from the sea, right? And panels in whole Africa plus super long copper cables to the countries with energy needs from industry and population? That’s a good joke, even when still omitted the resources needed. They can’t even hold a ceasefire during 28 days of Ramadan as ordered by own religion. Also any other development supporting projects or given industry so far is stolen or dysfunctional latest after a few months. Wanna really be energy dependent from those and can afford to replace the whole installments every few weeks? So go ahead and show it, if you can. No, just build NPP newly and much safer, and more importantly, take them out if private or profit interests, and that’s all to it to make it fine and working.

Coal or nuclear, take your pick. Wind, solar, hydro are fine but will NEVER be nearly enough. Societies in East Asia, South Asia, Africa and South America need more and more power to climb out of poverty.

Total world electricity from nuclear energy. About 10%, down from 14%. bout 10% from about 440 power reactors.

Total world electricity from wind is about 17%. 23% of German electricity is from the wind. UK 21%

Total world electricity from wind is about 17%. 23% of German electricity is from the wind. UK 21%

And 55% is nuclear, coal and gas in Germany. Same for the UK.

Solar is inefficient in cold and hot temperatures. It’s a technical thingie.

We need to look at the world picture and not just individual countries.

And 55% is nuclear, coal, and gas in Germany. Same for the UK.

Most days the UK does not burn coal.

At this moment 22% by wind and 8% by solar. Nuclear 12% gas 35%.

https://gridwatch.co.uk

No. Although it’s efficient at the moment, we should keep looking for safer alternatives.

The production of nuclear power is not the problem. The problem is the storage of spent fuel, some of which can stay radioactive for a thousand years. Storage of nuclear waste is expensive and can be very dangerous if not done properly.

Considering how much geologic activity has, it makes me wonder why Japan hasn't considered shifting to geothermal and just have its nuclear facilities in reserve instead. Personally, I am a fan of natural energy sources, but nuclear wins due to its bank for the buck.

I don’t mind existing plants in areas without tsunamis being turned back on. Or Germany turning theirs back on.

I dunno if new plants should be built. They would probably have to be completely different to existing ones, though this bumps up cost and risks building something that won't work.

All big eco problems can only be solved by slicing and dicing them into manageable chunks and using various techologies in combination. 10% nuclear making hydrogen in off peak times as energy storage etc. A big slice has to be economization. Eco cars use half the energy of regular ones, eco houses one fifth or less of the heating, public transport way less than private transport, eating chicken or veggies and less beef etc. etc.

I don’t mind existing plants in areas without tsunamis being turned back on.

Fukushima became a problem because the auxiliary power was knocked out by the tsunami topping the sea wall. If the auxiliary power unit had not be located where it was, the reactor could have been safely dealt with.

Building nuclear reactors how most more than renewable energy.

How much wind was in Europe's electricity yesterday?

https://windeurope.org/about-wind/daily-wind/

Nine European countries discuss increasing offshore wind power in North Sea

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/04/24/nine-european-countries-meet-to-discuss-increasing-offshore-wind-power-in-north-sea

Fukushima became a problem because the auxiliary power was knocked out by the tsunami topping the sea wall. If the auxiliary power unit had not be located where it was, the reactor could have been safely dealt with.

That is not correct. Even if the emergency generators had been located in a place they could work, the reactor buildings were not waterproof and all the main switch gear panels were located on the ground level. The tsunami wiped out those switch panels.

Until we can produce enough energy cheaply enough by renewable sources then unequivocally 'Yes'.

People have been bleating about Solar for years, its simply not efficient enough to rely on in most places 365/24/7

If the current reactors were started they would generate 15% of total power leaving the other 85% by nonnuclear means. Unlikely the country will never return to 27% of power generated by nuclear energy. All the power companies are responsible for creating the current situation.

The other three, at Fukushima Daiichi, lost power at 3.42 pm, almost an hour after the earthquake, when the entire site was flooded by the 15-metre tsunami. This disabled 12 of 13 backup generators onsite and also the heat exchangers for dumping reactor waste heat and decay heat to the sea. The three units lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions. Electrical switchgear was also disabled. - World Nuclear Association

Auxillary power and switches knocked out by flooding. The root cause of both is the same: tsunami driven water flooding vital areas. The precaution would have been the same: greater distance or higher sea wall. The most significant point is that the seismic activity itself did not cause the radiation problem.

Yes if true, but I'm quite sure, "buy time" just means "we ain't investing lots of money for a new cash cow when we already have one now".

There isn’t enough land in Japan to cover with solar panels to meet energy needs. New reactors are not like the 60-year old design used in Fukushima, but of the types used in military submarines, with no pumps or moving parts to make noise or fail. We could solve the CO2 emissions problem almost overnight without bleeding trillions out of the people to be looted by politicians and their friends to address a problem they don’t really want to solve.

Absolutely not. Nuclear is a grift.

Nuclear power plants are not commercially insurable, for obvious reasons. That might tell us something. And the costs of decommissioning, which are largely guesswork, hardly ever come into the equation. In Japan, the nuclear village has far too much power and is coalescing again and looking for justification after inflicting a massive meltdown debacle on the country that was only a freak wind direction away from evacuation of Tokyo. For God's sake, wake up!

Unless you're a specialist in the domain (and electrical is by far the most difficult branch of engineering) you actually are not qualified enough to have an opinion

Nuclear power is the only way to go. It is not possible to run Steel Blast Furnaces on solar or wind power nor is it possible to run Shinkansen. It might be OK for households. One would have to cover the entire country in solar power panels to get anywhere near the necessary wattage.

Steel blast furnaces need coke.

I will never forget the time when a former hard-core leftist friend of mine stated that they wanted nuclear power as a clean energy. I just about choked on my beer when they said that cuz that was about the only subject we both agreed on.

I am a former senior engineer for PG&E in California. I tested BWR safety systems on units like those in Fukushima. They are dangerous. My household and both eletric cars are powered by the solar system on our roof.

Don't need no nukes.