LNG-Soaked Japan Burns Oil as Nuclear Reactors Sit Idle

[FBaggins]

Japan is consuming the most oil in four years as it runs out of capacity to use liquefied natural gas as a stopgap for idled nuclear-power plants.

Utilities are burning about 400,000 barrels a day, more than at any time since 2008, after more than doubling use of crude last year, according to Deutsche Bank AG. (DBK) LNG can meet about two-thirds of Japan’s electricity needs when all its nuclear reactors are offline, government data and forecasts from the Institute for Energy Economics show.

Japan, turning to alternative sources of energy after last year’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear disaster, is boosting its reliance on oil at a time when supply concerns from Sudan to Iran are already roiling markets. Brent crude has jumped 16 percent this year to trade near a three-year high, stoking speculation governments will be forced to release oil from emergency stockpiles.

“In a global market characterized by supply-side constraints, we think sustained incremental demand of nearly 400,000 barrels a day from Japan would help keep crude prices well supported,” Michael Hsueh, a London-based analyst at Deutsche Bank, said in a report. “These are non-trivial numbers at a global level.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-28/lng-soaked-japan-burns-oil-as-nuclear-reactors-sit-idle#p2

[kristopher]

1. Flash News Alert: Multiple Reactor Meltdown At Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Facility

Unless you want more of this type of backpedaling (only worse) after future nuclear accidents, I'd suggest you stop promoting a dead end solution to our energy related climate problem.

[FBaggins]

2. Why not just promote people pulling their head out instead?

You're walking past a neighborhood with their lights out complaining that light bulbs just aren't reliable sources of illumination and advise others to turn their off...

...when the reality is that you're surrounded by a bunch of people sitting in the dark because they're too dense to flip the light switch.

[kristopher]

3. Nuclear reactors aren't safe.

Your perception and claim of safety is analogous to someone jumping off a roof and saying "hey, this is safe" on the way down.

High Incidence/Low Consequence is not the only way to evaluate safety or reliability although it is the preferred standard of nuclear proponents.

Low Incidence/High Consequence is also part of the mix. You want to pretend that the consequences are a fault of the victims - a stance that doesn't surprise me in the least coming from you.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. And gas is?

When it goes wrong, people die.
When it goes right, people still die.

Where does "guaranteed incidence/high consequence" fit on your list?

[FBaggins]

6. Ban Trains!

They just aren't safe!

Scores of deadly accidents prove this over and over, yet governments continue to endanger their citizens!

[FBaggins]

5. Of course they are.

Your perception and claim of safety is analogous to someone jumping off a roof and saying "hey, this is safe" on the way down.

Your perception of danger is analogous to seeing a person fall off of a bridge in a hurrican and pronouncing that bridges in general aren't safe.

Low Incidence/High Consequence is also part of the mix.

Except that with nuclear power it's incredibly low incidence/moderate consequence.

Fukushima proved you wrong... it's time to recognize that simple fact.

You want to pretend that the consequences are a fault of the victims

Bull. You want to pretend that you weren't of the position a year or two ago that it didn't make sense to shut down already-operating reactors ahead of their normal lifespan. Now you question anyone who would continue to hold what was once your own position. Fukushima isn't the fault of the people who were evacuated... but shutting down operating reactors just because you have an irrational fear IS your own fault. Germany was at least smart enough to recognize this.

[kristopher]

7. I've never held your position of balls to the wall new build for nuclear.

Nor have I ever been an apologist for the industry as you so clearly feel compelled to be.

There is no place in Japan that is safe from major earthquakes and they had no business building nuclear plants there in the first place. You clearly have no idea of what it is like living with near daily tremors - knowing that one of them is certain to not subside but instead to bring disaster with it. That is a fact of life in Japan and when you cap that off with the catastrophic consequences of a multiple meltdown like Fukushima the entire country MUST be affected.

The only thing irrational is your nuclear-industry centric perspective. You claims are thoroughly repellent on a very human level.

Do you know why the nuclear industry doesn't properly plan and train for their disasters? I'm sure you do.

Industry body opposed boosting nuke disaster prevention steps before Fukushima crisis

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120327p2a00m0na015000c.html

The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan (FEPC) had told the government's Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) in writing that it would oppose any plans to step up preventative measures against nuclear accidents shortly before the outbreak on March 11, 2011, of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, according to documents obtained by the Mainichi through information disclosure laws.

The FEPC, which groups 10 power companies in the country, said in written documents addressed to the NSC that it would stand against the government body's move to strengthen the country's preventative measures against nuclear accidentsThe revelation shows that the utility firms in the country downplayed preventative measures against nuclear accidents.

... such plans would give the impression that nuclear power was dangerous and affect the regions hosting nuclear power plants accordingly, as well as push up costs for such measures.

..."It would amplify public fears about nuclear power."

..."It could cause land prices to fall and reduce the number of tourists."

..."Local governments that fall within the zone will demand subsidies."


What has changed my beliefs in the wisdom of continuing to operate nuclear plants is that -as demonstrated daily by the positions of the nuclear supports everywhere - the attitude of the nuclear industry here is exactly the same as Japan, if not worse. The public in the area of nuclear power plants here is even more unprepared for an orderly response to a large scale release of radioactivity such as we've seen at Chernobyl and Fukushima than they are there. It is also abundantly clear from incidents like the Hole in Davis Besse's reactor head that our nuclear regulator is as much a captured entity of the nuclear industry as that in Japan.






More at: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/kristopher/825

[FBaggins]

8. Strange that you would deny saying something...

...that I never claimed you had said.

I most certainly wouldn't mistake you for someone who advocated lots of new nuclear.

You clearly have no idea of what it is like living with near daily tremors

I would have thought that living in Southern California would qualify... but what do I know?

knowing that one of them is certain to not subside but instead to bring disaster with it.

Whether you live near a reactor or not. Are you saying that nobody should live in Japan?

Do you know why the nuclear industry doesn't properly plan and train for their disasters?

They do. You just have a creative 20/20 hindsight definition of "properly".

[RobertEarl]

9. Kristopher asks:

"Do you know why the nuclear industry doesn't properly plan and train for their disasters?"

And your answer is: "They do"

And the facts are that they did NOT properly plan for an earthquake and Tsunami. How can you sit there and claim "They do." When they didn't.

How can anyone be so blatantly contradictory and untruthful?

[PamW]

11. You have to know who "they" are!

Granted the Japanese and TEPCO did NOT properly prepare.

However, the US nuclear industry certainly DOES!!!

The Russians were certainly bad at preparation, and no question so were the Japanese.

The Japanese licensed a US reactor design; and then didn't follow all the safety designs. For example, the Japanese plants don't have the venting systems the US plants do to prevent buildup of hydrogen gas; and that's why they exploded.

When we say "they do"; the "they" in question is the US nuclear industry.

PamW

[RobertEarl]

14. USA

Thank God we have an NRC that does, sometime, listen to the people.

THEY just need to regulate even harder and PLAN better for what-the-fuck we are gonna do with all that fuku type waste piling up day by day in nuke plants all over the country, the Time bombs ticking away.

So far, THEY are like "where-the-fuku-r-we".

I sure am glad to see PW's who are for the USA style of heavy-handed regulations over the big power companies, and am sure you too want greater regulatory power over the NPPs.

Times 'a' wasting. Lets Roll.

[FBaggins]

12. Sorry. "Properly" isn't a term that you get to make up after the fact.

And you can't look a disaster and pretend that the results are due to a failure to plan.

Even perfect planning does not result in an elimination of risk.

Ignoring the nuclear portion of the discussion for a moment, you have to recognize that Japan probably has better planning for earthquakes and tsunamis than any country in the world... and yet tens of thousands of people died. Does that mean that they failed to properly plan?

The simple fact is that, despite an historically unprecedented event and three reactors melting down, the plans that did exist resulted in the population avoiding dangerous radiation exposure. In large part this was because planning/training were so much better than in the world's last INES 7 nuclear disaster.

Ignoring the fact that a proposal that was in the industry-response stage in Jan/Feb couldn't possibly be in effect in March, there hasn't been anything reported from the proposal that would have improved the results.

[RobertEarl]

13. Wow

I am amazed at your contortions....

This: Japan probably has better planning for earthquakes and tsunamis than any country in the world... and yet tens of thousands of people died. Does that mean that they failed to properly plan?

Yes. It does mean they failed to properly plan.

And this: despite an historically unprecedented event
The earthquakes and Tsunamis have historically precedents.

The only historically unprecedented "event" is that nuclear bomb planted at Fukushima.

We have learned the lesson. Too bad it took such a toll on so many.
Now don't go beating yourself up over the facts so many have paid such a high price because nukers ignored history while drooling over the dollar signs dangling before them. But really, your contortions here are quite shameful.

[FBaggins]

15. Wow indeed.

So your definition of "proper planning" when it comes to public safety is "no matter what happens, nobody will suffer from it".

When you're ready to return rhetorically to the real world, please let us know.

[RobertEarl]

16. ?

You keep getting personal. I guess because that is all you got left to argue about, since the nuke-bombs are all to evident now? Now that the truth can no longer be hidden due to Fuku, you are reduced to unscientific scribblings?

Do you stand with PW and I in the realization that our NRC has saved us, so far, from our own Fuku, and that the NRC needs ten times more power than THEY have in order to protect our children?

[FBaggins]

17. How is that "personal"?

Your argument bears to realationship to reality. Nobody in public safety expects that their planning is proof against anything that can happen. None of them are under the illusion that such a thing is even possible.

Pointing out that you've leaft the realm of what actually is... isn't "personal". It's just a statement of fact. I may try to put a humorous twist on it... but hey welcome to the internet.

since the nuke-bombs are all to evident now?

Sorry... I'm trying hard not to say anything that you'll find personal. How about if I ask if you imagine that makes any sense?

Do you stand with PW and I in the realization that our NRC has saved us, so far, from our own Fuku

I think you've misunderstood what PW said. She correctly points out the differences between this decades-old design as it was implemented in one country vs. the U.S. - That's a perfectly valid position. Even the same event at a U.S. MKI BWR would not be likely to have the same results. PW's reaction is less to the specifics of that post and more to what is behind it... a blanket claim that the global "nuclear industry" prefers profits to safety and opposes necessary requirements of those grounds.

It's silly to say they "saved us" since there haven't been incidents here where those differences had an impact and the specifics of what occured in Japan (particularly the huge tsunami) aren't exactly what we're designing for.

What really "saved us" also saved many tens of thousands in Japan. The inclusion of a real containment - rather than a design like that of Chernobyl. There was a great deal of debate post-Chernobyl about whether or not the same thing could happen in a western reactor. Thank goodness they were right!

[RobertEarl]

18. Possible?

You seem to have this idea that nukes are the only possible thing?

Guess what.... nukes are historically unprecedented.
New nukes are from here on The Impossible Dream.

But the nuke legacy will live on until the point that our NRC figures out how to keep the waste from killing life on this planet.

I wish them Godspeed.

[FBaggins]

19. You seem to have trouble sticking to one subject.

You seem to have this idea that nukes are the only possible thing?

And where did I say that?

New nukes are from here on The Impossible Dream.

You may wish that to be the case, but that's the only "dream" here. Nuclear power is expanding rapidly in many areas of the world and, for the first time in decades, is gaining ground here in the U.S. too. Uber-cheap gas combined with sluggish demand growth keep it from being the oft-mentioned "renaissance" in the next couple years, but you would be nuts to actually believe that new nuclear power has been stopped by Fukushima.

[Nihil]

20. You need to contact the security services immediately with your top secret information

> The only historically unprecedented "event" is that nuclear bomb planted at Fukushima.

The rest of the world knows that there was a nuclear power plant at Fukushima and that
they have had serious (even catastrophic) failures but no-one else is reporting that it was
really a secret nuclear weapon being activated.

The Japanese government have been working desperately hard to remedy the damage
caused by major earthquakes & tsunamis that killed over 13,000 people but they obviously
need to be alerted about this secret nuclear attack that obviously killed hundreds of thousands
of people in a location where very few people have been publicly admitted to have been
killed that day.

Mind you, they're clever those guys: managing to disguise a ground-zero site as a
destroyed power station complex - rebuilding the reactor housings in *just* the right
way as to imply that there was a serious accident rather than an act of war that hasn't
occurred since 1945. (There again, considering precedent, perhaps *you* should be
watching for the black helicopters as only one country has ever used such weapons in
the past ...)




"nuclear bomb" ... really?

[RobertEarl]

21. You are joking, right?

You don't get it that that it had nuclear bomb type fuel there at Fuku and it blew up? Like a bomb blows up? And the nuclear radiation is spreading?

[NickB79]

22. There was a hydrogen gas explosion, not a nuclear fission explosion

The difference between the two is like lighting a match vs. burning down Yellowstone National Park.

If you don't understand the difference between these two, you really aren't qualified to speak of anything related to Fukushima.

[kristopher]

23. Are nuclear proponents the only ones allowed to engage in hyperbole?

It's obvious the post is making a rhetoric comparison designed to highlight the authors disagreement with the "nuclear is safe and green" bullshit that the nuclear industry spends millions promoting. At least he is upfront about his position, unlike many strongly pronuclear people who hide their true intent.

[RobertEarl]

24. Oh?

Was nuclear material spread? Did the plant explode like a bomb going off?

Did I say it was a nuclear explosion? No.

You and the other one are just afraid to admit that the explosion had nuclear material. It was a dirty bomb. Now, go check your sources and see what is meant by a "dirty bomb."

If you don't understand what happened, or are unwilling to admit to the facts, and instead dance around, you really lack any credibility to say anything about Fukushima.

[Nihil]

25. "The other one" would just like to point out the following about "dirty bombs" ...

> You and the other one are just afraid to admit that the explosion had nuclear material.
> It was a dirty bomb.

Speaking as "the other one", I'm not at all "afraid to admit" that an explosion at a
nuclear plant spread nuclear material around. That is no more surprising than the
stunning admission that yes, there *was* fissile material and byproducts inside the
walls (now breached) of a fission plant.

My disagreement is not with "the facts" but with the mind-numbing stupidity that associates
that event with a "bomb" - specifically "a nuclear bomb" but I still disagree with your attempt
to play down your initial comment by the "dirty bomb" pretence.


>> Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be
>> a weapon of mass destruction. Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological,
>> not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror.

Looks like 3 out of 3 in your case.


> If you don't understand what happened, or are unwilling to admit to the facts, and instead
> dance around, you really lack any credibility to say anything about Fukushima.

Yes, it was a tragedy.

Yes, it is an ongoing mess.

Yes, the nuclear industry (in the form of TEPCo for Fukushima) has been appallingly bad
both in terms of response and providing valid information to the world at large.

Yes, I'd be delighted to see every single nuclear power station switched off (along with every
single coal-fired power station and, eventually, every single gas-fired power station) but that
isn't only from a genuine desire to see safe, sustainable methods of electricity generation
supplying the (hopefully greatly reduced) demand but also a sincere wish to see an end to
such fact-free moronic panic-mongering that inevitably pops up in discussion threads like these.

[Nihil]

27. "Cleanup on aisle 5 - lots of toys being messily thrown out of a pram" (n/t)

[RobertEarl]

28. wow

You sit there and throw turds from your crib and then bawl and cry because you end up being on the wrong end of attacking a fellow duer.

What the fuck is your problem?

My problem is the nuclear time bombs around the world happily ticking away.

[Nihil]

30. Is that your word for the day? "wow"?

News for you sunshine: I'm not the one bawling & crying (& swearing) nor am I the one
on the "wrong end" of anything ... much less "attacking a fellow duer" ... I don't suppose
you've checked any mirrors lately?


> What the fuck is your problem?

My only "problem" is with moronic posters who apparently have no idea how stupid they
are being with the combination of their inability to read what has been written and their
inability to *not* write complete bollocks in response.


Your paranoia is showing:

>> and it blew up? Like a bomb blows up?
+
>> The god damned mother fucking whole fucking plant was a god damn mother fucking
>> time bomb just like all the other plants are: Nuclear fucking time bombs.
+
>> nuke plants when switched off will blow up
+
>> They are nuclear bombs waiting to blow up within minutes of being as you say: "switched off".
+
>> That kind of shallow thinking is why I fear these nuclear bombs so much.




FWIW, if you would *not* be "delighted to see every single nuclear power station switched off"
then please be aware that some people will probably accuse you of being a closet "pro-nuke" ...

[RobertEarl]

31. They can not be switched off

They have to be baby-sitted for years to keep them from blowing up.

You sit there and tell me that my words are not perfect enough and then you go on and say something a hundred times more stupid.

Instead of having a discussion about whether these are nuclear bombs or not you call me names and then make a fool of yourself.

Such hypocrisy and stupidity as yours pisses me off. Yeah, it does.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Thousands flee as RobertEarl goes into meltdown

Film at 11.

[RobertEarl]

29. delighted to see every single nuclear power station switched off

That kind of shallow thinking is why I fear these nuclear bombs so much.

The very idea that we can just switch off a nuke plant and then go home and have a beer is the mind-numbing stupidity.

Yes you can just switch off a coal or gas plant and forget about it. But the nuke plants when switched off will blow up. They are nuclear bombs waiting to blow up within minutes of being as you say: "switched off".

So.... who is being moronic and stupid? The person who says just switch them off, or me who says that the problem goes far beyond that simpleton desire?

It is obvious you needed to hear from me because you sure as hell have not thought long and hard about the reality of the nuclear nightmare.

[PamW]

10. Where does this line lead to...

There is no place in Japan that is safe from major earthquakes and they had no business building nuclear plants there in the first place.
===============

Kris,

In that case, then the Japanese have no business building any bridges - because the bridges can collapse in an earthquake.

Then they can't build skyscrapers, because those could collapse in an earthquake.

They have no business building houses; because those could collapse in an earthquake.

You just don't know the science and engineering. We know the physics of structural mechanics. Now more than ever, we can model structures on big computers and determine what will happen when the structure is subjected to the loads of an earthquake. Then we design for that earthquake.

In the USA, at least; the NRC requires that nuclear plant operators prepare for accidents. That's why they have containment buildings, and why they have regular disaster drills; counter to your whole-cloth fabrication that they don't prepare.

PamW