(From a lecture recording)
The Fukushima power plant accident and the impasse of human society
In 2007, I published the book, “A Country’s Ideal and the Constitution—The Road to a Nation for International Peace and the Environment” (Japanese), and in 2008, the English translation was published under the title, “Beyond National Egoism”. At age 22, I encountered the concept that is presented in this book. This book was a compilation of more than 40 years of contemplation since then.
The present world is at an impasse because of various difficult problems such as war, conflicts, terrorism, environmental problems, food supply shortage, poverty, famine, and energy shortage. Human society is facing an unprecedented crisis.
Further, amidst this, in Japan there are not only environmental problems, but also educational issues such as bullying, school absenteeism, and classroom disruption and chaos. Considering the young people, many of them say that in this society, they cannot find a worthy purpose or motivation in living. Of course, there are many young people who are working hard and doing their best, but overall, we can see a tendency of extremely weak will. I feel this is something that should be very alarming regarding the future of Japan.
In addition, the direction toward strengthening the U.S.-Japan Alliance and having Japan participate in wars along with the U.S., has gradually gained strength. Through all this, it appears that Japan has reached an impasse because of various factors, such as whether the Constitution, which is the key point of Japan’s future, should be revised or not.
This unprecedented crisis of humankind did not begin recently. The survival of humankind itself was endangered in the Cold War era in which the U.S. and Soviet Union confronted each other over decades in a state of extreme tension with the possibility of an all-out nuclear war because they held several tens of thousands of nuclear arms that were said to have the potential to kill all humankind many tens of times over.
Fortunately, the collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the end of the Cold War. However, although the situation is no longer as tense as before, the U.S. and Russia still have a large quantity of nuclear weapons. After the end of the Cold War, besides the U.S. and Russia, there has been an increase in the number of countries including China that possess and are strengthening their nuclear weapons. Certainly, it is thought that there is no longer a threat of an all-out nuclear war for now, but the risk of nuclear war has not necessarily gone away.
In addition, from 30 years ago, the problem of global-scale environmental destruction has emerged in a big way. We have come to understand that if we continue production and economic growth in the present form, the earth environment itself will be destroyed and the survival of humans will be threatened in the future.
In my youth, when I learned that we might end up destroying ourselves, I felt greatly shocked, and thought, “Humans are so foolish.” At the same time, I thought, “Humans absolutely cannot be such foolish beings. Humans will unfailingly realize their mistakes, correct them with their own hands, and should be able to bring to reality a world where everyone is happy and at peace”. Since that time, as my life theme, I have been contemplating a solution for the impasse faced by Japan and the world, and the realization of a happy and peaceful world.
The main theme of those contemplations is as follows. In order to resolve the impasse faced by human society, find the most fundamental cause of the impasse of human society and determine what can be done to remove the cause. The work was complied together as the book, “Beyond National Egoism”.
The nuclear power plant catastrophe that was forewarned frequently
This book explains about the impasse condition of the entire human society, including Japan, from various angles. The risks of a nuclear power plant accident are described in considerable detail.
Already two months have passed since the accident occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant this year, on March 11. That day, at our house, we also felt tremors with an intensity of a weak 6 on the Japanese seven-level seismic scale. After a while, we heard news of this nuclear plant accident, and my first thought was, “It happened, after all”. If I were to express my feelings of that time, only the word “chagrin” comes to mind.
What I mean is that already 4 to 5 years ago, in this book, I had written that the risk of a nuclear power plant accident is very great, and that if an accident were to occur, undoubtedly, it would happen in the way that occurred this time. Indeed, it happened exactly as described.
Actually, I felt perplexed that my prediction was accurate. What I mean is that I am not an expert regarding nuclear power, nor am I an expert in social science.
So, when I was working on the book, “Beyond National Egoism”, I read books from various related fields of study in order to examine what is actually occurring.
I looked over about 10 to 20 books related to nuclear power. What I learned from reading those books is that already from several decades earlier, although their numbers were not at all large, reliable researchers and concerned experts warned based on scientific knowledge and research, “Nuclear power plants are extremely risky”.
Despite these warnings, finally, a large-scale nuclear power plant accident occurred this time. I was stunned and appalled as I thought anew about what on earth we had been doing until now.
Various people have been fervently warning about the risks of nuclear power. Of course, there are many people who lent an ear to those warnings, and worked hard, raising their voices and taking action to abandon nuclear power. But, despite these efforts and activities, a large-scale nuclear plant accident occurred this time.
This means that overall, still, only a small number of people seriously lent an ear to the warnings of these people and assertively took action based on those warnings. As a result, doesn’t this indicate that they could not become a definitive force to change this country of Japan?
Search for the essence of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident
A large-scale nuclear power plant accident already occurred in Fukushima, but to avoid this kind of accident from ever happening again, I feel that now of all times, we must address anew the importance of “thinking seriously and acting seriously”.
As I mentioned before, I am not an expert regarding nuclear power. In this aspect, I am a complete amateur. However, as of four years ago, since I read various books and studied in order to write “Beyond National Egoism”, I was better informed than the general level people regarding nuclear power.
But, after the nuclear plant accident in Fukushima, various people have spoken out about nuclear power on television, in the newspapers, on the Internet, etc. Even people whose voices were small until now have received great coverage. Accordingly, many of you probably already know well about what I will discuss from now.
So, even though this is the case, the main topic of today’s talk is to search for the essence of the problem as we verify anew the information one more time.
The myth of the safety of nuclear power was disproved
First, the biggest thing that has become clear until now is that the electric power companies and the government or Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have been saying that nuclear power is absolutely safe, and that this myth of the safety of nuclear power has been completely disproved.
Concomitantly, it became clear that until now, the electric power companies had been saying lies upon lies. This means that from now, the situation has become such that no matter what the electric power companies such as Tokyo Electric Power Company, Chubu Electric Power Company, and Kansai Electric Power Company try to say, we have reached the point where we will not be able to trust them completely.
To put it simply, we were being deceived by the government and the electric power companies. In other words, it means we were completely taken for fools. It is something I had realized, but anew, I feel deeply chagrined.
Furthermore, in the announcements by the Tokyo Electric Power Company and the government, the word, “unexpected” is used very frequently. Various things have been said about this point, but with just a little studying, even an amateur like myself could “expect” the possibility of this kind of accident occurring.
What on earth does it mean when a person who is said to be a specialist, uses the word “unexpected” regarding something that an amateur like me can understand?
Although I am an amateur regarding nuclear power, in the past, I was a researcher in the sciences. From that perspective, I feel that it is extremely disgraceful for an expert to overuse the word “unexpected”. Their intent to want to evade the issue and continue nuclear power even now is obvious.
Is nuclear power cheap?
There is another point to consider. Until now, as one of the grounds for supporting nuclear power, the government and electric power companies have been saying that nuclear power generation is less expensive than thermal power and other power generation methods.
For example, according to the “Energy White Paper” (2010 edition) of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the costs of power generation per kilowatt hour are 7 to 8 yen for thermal generation using liquified natural gas, 8 to 13 yen for hydraulic power, 10 to 14 yen for wind power, and 49 yen for solar power. In comparison, nuclear power is 5 to 6 yen per kWh.
However, until now, many experts have been saying that based on data, nuclear power is certainly not cheap, and is also not less expensive than thermal power.
Recently, in the April 30 issue of the Tokyo Newspaper, Professor Kenichi Oshima of Ritsumeikan University presented data comparing the costs until now of nuclear power generation with other methods such as thermal and hydraulic generation. These can be found through a search on the Internet. Starting from the reports of the electric companies, Professor Oshima calculated the costs more precisely by adding factors such as taxes to promote development of nuclear power and expenses for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel that were not included in the calculations of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
By doing so, the costs of power generation per kilowatt hour are 9.90 yen for thermal power, 7.26 yen for hydraulic power, and 10.68 yen for nuclear power, so nuclear power is the most expensive. Furthermore, this is approximately twice the 5 to 6 yen calculated cost that the government used in the “Energy White Paper” mentioned above.
In addition, for nuclear power generation, a pumping-up hydroelectric power plant is necessary. In other words, the nuclear power plant and pumping-up hydroelectric power plant are a set, and in this case, the cost becomes 12. 23 yen. So, nuclear power is certainly not cheap.
Does nuclear power save on petroleum?
Another grounds for the theory of promoting nuclear power is the assertion, “Nuclear power saves on petroleum”. Is this really true?
To check this, we only need to calculate the electrical power productivity ratio. For a power generation method, the electrical power productivity ratio is the ratio of the amount of energy of all the petroleum input for generating electricity to the electric power generated, converted into the amount of petroleum energy.
This means that if the output energy is greater than the input energy (converted into petroleum), that is, if the electrical power productivity ratio is greater than 1, the energy balance is positive, and it would be meaningful to implement that power generation method. Also, the larger the electrical power productivity ratio, the more efficient the power generation method from the perspective of energy balance. In short, it would mean that method is also profitable economically and saves on petroleum.
In contrast, if the productivity ratio is less than 1, the energy balance would be negative, and it would mean there is no point in implementing that power generation method. Even worse, if the method were implemented, it would be a loss economically and a wasteful use of petroleum.
For example, in the case of coal-fired power generation, the power created from coal that was mined by using 1 unit of petroleum is said to be equivalent to about 100 units of petroleum. That means the electrical power productivity ratio is 100, and coal-fired power generation makes sense.
However, for petroleum-fired power generation, in which petroleum is used to drill for petroleum that is burned to generate electricity, the electrical power productivity ratio is much larger than 100. This means that from the energy balance perspective, petroleum-fired power generation is much more efficient than coal-fired power generation. For this reason, usage of coal-fired power generation declined.
Now, how about nuclear power generation? According to the calculations by the U.S. Bureau of Energy Development in 1976, the electrical productivity ratio was 3.8 for nuclear power in the U.S. The figure was 4.0 according to a report of the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry in Japan in 1991, although the details of the calculations were not made public. It is believed that these figures are nearly the same because the calculations were based on similar presumptions such as the model set-up and processes.
It is clear that when calculating energy balance, if there are oversights of conditions that ought to be assumed in the calculations, that is, if some elements are left out, it will not lead to accurate results.
First, to calculate the energy input, all of the energy input for generation of electricity must be totaled. For example, everything must be incorporated, such as mining and refining of uranium, expenditures for construction of the power generation plant, costs of operating the power plant, and expenditures for construction of the pumping-up hydroelectric power generation plant needed to run the nuclear plant. From the output energy, it is necessary to subtract factors such as expenditures for processing the nuclear waste materials, and losses from factors such as transmission and nighttime electricity usage at the pumping-up hydroelectric power generation plant.
Dr. Atsushi Tsuchida, a physicist, has pointed out that there were considerable oversights in the calculations of the U.S. Bureau of Energy Development, and correcting for these, he calculated the following results.
Regarding the “energy input”, construction of a pumping-up hydroelectric power plant required for operating a nuclear power plant, construction of an electric power plant and electricity used for operation, and construction of a long distance electrical transmission facility were overlooked elements, so these were added. In addition, regarding “energy output”, nighttime power loss in a pumping-up hydroelectric power plant and losses in transmission were subtracted. By doing so, it is said that the energy balance becomes almost 1.
From this alone, it means there is no meaning in implementing nuclear power. Further, by adding the considerable amount of energy consumed over a long period of time for such things as processing radioactive waste, no matter how optimistically you look at it, the energy balance will become less than one. Professor Takeshi Murota, a mathematical economist, also calculated nearly the same results.
From these results, we can say that nuclear power generation makes no sense at all for power generation. Rather, nuclear power generation does not save on petroleum and is a big wasteful use of petroleum.
In short, the truth is that nuclear power is first of all, extremely dangerous, incurs a high cost, and also does not save on petroleum.
Can we get by without nuclear power?
There is another point to consider. It is often questioned, “Can we get by without nuclear power?” Certainly, if there is a shortage of electricity, it would cause hindrances including in daily life, industrial and economic activities, and all activities related to subsistence, so we can say it is a very big issue. Accordingly, now, many people are saying, “Without nuclear power, there will be an electricity shortage”, and they are using this as a major grounds for continuing or promoting nuclear power.
Is this really true? Let us look at the actual figures. Dr. Hiroaki Koide of the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute has pointed out that in Japan overall, thermal power generation is operating at 50% capacity, and hydraulic power generation is at 19% capacity. Thus, if the operating rates of thermal and hydraulic power generation were increased, there would be a sufficient surplus in power generation capacity even without operating nuclear plants.
In fact, the total of thermal and hydraulic power generation capacity is 170 million KW. Except for the few hours in the afternoon in mid-summer, with the sum of thermal power and hydraulic power, the electricity demand can be covered even without nuclear power. The highest electricity consumption on record so far in Japan is 182 million KW, and that exceeds the sum of thermal and hydraulic power generation by 12 million KW.
There would be a slight electricity shortfall only in the period of a few hours when air conditioners are used in summer and electricity consumption peaks. Therefore, by taking effective measures to suppress the overall amount of electricity used in this peak time, it is fully possible to abandon nuclear power.
To suppress the overall amount of electricity used during the peak time, suppress the electricity consumed by air conditioners by setting the air conditioner temperature just a little higher. As an alternative, to suppress the electricity consumption during peak times in places such as factories, production adjustments can be made such as staggering the operating times for the various types of equipment. Furthermore, measures, such as setting the electricity rates for peak times higher, as in France, are fully effective for suppressing the overall amount of electricity used. In short, we can survive sufficiently well without nuclear power.
Let us consider this by referring to a more concrete example.
At present, the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant has been suspended, that is, operations have stopped. According to the “Electrical Power Supply Plan” for the year 2011 in the Chubu Electric Power Company home page, the generation reserve margin was 2.95 million KW for the year 2010. In mid-summer last year, which was a heat wave, only reactors 3 and 4 at Hamaoka were operating, and they had a total supply capacity of 2.237 million kW.
That means if reactors 3 and 4 at Hamaoka had not been operating, 2,950,000 - 2,237,000 = 713,000 kW would have been left in the generation reserve margin.
In addition, the generation reserve margin this year was 4,390,000 kW. Chubu Electric Power Company itself has forecast that even if the Hamaoka nuclear plant were completely stopped, which is a reduction of 3,617,000 kW, more than 773,000 kW would be left. Even without nuclear power, other types of power generation such as thermal and hydraulic power generation will suffice.
In addition, the following article appeared in the June 12, 2011 Asahi Newspaper with the title, “Summer electricity demand, and securing supply capacity. Tokyo Electric Power Company moves toward restarting the Hirono Power Plant”.
“All five of the reactors (total output power 3.8 million kW) at the Hirono Thermal Power Plant (Hirono Town, Fukushima Prefecture) of Tokyo Electric Power Company that had stopped operations after being damaged by the tsunami in the Great East Japan Earthquake, are expected to be able to restart operations in the middle of July. Therefore, the probability has increased that Tokyo Electric Power Company will be able to secure power supply exceeding the forecasted highest demand this summer of 55 million kW. (omission of middle part)
If the Hirono Thermal Power Plant starts up, it will become possible to add more power with the pumping-up hydroelectric power plant that draws up water with the leftover electricity at night.”
In short, it is an article saying that even in the Tokyo Electric Power Company district, they can likely manage without nuclear power this summer. Therefore, for example, if everyone sets the air conditioner temperature about 1 degree higher, it would easily save on about one nuclear reactor’s worth of electricity. So including businesses, if we make a point to conserve electricity in our work and daily life, it is fully possible to avoid a shortage of electricity without forcing people to endure great hardship.
In other words, from now, we need to change and correct the way we had been squandering electricity like water, and endeavor to conserve electricity as much as possible. By doing so, and by using only thermal power, hydraulic power, or natural energy sources, we can make do even without nuclear power. This can be done without lowering the present level of our daily lives or work efficiency of businesses, and without raising production costs.
These past several decades, the government has promoted nuclear power as a national policy. For this reason, along with thermal power, nuclear power has become one of the two large pillars for generating electricity. In other words, even though we could have sufficiently met the electricity demands from the beginning with methods other than nuclear power, such as thermal power, as the main source for generating electricity, nuclear power has been firmly incorporated into our daily electricity generation system as a national policy, and this structure has left our lives, economic activities and other areas dependent on nuclear power.
As a consequence, if we were to suddenly abolish all nuclear power now, realistically, adjustments could not be made in time, and in some regions, there may be temporary electricity shortages. In this sense, it is certain that how to get by through periods of potential electricity shortages is a major issue, and we must deal with this carefully.
The potential for a catastrophe from factors such as a terrorist attack
The accident this time arose from an earthquake and tsunami, but there is something else we must consider.
It has not been mentioned often, but in fact, there is a very strong possibility that if a nuclear power plant were struck in an airplane crash, missile attack or terrorist attack, a catastrophe would occur.
Based on the principle or structure of a nuclear power plant, it would not be possible to prevent a catastrophe if a nuclear plant were struck in an airplane crash or military attack.
In short, nuclear power plants were not designed and built assuming a military attack or plane crash. The structures were designed and built on the premise that they would be operating during a so-called “era of peace” in which there is no war or terrorism.
In the case of Japan, there are 54 nuclear reactors, and they are located along the coastline almost all across the country. If there were a country that planned to attack Japan, this would be exactly the same as setting nuclear bombs throughout the country.
If a nuclear plant were struck by an airplane, missile, or another form of terrorism, it would be the same as having dropped several nuclear bombs on Japan. If so, Japan would virtually be annihilated, and there would be no longer any place where humans could live in Japan. This would be an extremely terrible situation.
In this sense, as long as Japan has nuclear power plants, no matter how much the military power is strengthened, it would be impossible to prevent attacks from other countries against nuclear plants. This may be black humor, but it means that if Japan continues to maintain nuclear power plants from now also, there is no way for Japan to survive except by completely abolishing all military forces and aspiring toward becoming an absolutely peaceful, friendly country that would never be attacked by other countries.
Incidentally, Western countries have conducted research and implemented training assuming a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant. In 1981, a nuclear reactor in Iraq was actually bombed by Israel.
(Supplementary note: According to the Asahi Newspaper of July 31, 2011, prompted by the bombing incident of the nuclear reactor in Iraq, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs started damage prediction research in absolute secrecy for the case of an attack on a domestic nuclear plant. In 1984, findings were submitted stating that an attack on a nuclear plant would cause enormous damage. Nevertheless, it was not made public for fear of expanding the anti-nuclear power movement.)
We have been deceived about everything
Now, I would like to summarize the various things that we have considered up to this point. In a word, perhaps we have been deceived about everything after all.
With the catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear plant this time, not only has it been proven by actual fact that nuclear plants, which the electric power companies and government have been saying are absolutely safe until now, are extremely dangerous, but also, all of the factors that have been considered as advantages and grounds for promoting nuclear power were in fact disadvantages.
What does this mean? To put it simply, from the beginning, there was absolutely no meaning in implementing nuclear power. With nuclear power, we, the general public, only suffer major losses, and nuclear power is extremely dangerous. Perhaps this has become clear to many people through the nuclear plant accident at Fukushima.
As I mentioned earlier, one more very important point here is that from several decades ago, concerned people have been warning repeatedly about these facts.
At the same time, it means there was the influence of electric power companies, government, bureaucrats, politicians, the financial world, scholars who wanted research funds, and media under the government’s thumb, that sealed off the voices of these warnings. In addition, many of us have lived either believing unconditionally the words of people in high positions, such as people in the government and electric companies, or pretending not to see even while doubting, or being completely apathetic to these matters. Perhaps it can be said that a combination of these led to the catastrophe this time.
Ignorance, apathy, leaving matters to others, and giving up are the fundamental causes
In short, what I want to say is that, here and now, we ought to properly reflect on our own attitude in life, and not try to settle this problem only by one-sidedly criticizing the electric power companies or government.
For example, although it is pathetic, until the nuclear accident in Fukushima, many people did not know that there are 54 reactors in Japan. In addition, we can hear the voices of many people who say that because of this accident, for the first time, they realized that nuclear power is dangerous.
Regarding nuclear power, it is clear that the government, electric power companies, and others were to blame, but at the same time, we have been deficient in many ways. Consequently, the outcome is that we have been supporting these kinds of electric power companies, the government, and others.
If we do not properly reflect on this fact, we cannot create a peaceful and happy Japan in the true sense from now. Taking the nuclear power issue as one example, I feel that without proper self-reflection, the decisions may go awry depending on the situation from now. Further, in other serious societal issues besides nuclear power, such as the issue of revising the constitution of Japan, the possibility of choosing the wrong path may result. So in this sense too, it can be said that we are standing at a major crossroad or critical turning point now.
To put it another way, I feel that now of all times, we must make this an opportunity to create a country of Japan that is truly peaceful and where everyone is happy. We must put forth all our effort to recover from this difficult situation as quickly as possible. At the same time, we must investigate the fundamental cause that triggered this difficult situation, so that not only the nuclear power accident, but this kind of tragedy never occurs again, and implement a thorough fundamental treatment in our way of living as individuals, in addition to the government and society’s way of being.
“O-kami-shinko” (blind faith in the government) is no good
Let us consider a little further about these matters. As a general trend, Japanese people tend to have “o-kami-shinko” (blind faith in the government). The Japanese people, for no reason at all, tend to accept without questioning what people “above” say, such as people in high positions in the government, university professors, or a president of a large company.
Of course, regarding politicians, for example, we hear conversations of complaints about the present prime minister. However, overall, although it is odd to say “above” when there is truly no above or below, the nature of Japanese people is that there is a tendency to accept without questioning what is told to them from “a person above”. Regarding the nuclear power problem, perhaps this is one of the fundamental causes on our side.
From another perspective, we do not attempt to know the details, or rather, know accurately. This is apathy, which is saying that the matter is something for people in high positions to consider and is irrelevant to me. It is also leaving matters to others to do, and saying it is not something I can do. Ignorance comes from this apathy. I may sound like I am talking patronizingly, but this time, I myself cannot say that I do not have this tendency.
Another point is “giving up”. Perhaps an extremely large number of people feel somewhere in their heart, “ultimately, that kind of thing can’t be helped”. It is a sense of giving up and saying, “even if each of us raises our voice, ultimately, it can’t be helped”.
Ignorance, apathy, leaving matters to others, and giving up. These are the biggest causes of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Would it be going too far to say that before reproaching the attitude of the electric power companies or government, we ourselves, each one of us, must reflect on ourselves?
After saying this now, I, myself do not think this statement is going too far, but I feel deeply anew that this “ignorance, apathy, leaving matters to others, and giving up” of all things are the fundamental causes of the catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear plant.
In other words, in general, each one of us is lacking the proper recognition that “this society, this country and the world are ours”. For this reason, we ourselves were lacking the awareness that “we are to create this society, this country, and this world with our hands”. Regarding the country, does it not mean, “a clear vision of what kind of Japan we are going to create in the future, and a true ideal that anyone can accept, has not been set forth in the country of Japan”?
There are still many who are in favor of nuclear power
From what I have discussed until now, I think you have understood that with a little investigation, anyone can understand matters such as “nuclear power is far from being cheap”.
There are people who think as follows. “Nuclear power and radiation are scary for some reason. An accident actually occurred. Therefore, I am opposed to nuclear power.” Nevertheless, by actually talking with people, I found that there are many people around me who actually support and promote nuclear power.
I feel that there are still only a small number of people who absolutely oppose nuclear power no matter the circumstances; that is, these people feel that we will create a society free of nuclear power from now. In questionnaires by newspapers and other sources, it seems that 70% oppose nuclear power now, but by talking with people in actual daily life, it seems maybe about one quarter of the people would abandon nuclear power no matter the circumstances.
It seems that the remaining three quarters now feel that it would be better not to have nuclear power. However, it appears they think that if there would be an electricity shortage without nuclear power, or if it would unfavorably influence their work, or if economic growth could not be maintained, maybe continuing nuclear power is unavoidable. In other words, I think there are a fair number of people who feel strongly against nuclear power now, but would switch to continuing or promoting nuclear power depending on the circumstances.
This means that assuming one quarter of the people say they absolutely oppose nuclear power no matter the circumstances, if the remaining three quarters support nuclear power depending on the situation, nuclear power will continue nonetheless.
Probably, there are electric power companies, government-related people and bureaucrats who would gain by continuing or promoting nuclear power, and they have united and promoted nuclear power, but I believe the number of these people is about 1% of the total population or less.
The remaining 99% is the general population. So, if we, the general population, just clearly understand that nuclear power truly makes no sense, has no advantages, and of course, does not even save on petroleum, nor reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and on top of that, is tremendously dangerous, it will be possible to abolish nuclear power permanently.
Not even one advantage to nuclear power
This is an important topic, so I will go over it again. Many people think there are advantages and disadvantages to nuclear power. In addition, they try to decide whether to support or oppose nuclear power by weighing the advantages and disadvantages on a balance, and seeing which is heavier.
Of the disadvantages, the biggest factor is the fact that nuclear power is excessively dangerous. Assuming nuclear power has some advantages, even so, the disadvantage of being excessively dangerous far outweighs all of the advantages combined, and I, myself, feel that nuclear power should be abolished immediately.
Yet, here is a problem of a difference in sense of values. For example, some people say as follows. Economic growth is more important than anything else. Electricity is needed for economic growth. Even if nuclear power is dangerous, it is necessary for supplying electricity.
In other words, it is the theory that nuclear power is necessary for the sake of economic growth, even if there is a dangerous aspect of nuclear power. Perhaps the words, “economic growth” could be replaced by, “maintaining the present lifestyle”, “continuing the present work”, or “securing and maintaining the present income”.
It would mean that support or opposition to nuclear power would depend on each person’s sense of values, and further, a person’s way of thinking would change according to the social conditions of the time. Under such circumstances, it is only natural that a clear conclusion could never be reached. Furthermore, even if a conclusion were forcibly drawn, if the conclusion were mistaken, it would mean leaving problems in the future.
However, what I have described so far is, “The fact is that there is absolutely no advantage to nuclear power.” If you investigate the actual situation regarding all of the factors that were said to be advantages, there is nothing that can be called an advantage peculiar to nuclear power, and instead, they are disadvantages.
In this way, if it becomes clear that there are absolutely no advantages to nuclear power, what remains is only the disadvantage that nuclear power is excessively dangerous. That means, no matter what, nuclear power ought to be abolished as soon as possible and permanently.
Just understanding is not enough
I think you have already agreed with what I have discussed so far. However, by that only, nothing will change.
Some people comment as follows. “I read books on nuclear power. I also looked at some websites. I went to listen to some lectures. I see now that nuclear power is dangerous. There are no advantages to nuclear power. I understand very well that there is no meaning in implementing nuclear power. Therefore, I oppose nuclear power.” Perhaps, we can say this is some progress, but I think that with this only, it will not be possible to immediately and permanently abolish all nuclear power.
In other words, nothing will change if a person just says, "I oppose nuclear power", and does nothing more. This has been proven by many examples in history. To put it simply, it means, "Peace will not become reality by only praying".
Toward bringing to reality true peace, I feel that by boldly conveying one’s thoughts to others through certain and concrete methods, we must increase the number of people who agree. In short, perhaps the most important lesson we ought to learn from the nuclear power plant accident is that unless each one of us becomes "a person who truly takes action", nothing will change in this society.
Increase your ability to convey to others
For this purpose, first, each one of us must understand properly as a fact and theoretically, "Why it is necessary to abolish all nuclear power immediately". Next, it is necessary to develop the ability to properly explain this to others with reliable theory and facts. In addition, I feel we must find opportunities and boldly convey this truth to others.
For this, developing your abilities by assertively reading relevant books and websites, and participating in lectures and study groups is very effective. In addition, introducing good books and websites to acquaintances and inviting them to lectures and study groups are effective methods.
For example, how would you reply to opinions such as the following? "Nuclear power is necessary to continue economic growth". "With natural energy, power generation is unstable and the efficiency is not good, so it will not substitute for nuclear power that is stable and is efficient in power generation." "With just one gram of uranium, nuclear power generation can produce the energy of two tons of petroleum. Nuclear power is far more efficient".
Regarding the first opinion, "Nuclear power is necessary to continue economic growth", as I already explained, you can present figures that have been reported and say, "Even without nuclear power, thermal and hydraulic power generation are sufficient".
Regarding the second opinion, ""With natural energy, power generation is unstable, and the efficiency is not good, so it will not substitute for nuclear power that is stable and is efficient in power generation", certainly, at the present stage, it is a fact that power generation with natural energy is unstable, and the efficiency is not high.
For spreading and expanding natural energy power generation, it is hoped that from now, power generation efficiency will be increased by major technological innovations, and at the same time, stability and control technology will improve through computer technology such as "smart grid". By doing so, power generation by natural energy will become increasingly important as a promising power generation method in the future.
In addition, the efficiency of power generation with nuclear power is certainly not high compared to thermal power and hydraulic power. From this aspect also, thermal power, hydraulic power, and natural energy can sufficiently supply the required electrical power.
Regarding the third opinion, "With just one gram of uranium, nuclear power generation can produce the energy of two tons of petroleum. Nuclear power is far more efficient", by thinking about this just a little, people might think, "That's amazing". However, this is a numerical trick.
Indeed, it is amazing that with just one gram of uranium, the energy of two tons of petroleum will be output. However, the refined one-gram of uranium does not exist in that form from the beginning. By digging deep into the earth, soil- or rock-containing uranium is extracted. Of this extracted soil or rock, only a small portion contains uranium, and of that uranium, only 0.07% is uranium-235, which is used in nuclear power.
This means that we are only saying that the final one-gram of uranium, which was produced by repeatedly concentrating the uranium from the first stage where it was contained in soil or rock, is equivalent to the energy of two tons of petroleum. Therefore, from the initial condition of being in the soil or rock deep underground, by no means does crude uranium have so much power compared to petroleum.
There is no doubt that concentrated and refined uranium has tremendous energy. However, to refine and concentrate uranium to that extent requires an enormous amount petroleum or electricity produced from petroleum.
By verifying the facts one by one, as above, it is possible to disprove with certainty the basis upon which various people say that nuclear power is necessary and to persuade them.
Convey to others with certainty
In this way, each person conveys with certainty to others regarding the truth about nuclear power. Convey with certainty to 5, 10 or even 100 people. Those people to whom the information was conveyed also convey to 5, 10 or 100 people. I feel that if this chain reaction does not reach the final goal, it will not be possible to truly abolish nuclear power, of course, nor to bring to reality a society of true peace where everyone is happy.
I feel that the fact that each one of us could not do so until now, is the biggest cause of making Japan a country that would bring about the catastrophe at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. In this sense, perhaps serious consideration of "What is true happiness?" and "becoming a person who takes action in earnest" are the things most needed from each one of us now.
(End of part 1. To be continued in part 2)
No comments:
Post a Comment