Quote:

Japan’s hopes of meeting its 2030 climate goal rest on technology development, ramping up energy efficiency and restarting some of its mothballed fleet of nuclear power plants. Speaking to media on Tuesday, environment minister Tamayo Marukawa said the government expects to sign off on the plan in May, which aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions 26% on 2013 levels by 2030. “It also includes an 80% cut by 2050 as a long-term target,” said Marukawa in quotes reported by Bloomberg. “It is very significant that we can show our determination to make contributions after the Paris Agreement,” he added. Despite a notable rise in solar capacity, future emission cuts will depend on how swiftly the country can scale back coal consumption. In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster Japan mothballed its fleet of nuclear reactors, relying on fossil fuel imports to meet energy demand. But last week prime minister Shinzo Abe said these would need to be switched back on to meet energy demand. “Our resource-poor country cannot do without nuclear power to secure the stability of energy supply while considering what makes economic sense and the issue of climate change,” he said. In 2014 the world’s sixth largest carbon polluter reported a 10% leap in emissions on 1990 levels as a result of a spike in coal use. Around 40 new coal power plants are planned up to 2030, according to the Global Coal Plant Tracker.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/15/japan-fleshes-out-climate-change-plan/

Sounds fair enough

the Nuclear Power industry in Japan supplied about 30% of its total electrical power requirement before the Nuclear melt down in Fukushima. About 52 nuclear power reactors have been offline since March 11th 2011 with only a couple of reactors coming online recently.

Interesting how Japan has effectively managed to power its national Electrical Grid without the need of re-starting its nuclear reactors for 5 years.

there can be no dumber, irresponsible, reckless and economically deranged method of boiling water that a nuclear reactor core.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Fukushima Daichi reactors continue to spew out 400 + tonnes of radioactively contaminated groundwater into the pacific.

Have the found the coriums yet? I understand that even robots are still not able to last very long when sent into the reactor buildings.

Estimated cost of clean up? 1/2 trillion $US, over 50 years even though there doesnt seem to be a viable plan of site remediation given there is no technology invented yet to deal with the nuclear waste clean up.

(and of course we have the bulk of the Japanese mainland sprinkled with all sorts of radioactive goodies like Cs137, Sr90, Uranium and Plutonium. Japan will be cleaned up in no time - well done!)

Well done Chimp. Fair comment.

So tell me Chimp. Which has the potential to kill most people? Soaring global temperatures or  localised radioactive contamination? (Don't start talking about nuclear weapons.  Japan is not involved in nuclear weapons production)

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

Soaring global temperatures

What SOARING global temperatures?

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

So tell me Chimp. Which has the potential to kill most people? Soaring global temperatures or  localised radioactive contamination? (Don't start talking about nuclear weapons.  Japan is not involved in nuclear weapons production)

Looks like humanity is making both a reality.

It's like saying we better ignore civilian slaughter by states who are perpetrating war crimes and atrocities because the enormous number of humans dying of Malaria each year.

I am comfortable tackling both issues and not turning a blind eye if I can help it. Of course i am just one person of many billions on this planet. Does it really matter what I think John?

Well done on your post though - congratulations on putting in the effort and constructing a post that does no contain any non-peer reviewed videos or references to cancer curing Baking Soda and magnesium powder.

Well done and you should be very proud of your effort mate

lee wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 10:50am:

John_Taverner wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:44am: Soaring global temperatures What SOARING global temperatures?

Did you check out the February 2015 temperature data set lee???

Amazing I was just making Mr Sir Bobby aware of the February 2016 temperature data set the other day.

Mr Sir Bobby's non-peer reviewed videos are amazing - just amazing lee - have you watched any of them mate? Incredible stuff mate.

The Temperature data set for February 2016 is just amazing lee - absolutely amazing mate - have you examined the February 2016 temperature data set yet mate? I hope you have mate.

We should talk again soon,

I am off to KFC for a bite mate - well done lee, well done!!

:)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

Did you check out the February 2015 temperature data set lee???

Was that AGW or the remnant effects of El Nino? You do know that there is a lagging ocean effect don't you?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 10:56am:

I am comfortable tackling both issues and not turning a blind eye if I can help it. Of course i am just one person of many billions on this planet. Does it really matter what I think John?

Good answer. I agree with you on all points,  and yes, your opinion does matter. I can see that your observations for the most part are astute.

With Environmental aspects, it's important to sort through the degree and scale of risk in each case. Knowing this information is the key to the way forward.  All decisions must be risk-based.