×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
INTEREST: Ghibli Hangs Anti-Nuclear Power Banner on Rooftop


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
maaya



Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 976
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:39 pm Reply with quote
TopGunman wrote:
Had they bothered to update their equipment, they damage would have been much less.


The problem is they never do that, nowhere, unless you force them and most governments don't do that as much as necessary.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashen Phoenix



Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 2904
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:05 pm Reply with quote
Surrender Artist wrote:
Studying public policy in the past has made achingly clear to me that all choices have costs and no matter how attractive or excellent a choice is, there will be some loss or imposition entailed by it. If one prefers to be glib, the expression, "there's no such thing as a free lunch applies." Hell, there isn't even lunch without leaving a generous tip.

I don't know if the studio really thought the implications of that banner through. It seems like an impulsive, emotional reponse. Nuclear power generation certainly seems to be difficult, expensive and potentially very dangerous stuff, but I suspect that the alternatives would have costs that are ultimately serious and far reaching. Japan being a densely populated island nation with ample mountainous or hilly terrain seems to limit space for wind or solar power 'farms', to say nothing of whether those sources could reliably produce an adequate amount of power and whether the needed equipment could be manufactured in an environmentally sound way. There could be, as an alternative, impossibly radical measures such as compelling a change of social order to severely reduce energy use, but that would probably entail a reduction in standards of living and wealth that would leave little opportunity for a frivolous luxury like animation.

Have to agree with you there. It's a shame they can't employ wind or solar power farms, but given the environs in which they live I can't really see any other truly viable alternatives to what they're using now.

The point made about updated systems, sadly, makes me think of the Gulf Oil Spill tragedy. I don't know, maybe that's wrong. Does anyone else see parallels?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime My Manga
maaya



Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 976
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:20 pm Reply with quote
I dunno whether Japan really has no alternative. They just made that choice back then and never really invested in finding an alternative for now. Offshore wind parks and solar energy should be worth looking into and there might be other possibilities. Using less electricity (all these useless neon signs illuminating the cities all night long, air conditioners everywhere) will surely reduce the number of necessary nuclear plants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gilles Poitras



Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 476
Location: Oakland California
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:55 pm Reply with quote
There have been numerous reports recently on increasing Japanese investment on solar and wind power supplies. These would be good as Japan has few oil and coal reserves and needs an alternative.

If you want to keep up on Japanese news reporting bookmark and check these sites:

http://www.asahi.com/english/

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ximpalullaorg



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 396
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:22 pm Reply with quote
They can invest all they want, but as of now neither nolar nor wind power can sustain a country. Nuclear (or fusion if/when it'll be able to work) is the only viable alternative as of now.
Ghibli, as usual, can't even think properly.
I'll also have to add that despite the press going on a panic mode, the Fukushima disaster, despite being severe, has not caused harm to the general population, and yes that includes radiation levels. As of now, it's impossible to assess the actual damage to the plant, and won't be possible for months, until the reactors are sub-critical, decontaminated, and can be opened. Even the (exxagerated) incident at Three Mile Island took years for a complete investigation...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heaven's Cloud



Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 10
Location: WNY, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:37 pm Reply with quote
Well, if everybody in Japan installed solar panels on their roofs, would that be safer than nuclear? Installation of solar panels would result in a certain number of injuries or death due to accidents. Burning coal releases a small amount of uranium into the atmosphere, but how much radiation does that expose you to versus an airline flight or eating a banana? I also believe Toshiba or one of the big Japanese electronics companies was working on small lithium based nuclear generators that eventually could be sold to factories, smaller cities, etc - I wonder how plans for those are going...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mlund



Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 60
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:56 pm Reply with quote
maaya wrote:
The problem is they never do that, nowhere, unless you force them and most governments don't do that as much as necessary.


Actually, you have it backwards. The government's involvement with nuclear power is driven by two primary interest groups: the owners of existing (old) power-plants and the green lobby.

Neither group has any vested interest in seeing newer, better nuclear technology on the market. The old plants just need to get grandfathered out of any new regulations, which their owners insure. Meanwhile the legislation the government puts out, backed by the old plant owners and the green lobby both make it unfeasible to build newer and better reactors in a cost-effective fashion.

The old nuclear plan owners support it because artificial barriers to entry eliminate their competition, allowing them to make more money with less investment.

The green lobby supports it because they have an irrational, knee-jerk, and unscientific hatred of anything with the word "nuclear" in it.

All of us that would benefit from technology like nuclear recycling ("breeder" reactors) and safer modern designs like pebble-bed reactors are the ones left up a creek without a paddle due to the politicians and their lobbyist pals.

- Marty Lund
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Surrender Artist



Joined: 01 May 2011
Posts: 3264
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:44 pm Reply with quote
I probably put too much effort into my rather facile rumination upon the practical problems of replacing nuclear power, which I really have nowhere near adquate enough knowledge to assess. What really aggravates me about this is the glib self-righteousness of this kind of vacuously pithy, sloganeering.

I have in the past studied financial regulatory to a depth that is in full view of the scope of the subject pathetically shallow, yet nonetheless far deeper than what most popular opinion achieves. Even this made me despair at the complexity of the conundrums inherent in even the seemingly most self-evident good policies and the seeming impossibility of achieving any good solution. The narrow, blurry view that I had was enough to make me pretty well just throw my hands up, then declare, "we're damned!" and go devise a scheme to make sure that I died before the next crisis.

I'm pretty sure that energy policy is worse. Much worse. Given its universal importance, the sheer magnitude of the complex scientific and technical subjects that it encompasses and how inextricably entangled any solutions would be in the vagaries of politics, this callow banner seems insultingly childish and almost dangerous because of the infantile populism that it feeds.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website My Anime My Manga
Sacto0562



Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 288
PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:58 pm Reply with quote
What I find disappointing about Ghibli's stand is that the in current issue of Popular Science magazine, they had a pretty extensive talk about a highly safe reactor design: the thorium-fueled metal salt reactor (MSR), better known by this name: the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR).

Unlike the Fukushima reactor, LFTR's are extremely safe designs even in areas of severe earthquakes, and it uses thorium-233 (a actinide metal far more commonly available than uranium) dissolved in sodium fluoride molten salt solution--a fuel far cheaper to make than the uranium pellets assembled into fuel rods used in conventional reactors. Best of all, LFTR's generate a tiny fraction of the radioactive waste of uranium-fueled reactors, and the waste has a half-life of 200 years--easily disposed in any disused salt mine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mohawk52



Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:33 am Reply with quote
Tuor_of_Gondolin wrote:
I absolutely agree with Studio Ghibi!

Japan should shut down all their nuclear plants and instead rely solely on coal and oil to generator power! No more nuclear waste! No more radiation risks! Of course, Japan would become completely reliant on foreign raw materials, but that's such a small price to pay! And, well, you'd need a lot of gas and coal plants to replace the ones based of nuclear power. But it's totally worth it, by gum!
Except for one thing. It was their reliance on "foreign resources" that fueled Japan's imperialist expansionism and the reason they wrongly decided to attack the US at Pearl Harbour, after the US slapped a heavy oil embargo on them. They still live to regret it and the reason they want to be self sufficient in these matters. Those who forget their history are condemned to relive it. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ximpalullaorg



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 396
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:05 am Reply with quote
Heaven's Cloud wrote:
Well, if everybody in Japan installed solar panels on their roofs, would that be safer than nuclear?


There's a key factor that the solar proponents never discuss: the efficiency of energy production. How many solar panels do you need to produce, say 5-6 GW of energy? You'd need to literally plaster huge regions with panels just to achieve that. That's why as of now, solar power isn't really a viable alternative for large-scale energy production.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mohawk52



Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:43 am Reply with quote
ximpalullaorg wrote:
Heaven's Cloud wrote:
Well, if everybody in Japan installed solar panels on their roofs, would that be safer than nuclear?


There's a key factor that the solar proponents never discuss: the efficiency of energy production. How many solar panels do you need to produce, say 5-6 GW of energy? You'd need to literally plaster huge regions with panels just to achieve that. That's why as of now, solar power isn't really a viable alternative for large-scale energy production.
5-6GW? Why would you want that much power output unless you're a complex, institution, or business? The average single family household power useage at full max would be 2500 - 3000watts at most. The average single solar panel puts out 200watts and new materials used are upping that as I type.
2500 ./. 200 = 12.5 so 13 -15 panels on your south facing roof should do the job nicely enough to make your meter run backwards on low usage times when no one's home, and then you get a cheque from your power company for contributing to the national grid. Wink

What baffles me is why half the nation is on 50Hz. and the other on 60Hz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ximpalullaorg



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 396
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:58 am Reply with quote
Mohawk52 wrote:
5-6GW? Why would you want that much power output unless you're a complex, institution, or business?


Because energy is usually used 24hr per day, by a lot of people - we're not talking about personal use. Solar power is not efficient enough as of now outside using it to reduce (reduce, not eliminate) personal consumption of energy, but nation wide is absolutely out of the question.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mohawk52



Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 8202
Location: England, UK
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:27 am Reply with quote
ximpalullaorg wrote:
Mohawk52 wrote:
5-6GW? Why would you want that much power output unless you're a complex, institution, or business?


Because energy is usually used 24hr per day, by a lot of people - we're not talking about personal use. Solar power is not efficient enough as of now outside using it to reduce (reduce, not eliminate) personal consumption of energy, but nation wide is absolutely out of the question.
Maybe not where you live, but here in the UK it's more than feasible, it's being installed by those who can afford it and are lucky enough to have a south facing roof big enough to support the panels. Sadly I fall into none of those two qualifications. That and the Stalinistic way our local planning commitee refuse to allow any deviation from that criteria. Crying or Very sad
You do understand that power doesn't come direct from the panels, but from the large batteries the panels charge up during the day, connected to a DC/AC power inverter?

This or the Japanese start seeing vistas like this off their beaches in future.



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ximpalullaorg



Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 396
PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:55 pm Reply with quote
Mohawk52 wrote:

You do understand that power doesn't come direct from the panels, but from the large batteries the panels charge up during the day, connected to a DC/AC power inverter?


They do not charge when there's no sun, however. That, and the efficiency isn't exactly enormous. Feel free to think it's "the future" though, I don't (also I think it's a colossal waste of money). I think I've said enough on the topic anyway, my already huge dislike for Ghibli has simply grown a little more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group