Japan building more coal-fired power plants

[jpak]

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-focus-japan-building-more-coal-fired-power-plants-/2006/02/20/1389900.htm

A warning light is flashing over Japan's efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions as more coal-fired thermal power stations, which emit large amounts of the greenhouse gas, are being built in the country, prompting the Environment Ministry to reconsider the introduction of an environment tax.

Such power stations are attractive because coal is cheaper than oil and natural gas and the liberalization of the electric power industry makes it easier for newcomer companies and others to build them.

But they are a large negative factor for achieving the target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

<snip>

It said increases in coal-fired power generation, coupled with the effects of long-lasting halts in atomic power generation due to accidents and safety defects, are pushing up the volume of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt of electric power generated, called energy intensity.

<more>

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. please note that the japanese coal plants are significantly more

advanced and cleaner than the ones the US lets our companies build.

[Oerdin]

3. Cite?

I'd like a cite for that.

[jpak]

6. Here ya go

www.hitachi.com/ICSFiles/ afieldfile/2004/06/01/1_r2003_02_101.pdf

www.mhi.co.jp/tech/pdf/e423/e423094.pdf

[Oerdin]

11. It talks about reducing emmissions by 6%

compared to old style coal plants but it doesn't talk about how this new plant stacks up against other new coal fired plants around the world. I believe the intial claim was that Japan's coal plants were cleaner then the US's coal plants. I'd like to see a side by side comparison of new plants in both the US and Japan.

[ladjf]

2. They are also increasing their output of lower cost solar panels.

[Odin2005]

4. How vulnurable are nuclear plants to earthquakes?

I'm thinking Japan may be one of the few places where nuclear would not be a good because of the unstable geology.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Depends how and where you build them...

...you can put base isolators on the foundations of anything, and the cost need not be prohibitive - just keep them off the fault lines. I think the Japanese have a pretty good angle on quake-proofing buildings, so it wouldn't overly concern me.

[hunter]

7. Stuff people don't know about Japan...

Toshiba is buying Westinghouse Electric Co. from British Nuclear Fuels PLC.

Funny that -- you may have thought Westinghouse was an American Company.

This will make Toshiba the largest nuclear power company in the world, with 28% of the world market. Toshiba has built 22 nuclear power plants since 1966 and they are currently building three more.

Japan is also building coal plants because they are worried about the security of their liquid natural gas (LNG) and oil supplies. Coal costs less than oil or LNG and it is much easier to stockpile.

I don't read or speak Japanese. Someone who does can probably reach a much better understanding of what's happening in Japan politically.

For what it's worth, Japan is a very expensive place to build nuclear power plants, about $2500 a kilowatt if I recall correctly. Nuclear power plant construction costs in other nations are estimated to be as low a $1000 a kilowatt.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. It's odd....

...that people on GD are up in arms about the ports being owned by a foreign country, when a US nuke company is already owned by a foreign country. The same country (UK) that's selling the ports, in fact.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Just hope BNFL don't sell Westinghouse to a Arabian company...

[Odin2005]

9. Well that UAE company is state owned.

If that company was a private company I wouldn't have a problem with it. So no, not hypocracy.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. I doubt even the UAE

would let religion get in the way of making a good profit. the maxim is "Follow the money", not "follow the God".

[phantom power]

12. Well, one controls what gets into our country, the other doesn't.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. I would have thought, that was Customs?

:shrug: I realise I'm in the minority, though. Maybe I'm missing the point, or not being paranoid enough. (Makes a change. :D)

[phantom power]

14. I suppose that is true. But does Customs inspect every box?

It would be helpful to understand what, exactly, the responsibilities of this company would be. Cuz we all love informed debate. I wonder if anybody helpful pundit or reporter has looked into that question.

This hoo-ha does bring up other issues, like outsourcing. Independent of whether we decide we can trust this or that foreign company with this or that responsibility, maybe it would be nice to employ some Americans, just for a change. I hear that some of us are out of work.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. No...

...but I think it's unrealistic to think that under US (or UK) management, no crewmen or dockworkers smuggle stuff through, but they all will when run by the UAE.

The guys on the floor will be the same Joes working there now (and with the same % of bad apples). The chances of a fanantical extremisist shiphand slipping a big ticking box to a fanantical extremisist docker would be no higher (or lower) because the guy 23 management levels up now has a beard.

[phantom power]

16. Could be, could be. I know that once upon a time...

I would have thought that just because a bunch of rich republicans, 23 levels up, own some newspapers and broadcasting companies, that wouldn't impact what news stories the reporters in the trenches write. But I've since learned differently.

I'm not sure that's a rock-solid analogy, but I do know that management does matter.

Pending further information, my position is that foreign companies should not be allowed to perform certain functions here in the US. For reasons similar to the reasons we have for requiring the US president to be a native citizen. It doesn't guarantee anything one way or the other (god, have we all learned that in the last 5 years), but it's a reasonable way of playing the odds.

It really isn't anything personal. I mean UAE no offense, nor any other foreign country or corporation.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Hmmm. That's probably not a bad analogy.

Certainly, the US desicion to outsource central government to greedy sociopathic reptiles didn't go too well...

Think I'll chew this over some more.