You are correct that the shuttering of the plants has been bad for everybody. Power is already more expensive and another rate increase (10% or so) is imminent. The air is dirtier. The whole place is a lot more uncomfortable (to comply with mandatory energy cuts, the Tokyo office in which I am typing this very post no longer has any climate control on weekends... I have a frozen gel-pack wrappped around my head and sweat is still running down my back).
As a resident and rational human being, I want those gigawatts back. Modern Tokyo is an especially sad place without enough power.
But I want the gigawatts without the staggering incompetence and the gross negligence and the collusion and collossal failure of oversight. I want the nuclear plants to be equipped with modern emergency procedures that don't start with faxing a fucking paper form to City Hall.
And despite all the controvery and debate, I don't hear much about fixing those things. In terms of whether to turn the juice back on, those things are the problem, more than the accident itself. And that is the point that the well-written article by Dr. Muller misses.
Yes, it is rational for a thinking person to be open to using nuclear energy, despite the inherent risks. I think it is rational if, say, we really do a decent job of trying to mitigate those risks, to have functional regulatory oversight, and make decisions in a reasonably transparent, fully informed, democratic manner.
But when you feel (as I think the public here feels) that there is just no way that part is going to happen, then it becomes less rational to support the nukes.
Personally I love nuclear power. What a fucking thing! Incredible! And, it makes the 1 MW·h or so I personally use each month cheaper and even potentially cleaner.
So in theory sure, I support nuclear energy initiatives. I think you are right, it does make sense for Japan to be open to that.
But instead in Japan (and elsewhere, probably) I think the question actually is: "Do you support nuclear energy in the absence of competent oversight, with reliance on the for-profit provider's self-inspections, with safety precautions that are insufficient to protect from predictable natural disasters, and outdated fax-machine-based emergency procedures?"
Coping with summer heat is actually possible without air conditioning. I know because I live now in a country where air conditioning is virtually inexistent in spite of summer temperatures comparable to Tokyo's (although usually less humid).
Insulation is a major factor and probably a main reason why you consider air conditioning in Tokyo that important: Insulation is virtually virtually virtually, i.e. air conditioning becomes more of a necessity and waste more energy. In the winter time, on the other hand, heating in Japan is very inefficient as well. During my last stay in Japan, I was happy to see at least some new building with better insulations, that is a beginning!
Another factor are long commuting times in Tokyo, another contributing factor to energy consumption.
And there is of course always the possibility of a siesta. The Japanese have somehow a reputation for Coping with summer heat is actually possible without air conditioning. I know because I live in a country where air conditioning is virtually inexistent in spite of summer temperatures comparable to Tokyo's.
Insulation is a major factor and probably a major reason why you consider air conditioning in Tokyo that important: Insulation is virtually inexistent, i.e. air conditioning becomes more of a necessity and waste more energy. In the winter time, on the other hand, heating in Japan is very inefficient as well.
Another factor are long commuting times in Tokyo, another contributing factor to energy consumption.
And there is of course always the possibility of a siesta. The Japanese have somehow a reputation for long and busy workdays, however, most of it is inefficiently spent office time. A siesta would therefore easily be possible or just try to be more efficient and spend less time in a warm office.
Do I like to work in a warm office in the summer? No but coping with summer heat is much easier than with winter cold … I hope the Japanese will get the priorities sooner or later right, despite the lamentable state of the country (and that began not with Fukushima). and busy workdays, however, most of it is inefficiently spent office time. I often compare the Japanese with the Italians in regard to their work ethic although the Italians at least admit that they are not efficient … anyway, a siesta at least would easily be possible or just try to be more efficient and spend less time in a warm office.
Do I like to work in a warm office in the summer? No but coping with summer heat is much easier than with winter cold … I hope the Japanese will get the priorities sooner or later right, despite the lamentable state of the country (and that began not with Fukushima).
Japan reduced energy usage fairly significantly in the summer following 3/11, to cope with the energy shortage from the missing nuclear plants. Remember, they started with rolling blackouts, and eventually got things to the point where they could cope without them.
They did this using a lot of the simple things you suggest, turning off stuff (many places got downright dim), reducing cooling, people wearing less clothing, reduced train frequency, etc.
Unfortunately this summer they seem to have given up all of that, and are simply burning a lot more oil generating electricity. I'm not sure why they didn't try to maintain the "save electricity" campaigns, because they actually were effective (some of that, no doubt, due to the implied threat: "if you don't, back to the rolling blackouts!").
[I think the "Japanese heating is inefficient" is a bit misleading -- Japanese houses are traditionally pretty poorly insulated, but they're also not very large, and tended to use localized heating (everybody huddling around a heater) instead of keeping the whole place toasty. The ultimate expression of this, of course, is the kotatsu, which reduces heating needs to a well-insulated 0.2 m^3 space focusing on everybody's feet! :) Newer buildings tend to be better heated, and hopefully they can match that with better insulation.]
As a resident and rational human being, I want those gigawatts back. Modern Tokyo is an especially sad place without enough power.
But I want the gigawatts without the staggering incompetence and the gross negligence and the collusion and collossal failure of oversight. I want the nuclear plants to be equipped with modern emergency procedures that don't start with faxing a fucking paper form to City Hall.
And despite all the controvery and debate, I don't hear much about fixing those things. In terms of whether to turn the juice back on, those things are the problem, more than the accident itself. And that is the point that the well-written article by Dr. Muller misses.
Yes, it is rational for a thinking person to be open to using nuclear energy, despite the inherent risks. I think it is rational if, say, we really do a decent job of trying to mitigate those risks, to have functional regulatory oversight, and make decisions in a reasonably transparent, fully informed, democratic manner.
But when you feel (as I think the public here feels) that there is just no way that part is going to happen, then it becomes less rational to support the nukes.
Personally I love nuclear power. What a fucking thing! Incredible! And, it makes the 1 MW·h or so I personally use each month cheaper and even potentially cleaner.
So in theory sure, I support nuclear energy initiatives. I think you are right, it does make sense for Japan to be open to that.
But instead in Japan (and elsewhere, probably) I think the question actually is: "Do you support nuclear energy in the absence of competent oversight, with reliance on the for-profit provider's self-inspections, with safety precautions that are insufficient to protect from predictable natural disasters, and outdated fax-machine-based emergency procedures?"
The answer to that is less easy.