>

A real concern/risk is always the human involvement...
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)


ADVERTISEMENT. In a reversal, the new policy says nuclear power provides stable output and serves "An important role as a carbon-free baseload energy source in achieving supply stability and carbon neutrality" and pledges to "Sustain use of nuclear power into the future."
Nuclear energy accounts for less than 7% of Japan's energy supply, and achieving the government's goal of raising its share to 20-22% by fiscal 2030 will require about 27 reactors, from the current 10 - a target some say is not achievable.
Despite the failure and closure of the Monju plutonium-burning reactor, Japan insists on continuing with spent-fuel reprocessing at the trouble-prone Rokkasho plant and nuclear fuel recycling, which has created a stockpile of excess plutonium and drawn international concerns over its nuclear safeguards.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: reactor^#1 nuclear^#2 new^#3 Japan^#4 policy^#5 >

Good on japan honestly >

Yea now fix Fukushima and make the rest earthquake proof >

It wasn't even the quake that was the issue on Fukushima. It was the tsunami that came after, and even that wouldn't have been a problem if TEPCO addressed the concerns from the regulatory bodies on raising the tsunami wall a bit more, another plant nearer to the epicenter was fine due to having higher tsunami walls in place and continued to provide power to the area in the aftermath. Even then, the plant would've been fine if the generators weren't taken out due to seawater flooding the basement, if only the generators were placed not on the basement.
Since then, most plants now have upgraded safety for those rare but freak disasters.