To the anti-nuclear pro-Coal activists … THANKS!
“If all seven projects including the plant in Akita materialize, they will increase the nation’s coal-power generation by up to 7.26 gigawatts by around 2025.
That is equivalent to seven medium-size nuclear reactors.”
“All of Japan’s 48 reactors are offline over safety concerns following the Fukushima nuclear accident, though four of them are expected to come back online later this year.”
http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-japans-coal-boom-continues
sunshine hours 
I agree with not using nuclear, but I’m not sure what the point is of supporting use of coal. For one thing it’s unsustainable, and for another prices are going to be pushed up elsewhere.
How would you produce electricity? What fuel would you use?
Without fuel/maintenance electrical production would cease. Are you proposing that we go back to burning wood? Are you saying electricity is good for me, but not for others?
All the hydroelectric [BAD], Solar [?], Wind [Bird choppers, unreliable], etc., produce less than 1% of the worlds electrical demands. Yet over 1/2 of the world population doesn’t have electricity.
What is your solution that doesn’t use fossil fuels?
We’ll have to go onto renewables sooner or later, even if there are downsides. Tidal lagoon power (e.g. in Swansea Bay) looks a good way to go for islands and places with a wide tidal range.
HEP, solar and wind energy will have to do, even if they have downsides. The downsides are certainly less than nuclear. Besides, they do have benefits too – for example offshore wind farms are good for fisheries.
Perhaps everyone in MEDCs should just be using less energy – a lot of what we use is wasted or completely pointless.
By the way, Solar doesn’t work in areas that have clouds; like Michigan. The bird burners in the desert are great, aren’t they?