Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japan moves to revive idled nuclear power plants

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Japan moves to revive idled nuclear power plants

    Economic reality kicks in.


    Nearly all the utilities that own nuclear power plants reported huge losses last fiscal year due to higher costs for fuel imports. Hokkaido Electric Power Co. said it has been hit with additional daily fuel costs of 600 million yen ($6 million) to make up for three idled reactors. Nuclear operators have requested rate hikes or plan to do so.

    Japan moves to revive idled nuclear power plants
    Japan Nuclear.jpg
    In this July 2, 2012 file photo, reactors of No. 3, right, and No. 4 stand at Ohi nuclear power plant operated by Kansai Electric Power Co., in Ohi town, Fukui prefecture, western Japan. (The Associated Press)
    Print
    The Associated Press By The Associated Press

    on July 08, 2013 at 10:47 AM


    Email


    TOKYO — Japan moved a step closer to restarting nuclear reactors Monday as four utility companies applied for safety inspections of 10 idled plants, the clearest sign of a return to atomic energy nearly two and a half years after the Fukushima disaster.

    With all but two of the country's 50 reactors offline since a tsunami swept through the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in March 2011, Japan has been almost without nuclear energy that once supplied about a third of its power.

    Four Japanese nuclear plant operators — supplying the regions of Hokkaido, Kansai, Shikoku and Kyushu — Monday filed applications for inspections by the Nuclear Regulation Authority for 10 reactors at five plants under new safety requirements that have just come into effect. Applications for two more reactors are expected later in the week.

    Only reactors that pass the stricter rules will be allowed to restart, possibly early next year. Inspections would take about six months for each reactor, the watchdog said, as its staff can handle just a few reactors at a time. Obtaining consent from local governments and communities would require at least several weeks

    Watchdog officials refused to say which reactor they will inspect first. Critics say the rules have loopholes, including grace periods for some safety equipment

    Hit by soaring gas and oil costs to run conventional power plants to make up the energy shortfall, Japanese utility companies have lobbied hard to get their reactors back online.

    Nearly all the utilities that own nuclear power plants reported huge losses last fiscal year due to higher costs for fuel imports. Hokkaido Electric Power Co. said it has been hit with additional daily fuel costs of 600 million yen ($6 million) to make up for three idled reactors. Nuclear operators have requested rate hikes or plan to do so.

    Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has pushed for restarts since taking office in December, freezing the previous government's nuclear phase-out plan. Resumption of nuclear power plants is part of his ruling party's campaign platform in parliamentary elections in two weeks.

    New rules for the first time require plants to guard against radiation leaks in the case of severe accidents, install emergency command centers and enact anti-terrorist measures. Operators are required to upgrade protection for tsunamis and earthquakes, as well as tornadoes and aviation accidents.

    Safety was previously left up to the operators, relying on their self-interest in protecting their investments as an incentive for implementing adequate measures. Tokyo Electric Power Co. came under fire for underestimating the risk of a tsunami and building a seawall that was less than half the height of the wave that hit its Fukushima Dai-ichi plant and caused multiple meltdowns and massive radiation leaks. About 160,000 evacuees still cannot return home.

    Ikuo Morinaka, senior official at Kansai Electric Power Co., which is applying to restart four reactors in Fukui prefecture that supply power to large parts of western Japan, said the company has taken emergency measures and additional steps since the Fukushima disaster.

    "We are ready," Morinaka said after handing a thick file of documents to a watchdog official at a media-packed ceremonial event.

    Dozens of activists opposing nuclear power staged rallies outside a building that houses the watchdog's office, holding banners and chanting anti-nuclear slogans.

    Critics say the new safety requirements have loopholes that make things easier for operators, including a five-year grace period for some of the mandated steps given to reactors known as PWRs. They come with larger containment chambers considered less likely to suffer from pressure buildup than ones like those ravaged at Fukushima. This means half of the 48 reactors that use a pressurized water system could operate without the features for up to five years.

    All 10 reactors set for inspections are PWRs, and none of them have completed filtered vents and full-fledged emergency command centers yet, according to the summary of their application documents released Monday.

    The approvals are aimed at resuming reactor operations even though nearby communities lag in enacting needed emergency and evacuation procedures, and the restarts will cause more nuclear waste, plutonium stockpiles and other safety and environmental risks, said a group of experts headed by Hosei University sociologist Harutoshi Funabashi.

    The critics say running nuclear plants will eventually become a financial burden, as safety upgrades under the new requirements add up and the cost of decommissioning aging reactors and waste cleanup. Even initial safety upgrades are estimated to exceed a combined total of 1 trillion yen ($10 billion).

    The operators said it's a necessary investment.

    "Despite the spending, we need to get nuclear plants running in order to provide stable power supply," said Toru Yoshisako, vice president of Kyushu Electric Power Co., which operates six reactors in southern Japan.
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  • #2
    Economic growth = Dependence = Addiction

    A simple question, what happens when the tap is turned off?

    Comment


    • #3
      They should never have been turned off. A massive overreaction.

      All in response to the media's massive overreaction to the Fukushima incident. All the media outlets that fostered the idea that a major nuclear disaster had happened need to be kicked in the pants. The paranoid fears associated with the nuclear industry are ridiculous.

      Even now, after we know what happened, there are those that still believe we only narrowly escaped with not losing half of Japan.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
        They should never have been turned off. A massive overreaction.

        All in response to the media's massive overreaction to the Fukushima incident. All the media outlets that fostered the idea that a major nuclear disaster had happened need to be kicked in the pants. The paranoid fears associated with the nuclear industry are ridiculous.

        Even now, after we know what happened, there are those that still believe we only narrowly escaped with not losing half of Japan.
        At the same time the GE BWR's they used are among the most dangerous least fail safe reactor designs ever produced in the west. had thier technology been upgraded or been repalced by inland sites using the upgraded technology the nuclear disasters would not have happened.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
          They should never have been turned off. A massive overreaction.

          All in response to the media's massive overreaction to the Fukushima incident. All the media outlets that fostered the idea that a major nuclear disaster had happened need to be kicked in the pants. The paranoid fears associated with the nuclear industry are ridiculous.

          Even now, after we know what happened, there are those that still believe we only narrowly escaped with not losing half of Japan.

          Do you want to explain that to the at least 160,000 who cannot return back to their homes forever? What about millions who are exposed to the prospects of eating radiated foods and fish stocks and therefore the possibility of glowing green?

          I am for nuclear power but I have to say, I am not surprised by the knee jerk reactions of many people in Japan towards nuclear power or anything related to nuclear.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
            Do you want to explain that to the at least 160,000 who cannot return back to their homes forever? What about millions who are exposed to the prospects of eating radiated foods and fish stocks and therefore the possibility of glowing green?

            I am for nuclear power but I have to say, I am not surprised by the knee jerk reactions of many people in Japan towards nuclear power or anything related to nuclear.
            Simply put - they can return home. It was a massive overreaction.

            Experts Foresee No Detectable Health Impact from Fukushima Radiation - NYTimes.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by zraver View Post
              At the same time the GE BWR's they used are among the most dangerous least fail safe reactor designs ever produced in the west. had thier technology been upgraded or been repalced by inland sites using the upgraded technology the nuclear disasters would not have happened.
              Absolutely agree. IF the Nuclear industry was allowed to expand and old reactors allowed to be replaced the industry would be even better. The facts are the nuclear power industry has substantially less death and sickness attributed to it than coal. If you support the whole global warming thing then coal does substantially more damage. But nuclear has a bad thing that you can't see which makes scaring humans very easy.

              Comment


              • #8
                The way I look at it -- nuke power, gun powder, or washing machine are tools. Sure, stuff happened but should we ban it totally so we shall never use it again or continue to make investments into R&D thus making the same tool safer and less prone to abuse? well, you know my answer.
                Last edited by xinhui; 14 Jul 13,, 08:10.
                “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                  Absolutely agree. IF the Nuclear industry was allowed to expand and old reactors allowed to be replaced the industry would be even better. The facts are the nuclear power industry has substantially less death and sickness attributed to it than coal. If you support the whole global warming thing then coal does substantially more damage. But nuclear has a bad thing that you can't see which makes scaring humans very easy.
                  Bullshit argument since the worlds first gen III BWR was built in Japan. Japan was not anti-nuclear, but the drive for profits keep these old reactors in use long past the obsolescence of their technology.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
                    Simply put - they can return home. It was a massive overreaction.

                    Experts Foresee No Detectable Health Impact from Fukushima Radiation - NYTimes.com
                    Yes but faced with the prospect of future earthquakes and tsunamis and the face that human engineering is no match for the fury of nature, and that they were forced to flee their homes for months in fear of radiation fallout and you had four reactor buildings explode. That doesn't inspire confidence.

                    Let me ask you something: Would you buy the land there for cheap and live there, knowing that you may be looking over your shoulder for radiation sickness. It is a lot easier to sit somewhere comfy and decry as a knee jerk reaction than living right in the middle of the elements. It is a classic symptom of NIMBY.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      BM,

                      Would you buy cheap property in Cologne, Germany?
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by zraver View Post
                        Bullshit argument since the worlds first gen III BWR was built in Japan. Japan was not anti-nuclear, but the drive for profits keep these old reactors in use long past the obsolescence of their technology.
                        I believe that the anti-nuclear movement has hamstrung development. Nuclear installations are forced to 'fly under the radar' in order to keep the movement at bay. Without the movement new installations would be built, proving the technology, making upgrading of older reactors more much more feasible.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                          Yes but faced with the prospect of future earthquakes and tsunamis and the face that human engineering is no match for the fury of nature, and that they were forced to flee their homes for months in fear of radiation fallout and you had four reactor buildings explode. That doesn't inspire confidence.

                          Let me ask you something: Would you buy the land there for cheap and live there, knowing that you may be looking over your shoulder for radiation sickness. It is a lot easier to sit somewhere comfy and decry as a knee jerk reaction than living right in the middle of the elements. It is a classic symptom of NIMBY.
                          I would happily live to next to a Japanese reactor. If a new installation was built in Australia I would live on top of it.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X