TEPCO to scrap 4 more reactors in Fukushima

By Mari Yamaguchi

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment


4 ( +4 / -0 )

Experience with decommissioning reactors in the UK shows that they usually end up taking much longer than planned, and incurring massive budget overruns. This is for reactors that had planned cessation of operations. The ones at Fukushima Daiichi, with their sudden, unpredicted, explosive shutdowns will be worse.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Other nuclear plant operators have also opted to decommission aging reactors due to hefty spending to meet new safety standards put in place after the disaster, making nuclear power far more expensive than it used to be.

So, this means that, if the Fukushima disaster had not happened, forcing them to upgrade safety standards, they would have continued to operate their plants with aging reactors and sub-standard safety levels. How reassuring, NOT! It would seem the Fukushima disaster has done them a favor by making them realise that, nuclear power is not cheap, clean or safe! Now, they have to figure out how and where to store the waste Hopefully, the facility they intend to build at Dai-Ni is tsunami safe.

The government and nuclear energy agency have been steadfast on restarting all the reactors since the Fukushima disaster. However, it now seems they have done a turnaround and are decommissioning the aging reactors. I haven't seen any admissions of guilt or apologies for their stupidity. We can just all look forward to increased electricity tariffs to pay for this debacle.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Good now they can move head office up there relocate all the big wigs and their families too I hear there are some amazing properties going real cheap up there...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The full costs of decommissioning a reactor are met by the power companies which is the law. They made a small charge on the monthly bills which are set aset for the work when the the life cycle of the reactor ends.

When a companies applies to the NRA for a license to decommission a reactor they also have to show it has the money to complete the work. The money is placed into a trust account and can earn interest but can only be used for the decommissioning.

The government still needs to solve the problem of millions of tons of nuclear waste from decommissioning about 20 reactors including the four at Daini.

TEPCO had spent about ¥100 billion repairing the Daini plant.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

zichi - The full costs of decommissioning a reactor are met by the power companies which is the law. 

I dunno where you get this from. So, the 10% increase for decommissioning Dai-Ichi is illegal?

1 ( +1 / -0 )


The information is available on line about the decommissioning laws. The same applies in all countries with nuclear reactors. Previously I posted links so I won't again.

What has happened at the Dainichi plant is a nuclear disaster, not decommissioning which is cover by limited liabilities under the nuclear laws which I think limits the liability to about ¥120 billion. To date it has cost ¥25 trillion.

The Dainichi plant could be called a mixture of a disaster and decommissioning. Reactors 1-4 were in the nuclear reactor explosions and core meltdowns. That does not involve any decommissioning more disaster recovery.

Reactors 5-6 were empty of fuel and were about to be reloaded at the time. They survived the 3/11 tsunami because they are also located on a higher level. These reactors will be decommissioned but once again that is happening not because they reached the end of their life cycles but because of the disaster.

I expect the whole of the Dainichi plant is considered a nuclear disaster site with the limited liabilities stated.

The Dainichi plant is not a plant decommissioning but a nuclear disaster recovery which in the end will exceed more than ¥100 trillion with most of that paid by the taxpayer.

I don't know if TEPCO increased their monthly bills by as much as 10% for their cost of the nuclear disaster or for increased costs of fossil fuels or the costs of the renewable energy.

The government was going to make all the power companies pay for the cost of the nuclear disaster by an additional monthly charge but I don't know if that happened.

With my own power company KEPCO they increased their monthly charge when it then shut down their reactors but promised to reduce it once again when they were restarted. That never happened and I'm paying the same but there's no additional charge for the disaster, yet?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

TEPCO should entomb nuclear reactors 1-3. Then spread billons of volcanic clay filled sandbags into the ocean and theradioactive water tanks to absorb the radiation. Maybe this will stop the progress of the Magnetic North Pole.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Dainichi plant has underground rivers making the entombing impossible. A tunnel would have to be first dug under the reactors constructed from thick concrete, steel and lead so that the molten fuel could never reach those river beds.

Building of such a tunnel has never been attempted before and what of all the building vibrations from diggers and other machines. The reactors are in a very fragile state already. The lid of the No2 reactor was dislodged by the earthquake or explosion and still releasing high amounts of radiation making it impossible to enter the building for any amount of time.

I don't believe there is any connection between the nuclear disaster site and the magnetic north pole? I think that has been moving on its own for millions of years?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nuclear Radiation is highly Magnetic, The Magnetic North Pole has been feeding off the kinetic energy of the radioactive water that has been spilled / leaked into the pacific ocean by the Fukushima Daichi clean up. The initial result of just a few first years is Artic ice caps melting from unseasonably warm wheather and the increased speed of both North and South Poles which are now traveling/spinning at 67,000 miles per hour, up from 55,000 miles per hour.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )


Decommissioning does not usually run over the cost and schedule. It does sometimes, especially when it is implemented as a first-of-a-kind project or is managed by a government officials that have little incentive for staying within the budget.

And the article is about Fukushima Daini, which has not experienced any explosion. That is why its decommissioning cost is predicted to be 100 times smaller than the Daichi one.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )


There is no turnaround. It was pretty obvious since 2011 that Fukushima prefecture will not allow the Daini to restart. TEPCO was just delaying the decision for the case the public changed their minds...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The nuclear liability law which was changed in 2010, limits the liability in the event of a nuclear disaster as with Dainichi to ¥100 billion. Prior to the law change it was ¥60 billion. The government liability is unlimited in these cases.

The Dainichi plant isn't decommissioning its nuclear disaster recovery.

Decommissioning costs are easy to manage because it happens over a long period of time. From the time the decommissioning license is issued the work must be complete within 40 years.

The company could leave the reactor vessels to the end of the 40 years to reduce the levels of radiation but dismantle the associated plant.

All of the current nuclear workers at a change to undergo decommissions will mostly likely remain employed for that work.

There are 20-24 reactors to be decommissioned which will produce millions of tons of nuclear waste. What will happen with that? Will the nuclear plants be turned into storage or will there be central storages?

Some of the plant from a decommissioning can be sold off like the huge generators to offset against the costs. A large amount of non nuclear scape. Millions of kilometers of copper cables.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

account for 20-22 percent of Japan's energy mix

so basically they get only 20% out of nuclear power ? is this really worth it ? they don't even need that but still they built so many nuclear stations so they can say later on sorry we didn't know an earth quick will happen or tsunami !! many people in Fukushima lost their homes and got sick cuz of this stupid power

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Utrack - TEPCO should entomb nuclear reactors 1-3. Then spread billons of volcanic clay filled sandbags into the ocean and theradioactive water tanks to absorb the radiation. Maybe this will stop the progress of the Magnetic North Pole.

Oh dear! You really have no idea how it works, do you? You have to watch the classic sci-fi, The China Syndrome. It will explain clearly why these reactors cannot be entombed. It will also help you understand why this is 'the worst' nuclear disaster in history and could very easily still turn into the China Syndrome if the cooling water fails again. The melted nuclear fuel rods in the reactor will continue to heat up until they turn to plasma - the fourth state of matter - unless they are constantly cooled. In the movie they melt through the earths crust and create a huge volcanic event. The Chernobyl disaster was very different. The fuel rods were not in a containment housing and were blown out all over the countryside in the hydrogen explosion making it possible to entomb the site. This unlike the fuel rods that are in Japanese reactors because they are in a housing. The explosion at Fukushima was caused by the rods getting so hot they separated the hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the water and the hydrogen exploded blowing the roof of the housing and the plant. Many of them also melted and if the PM at the time Kan hadn't screamed at the TEPCO boss to get his assets back in there and get some water on them, they would have melted through the base of the housing and started heading for the the center of the earth. It is still unclear if the they did actually melt through the base of the housing although, there is a lot of highly radioactive water leaking from the the tank into the ground, so it seems quite likely the base of the housing has been compromised. Unlike the great leader was boasting in his Olympic bid, Fukushima Dai-Ichi is very far from 'under control'.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China Syndrome is a falsehood already disproved. The nuclear disaster isn’t a movie.

None of the melted nuclear has left the containment vessel surrounding the core vessel.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If the melted corium went through the earth to the central molten core the nuclear disaster would be over.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

back in the 50's and 60's when these plants were being built they told us how safe and how cheap nuclear reactors would be, cheap electricity for every one hoorah!! oooh! boy did they get that wrong! far from being cheap and safe.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

zichi is 100% correct on the corium issues.

Another 100% certainty is that Japan is losing 4 reactors which, with modification, could prevent us breaching the 1.5 degree warming threshold the IPCC has informed us about.

Brian, “cheap nuclear” was a claim relating to fusion power, not fission. Nuclear still does quite well on cost, except when competing against cheap frakked gas. As for safety - we did have an unexpected mega quake and tsunami.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites