A tiny grain of nuclear fuel is pulled from ruined Japanese nuclear plant, in a step toward cleanup

have set a 30-to-40-year target to finish the cleanup by 2051, which experts say is overly optimistic and should be updated. Some say it would take for a century or longer.

One grain per day!

@sakurasuki

You seem not to understand how difficult and dangerous this work is.

@Albert

It's shows how difficult the task, so prevention it's more preferable than reactive,

Fukushima power plant is not the only one power plant that face the ocean.

Other power plant it's still running or plan to start.

According to google, there is 1.358*10^10 grains of rice in 880 tonnes... So it's been 13 years, and 1 grain was collected.... So.... That's quite some way to go with the clean up

@sakura

As negative as usual daily.

TEPCO is making an effort. This is all new technology and techniques to be used.

What's your comment about all the plants on the coast of China?

Enlighten us all!!

Nuke power is cheap until it ain't. It is estimated that over the span of 30 - 40 years the total cost would be 190 billion USD. Funded by taxes and TEPCO, which incidentally passes the cost onto consumers through their utility bills. Don't believe those figures though, we all know what happened with the Tokyo Olympics and the gigantic cost overrun. TEPCO 's executives' compensation is also not published on their web site. So much for all the transparency the LDP and TEPCO were talking about.

Well done!!!!!!!

The tragedy of the meltdown at Fukushima is that the problems of contamination and radioactive destruction will be born not by this generation but by the next and the next and the next after that…

sakurasukiToday 06:52 am JST

One grain per day!

Perhaps in your land of make-believe.

Here in the real world, this work is to sample the fuel debris' physical/chemical composition in order to formulate a realistic plan for the fuel debris removal. I highly doubt that plan will be "one grain per day."

ushosh123Today 07:50 am JST

So it's been 13 years, and 1 grain was collected

No, plenty of other work has been done during this time.

I hope JT readers will forgive my copy-pasting again, but the above comment is posted on almost every thread.

...

There are also small matters like reactor cold shutdown, decontamination work, reactor building coverings, ice wall, groundwater bypass, development/upgrade of ALPS, non-melted fuel removal, reactor surveys, robot development and deployment, treated water release, ocean surveys, rearing of fish in treated water, etc. etc. etc.

sakurasuki

Fukushima power plant is not the only one power plant that face the ocean.

Other power plant it's still running or plan to start.

"Facing the ocean" was not the issue; the comedy of errors in securing outside energy supply for cooling was what led to the slow-motion disaster. You can safely assume that they have learned from that.

If possible, molten fuel removal will take 100 years, costing ¥100 trillion.

The five external power supply pylons were constructed on a dry river bed that was not strong enough to withstand the earthquake. The cooling fans were located at sea level because it meant cheaper construction costs. The emergency generators were located in the turbine hall basements below sea level. The cost of the disaster will be more than 100 times greater than if TEPCO had built the plant with the best safety standards.

I would agree with wallace. If what he wrote are the facts. The plants enginners should have taken into account the worst possible scenarios like Earth quakes and Tsunamis when prodcing a nuclear power plant on this site.

Chernobyl as of today. Interesting article here.

https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/chernobyl-today-0

I wonder when this Tepco plant was built in from 1967 to 1971 if these natural disasters were discussed?

Where the plant sits. How much erosion has taken place since 1971 to modern day?

How long are these plants radio active after meltdown? I do not know. Is each case diffrent?

I wonder when this Tepco plant was built in from 1967 to 1971 if these natural disasters were discussed?

General Electric who built the first reactor suggested that the cooling fans and emergency generators be located on the mountain. TEPCO declined because it would have needed additional costs.

In 2008, a group of scientists informed TEPCO to increase the height of the sea wall but TEPCO declined because of costs.

TEPCO always puts profit before safety and is not fit to run a nuclear plant.

@wallace.

Wow. Sendai has suffred so. I really feel that Ken. And sea water dumping? I am no expert on nuclear energy by any means. But I wonder how long it will take for it to be safe around the plant. Japan has limted space as it is. Is it worth it? Nuclear energy. Adavncing solar power, wind, water types seem safer.

All three disasters were very bad and live on TV. The earthquake, tsunami, and the nuclear disaster. Tohoku will recover long before the nuclear plant and supporting area it will take many thousands of years for the radiation to decrease and be safe again.

There are also small matters like reactor cold shutdown, decontamination work, reactor building coverings, ice wall, groundwater bypass, development/upgrade of ALPS, non-melted fuel removal, reactor surveys, robot development and deployment, treated water release, ocean surveys, rearing of fish in treated water, etc. etc. etc.

Etc, etc and so on, how much does it cost to tax payer?

@wallace well said about cost reduction over safety.

The cost to date with compensation to the nuclear refugees is probably about ¥25 trillion with about ¥ 12-15 trillion paid by TEPCO. The taxpayer owns 51% of TEPCO.

@WiseOneIn Kansai

What's your comment about all the plants on the coast of China?

Enlighten us all!!

How many nuclear power plant accident in China, tell us!

People said bad things about China quality but at the end there's no solid proof about their poor quality.

The nuclear disaster was "man-made" entirely because TEPCO did not build a very dangerous atomic plant with the necessary safety features built into the plant. Had they done so the nuclear disaster would have been avoided. It wouldn't have cost so many trillions.

sakurasukiToday 06:48 pm JST

Etc, etc and so on, how much does it cost to tax payer?

The overall decommissioning cost to the tax payer will depend on how profitable TEPCO becomes over time.

If TEPCO does well, the public burden will drop; if it does badly, the public burden will rise.

TEPCO is owned by the taxpayer. Nuclear Liability Law limits responsibility for a nuclear accident to ¥120 billion although to date TEPCO has shelled out more than that.

The profits made by TEPCO are unlikely to pay the full final cost of the disaster.

wallaceToday 08:32 pm JST

TEPCO is owned by the taxpayer.

Yes, at the moment, but the government doesn't intend to hold on to it forever. The NDF (原子力損害賠償・廃炉等支援機構) is monitoring TEPCO per the Comprehensive Special Business Plan, and periodically reviews government participation.

How long the government does hold onto it is anyone's guess. As I say, it depends on how well/badly TEPCO does.

The profits made by TEPCO are unlikely to pay the full final cost of the disaster.

They certainly won't be enough for the full cost, but the amount TEPCO can pay will directly affect the burden on the tax payer.

isabelle

the future is unknown. I think the final tab for the taxpayer will be ¥50-¥75 trillion. The government will not sell its TEPCO shares until TEPCO can support itself again.

The plan of Japan's government and Tepco seem to be "finished until middle of 21st century", it's too optimistic as same as safety measures or evacuation plans.

Besides, Japan is full of any other superannuated nuclear plants and unknown active faults, its leeward are full of population area or farm.

It IS a step forward, but offering a 40 year time frame instead of a more likely 300 year time frame is from the same ol' folks who told us that no radiation had been released, or no radiation was in areas not immediate to the plant, or all those other interesting ideas that turned out not to be true.

The government and TEPCO have set a 30-to-40-year target to finish the cleanup by 2051, which experts say is overly optimistic and should be updated. Some say it would take for a century or longer.

This means "longer." Restoring trust will require saying things that people don't want to hear, in my opinion. I DO believe they are working on the problem, but pu-leez tell the truth. People have the ability to accept it.