national

Costs for managing Japan's nuclear plants to total ¥13 trillion

34 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

This is the biggest reason why Abe wants to keep Japan nuclear power dependent! There is so much money to be made.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

What a stupid way to boil water. Dangerous. Toxic. Wasteful. Obscenely expensive.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

A fraction of that a year could have put Japan on the renewable map. But the oyagis are stuck on fossil gas coal and nuclear. So 1950-1980

15 ( +16 / -1 )

The LDP, big government, big corporations, aka Japan Inc. have known for the last century their resource poor nation needed to develop better ways to generate electricity and power vehicles.

They still can implement better ways. But for whatever reason the fossils running the fossil economy remain stuck, unable to do things differently.

Younger people and future generations will pay the price for Japan Inc's inability to change.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

@ListenTheTruth: What a stupid way to boil water. Dangerous. Toxic. Wasteful. Obscenely expensive.

Particulalry when you consider the wasted potential of Japan's Geothermal - non-toxic, renewable,, cheap.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

That's wrong they are not resource poor, they are fossil gas coal and oil poor. Only with blinders on. Look at renewable potential tops many other countries

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Of course the consumer is going to pay the bill.

Either thru "special taxes" or higher electricity fees.

What a disgrace!

Those companies made enough money - let them pay for everything!

13 ( +13 / -0 )

@sf2k Look at renewable potential tops many other countries

Excellent point. And with Japan having so many highly trained and educated scientists, engineers and technicians there's no reason I can think of why Japan Inc remain so stuck. Beyond the fossils retaining power and wealth for themselves.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

nothing else to say. All of the above posters have nailed it. Agree with you all.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

This is not a cost-effective way to produce energy. And then ya got the problem of nuclear waste...

The amount, which could balloon further 

Ya don't say!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

What would it have cost to do things the right way from the start? Abe getting his constitution changed? FT chance, I think.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

What a stupid way to boil water.

and

A fraction of that a year could have put Japan on the renewable map

Please give some examples. Wind? Thermal? Please give an example of a country with no natural resources that does not nuclear in their energy mix. France?

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

WoW very expensive indeed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Japan has a lot of natural thermal energy - especially in southern Japan. But I imagine the locals don't want huge towers creating eyesores on their beautiful mountain ranges. It's so much easier to sell nuclear when you can keep your skyline beautiful.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Before the nuclear disaster there was about ¥15 trillion of profits left in the reactors over a 40 year cycle. About 20 reactors will be decommissioned because the profits will be less than the costs of safety updates. Power companies will be seeking a life cycle extension for the permitted reactors. Nuclear energy will never again be a major source of power generation.

The UK is a nuclear power country at around 20% of the total but it generates more from renewable energy at about 28%.

The cost of building a nuclear plant is now too expensive at $6,000/kW.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

But but , nuclear energy is cheap and necessary....the cabal 70+ year old dinosaurs running the N-village continue to tell us. They need to be decomissioned with the plants.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Stupidity disaster is more dangerous than nuclear disaster.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The costs reflect those associated with improving the lax safety standards that previously existed at the plants, and in improving the safety culture of owners and management. It truly indicates how deficient these were prior to the accident.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The tables have turned when China is the world's biggest investor in renewable energy while Japan hangs on to coal and nuclear (even after suffering one of the world's worst nuclear disasters)

7 ( +7 / -0 )

The article mentions the monetary cost of nuclear power generation but that misses the mark by a long shot.

Most people living in Japan are likely to have some level of radioactivity from the accident at Fukushima.

In fact, the many tons of incinerated waste and the consequential emissions from the area makes it almost a certainty.

The government controlled media campaign that saw Fukushima produce trumpeted as safe and sent all over Japan to ‘help the Fukushima recovery’

The mislabeled foodstuffs, farmers ploughing fields deeply to dilute(?) radioactive concentrations, inability to control food distribution etc

All this has been evident since the accident at Fukushima.

There are also many bags of collected waste sitting on mountains here and there slowly seeping into the environment as there are no places to store it.

Genetic damage will become evident in the future but will be ignored for a lengthy time.

Placing monetary costs at the forefront of the nuclear power debate is like crying a crocodile tear...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japan has by far the most geothermal renewable energy sources of a any other country. Japan knows this and once considered it. However, in the 70's one scientist came out and said that using geothermal energy may end up having a negative affect on hot springs. Once that was said, the government reversed course and stayed away from geothermal energy. They didn't do research or testing. They just stayed away.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Oops! I thought one of the biggest pro-nuke arguments was how cheap and environmentally friendly it is. Guess now the first one is also known to be complete BS.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Nuclear power, more than dangerous, comes with toxic externalities unaffordable for consumers and tax-payers. Without concerted political action from below, the corrupt few will continue to skim profits from the top.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I don't see how you can accurately or truthfully calculate the future costs of nuclear when you do not have a finalized plans for how you will finally dispose of nuclear waste. That pool on the fourth (?) floor of the Fukushima plant was full of waste at the time of the accident because it was waiting for somewhere to go. I don't recall the decision to bury it in xxx canisters yyy meters under zzz prefecture ever being made. Good luck getting the people of zzz prefecture to agree.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This article is only providing half truth. The cost projected here needs to be evaluated along with the money that is saved annually compared to any alternate source of energy which is put into production. This needs to be done keeping in mind the industrial production.

As far as I understand, Nuclear power is still the cheapest and most efficient source of energy. No other source of energy comes even close to the money that is saved and the power that is generated via nuclear power. We have wind, solar, hydro, thermal and similar alternative sources of energy but none of these are evolved enough and are not still viable when it comes to industrial sector.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

How much of this is paid in the form of salaries to former gevernment officials who were charged with regulating the nuclear power industry? How many former gevernment officials were hired by the companies performing this work? How many former gevernment officials are involved in "consulting" or other aspects of this work? Who is charged with oversight, and are their records available to the public?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

As far as I understand, Nuclear power is still the cheapest and most efficient source of energy.

Certainly not on this earthquake prone island as the Fukushima balooning costs clearly show.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

So they are putting in to place the measures already normal elsewhere, talk about horses and stable doors! This is why Nuclear is currently so intrinsically expensive to build, the layer upon layer of safety measures required to control an intrinsically unsafe design of reactor originated to create weapons grade material or as a quick solution for nuclear submarines then “sold” to the public as unlimited and almost free electric.

There are systems which were ignored as they don’t produce weapons material but have been known for 60 odd years but only now being developed. We have no choice but build base load generation to compliment any renewable sources, so nuclear will be a part of the mix but it doesn’t need to be so inherently unsafe or costly. Further the cost of “safe” disposal and decommissioning is never borne by the private company’s so the profits are privatised and the costs socialised, where as LSR can actually burn safely the “waste” fuel rods from the legacy reactors so removing the most long lived and radioactive problem.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Renewable energy resources is the best option. biodiesel energy such a palm oil is very cheap sustainable and very green energy good for option. Nuclear is just to expensive and unfriendly for Environment.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Exactly! Molten Salt Reactors with online reprocessing uses up and neutralizes dangerous radioactive waste, which actually has as much energy as new fuel. And it's far far more resistant to a melt down.

The US has been dragging its feet regarding this technology for decades, for political reasons, but Japan is in an excellent position to develop and implement it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Nuclear electric has always run at a loss. They make it look good with heavy govt or should I say Taxpayer subsidizing hidden into cost per KWhr. It's no where as near safe as they origionally reported when building these plants and they ignored earthquacks and other natural events that is very obvious now. Beware false claims up to 50% power generation using wind and solar as wind does not always blow and it gets dark at night :)

Not developing cleanest cheapest power HYDROELECTRIC was Obamas big fail as most green sprouts went bankrupt but media hid this fact.

Tooo bad about Germany as they are down wind of the highest amount of N power plants in France.

https://energy-charts.de/power.htm

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Who is paying ???.tax payers ???.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's both the TEPCO Subscribers and Tax Payers who are footing the bill... :(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mmwkdw

It's both the TEPCO Subscribers and Tax Payers who are footing the bill... :(

The reactor safety updates are paid by the power companies which own them and nothing to do with TEPCO consumers or any tax payers.

The cost of decommissioning about 20 reactors will also be paid by the power company owners, and not the tax payers. That is the law of decommissioning.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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