Costs for scrapping 79 nuclear facilities estimated at ¥1.9 tril


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


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Whoooo cheep free power for all....

10 ( +11 / -1 )

And that is on top of the estimated 20 trillion to clean up the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Money spent for closing Nuclear plants is not just expense but also a process of gaining know-how of shutting down such facilities to create a safer world in the future. It's not a waste. Create highly trained and paid scientists and technologists to do the jobs. They will be important assets for Japan and the world.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

So what? The power plants generate a lot of income so what's the problem? This article conveniently leaves out this important fact.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Privatize the profits, socialize the cost. Exxxxcellent.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Most of the decommissioning costs are supposed to have been saved by the utilities during the first 20 years of operation, a statutory requirement; but knowing Japan's utilities, probably not done. From experience in the UK, the world's first user of commercial nuclear power with a large number of reactors being dismantled; decommissioning takes 2-3 times longer than predicted, and costs up to 7 times more than planned. And they were all planned decommissions. The cost of decommissioning the 4 damaged reactors at Fukushima Daiichi NPP can be expected to increase exponentially, as they learn more and more about what has to be done.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Lets stop being critical, you've lived through the happy era of bountiful power and plastic containers, and all manner of fish and forest, and what happened, you tripled the population, so just be grateful.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Hi tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Bb-b-b-b-b-b-but I thought it was cheap and safe! Anyway, I'm off to the thread on cows that were left behind in the abandoned towns outside Fukushima.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Yeah. Sure.

I say go for it. They're (The 1%) just going to eat (literally) all our money (figuratively) anyway.

Just shut up and do it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hi tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

the cost of burning fossil fuels will be in the $10s Trillions if we dont drastically reduce the rate we use them

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Molten salt reactors are cheaper, produce less and less long lived waste, and are intrinsically safer. Moltex Energy are in a position to start building, uses existing technology and avoids the problems the other systems have yet to solve.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Move in the right direction . . . better to be safe, than sorry.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As for nuclear waste, the agency said about 100 kiloliters of high-level radioactive waste and up to 114,000 kl of low-level radioactive waste were estimated to have been produced but it has yet to decide on disposal locations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just put it up on a mountain with all the other dumped radioactive waste....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Candu reactors are safe but no one wants to by them because the startup price is high. in the long run the are safer and cheaper because of lower maintenance and operating costs. CANada Deuterium Uranium, because it was invented in Canada, uses deuterium oxide (also known as heavy water) as a moderator, and uranium as a fuel. ... CANDU reactors can be refueled while operating at full power, while most other designs must be shut down for refueling.

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