Court rules against Oi nuclear plant restart


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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

The government will override it, but good on the courts all the same.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

The people: 1


7 ( +11 / -4 )

Congrats to the plaintiffs. The courts have so far refused to even address the issue by saying that an injunction would be meaningless since there are no plans to restart the reactor any time soon... so basically, come back later. This is only a temporary injunction of course until they come up with a better safety plan.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

In the end greed will prevail and all these plants will restart. But maybe, the big electric cos will take notice of the public opinion and abide by the common sense of taking security seriously. I know it is a long shot but that victory helps to keep hope alive.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Japan cannot afford to keep them offline. Sigh, the uneducated public...

-10 ( +11 / -21 )

yes only for two reactors when the others meet the new safety standard they will be restarted for sure. the cost to the economy over the long term will probably be as much as the tsunami. Japan cant afford to keep the nreactors offline, the tech isnt available for another 20-30 years to supply the base load power that Japan needs.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )


Japan cannot afford to keep them offline. Sigh, the uneducated public...

Thats not at all what the plaintiffs are asking for. The are asking for the plant not to be restarted until a better and more realistic safety plan is introduced. This case is about the use of the takemura and Irikura-miyake models of earthquake and tsunami prediction. The plaintiffs claim that using both models can't accurately predict what type of earthquake/tsunami will strike, so the plant's safety plan cannot be satisfactory. ... sigh, the uneducated public. The plaintiff's aren't stupid, they have experts backing up their claims and the court found their claims convincing.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

i'm with you sighclops. it's mostly fearmongering that's keeping them offline. the number of deaths attributable to the release of radiation from fukushima is...wait for

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

number of deaths attributable to the release of radiation from fukushima is...wait for

Maybe people aren't affraid of dying from radiation, they just don't want their lives, friendships, homes, businesses destroyed when they are forced to evacuate in the event of a disaster that could have been prevented with proper planning.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

the first time that anti-nuclear plaintiffs have successfully sued to shut down a reactor in more than four decades of nuclear power in the country.

Sigh. This is about the 3rd time that plaintiff won lawsuits to shut down nuclear power plants. Why cannot they report simple facts strait?

January 27, 2003, Nagoya High Court, Kanazawa Branch, H12(gyo-ko)12.

March 24, 2006, Kanazawa District Court, H11(wa)430.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Japan cannot afford to keep them offline.

Japan cannot afford another nuclear disaster!

6 ( +10 / -4 )


Sigh. This is about the 3rd time that plaintiff won lawsuits to shut down nuclear power plants. Why cannot they report simple facts strait?

Both of the links you provided point to cases about the construction of new reactors and not about preventing the restart of any current reactors. The plaintiffs are seeking higher safety standards than those currently in place at the atomic power plant. You links also predate 3/11 and the era of no working reactors?

KEPCO like many of the utilities have done very little to update the safety of their atomic plants. Maybe they hoped the Abe gov't would have given them the nod for reactor restarts without real safety updates? They are just trying it on.

The atomic plant in Tokai has applied for the NRA safety inspection even though the plant is 35 years old and can't be retrofitted or updated to meet the new safety standards,

The utilities are not fully committed or 100% serious with their real intentions. Even following on from the 3/11 nuclear disaster many of the areas with atomic plats haven't updated their evacuation plans in the event of a major nuclear incident?

There should be no restarts of reactors which haven't at least been updated to the new safety standards.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

Zishi again nail head. Compliance is missing. Basic compliance, basic safety measures.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

We have managed without nuclear power, so keep them offline, forever.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Everyone talks about how Japan cant afford stuff. Like Japan can't afford to keep reactors offline. Well, 7 years ago when i was living in the states, the biggest bills people ever carried where 20s. In Japan, even the single mothers in my town with runaway (or chased away) husbands, regularly deal with 1man en bills. This countrys got a ton of money. If Japan can't afford this stuff its because Japanese people are the highest maintenance people on earth. Japan is sitting on a 1 trillion plus pension system. They can afford almost anything.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The number of deaths attributable to the release of radiation from fukushima is...wait for

That's your silver lining. Hold onto it.

There's an open-ended bill for the damage, compensation, and decommissioning, which will run into hundreds of billions of dollars - a truly astonishing amount for a single power station.

Additionally, there are higher costs for the whole nuclear industry here: both because of TEPCO's failures pre and post 3/11, and because the luxury of pretending that earthquakes and tsunami are not a serious threat to Japanese nuclear facilities has been eliminated.

The disaster has killed nuclear power in Fukushima forever - 8 reactors at Daiichi (including the two that were planned but are now cancelled) and four at Daini. 12 reactors down the crapper.

It may also have killed off TEPCO as a generator of nuclear power: inconvenient, because it was the largest nuclear operator. If Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (which was already in trouble before 2011) is closed, there go another 5 reactors.

It may also have killed the idea of extending any Japanese reactors beyond their intended lifespan - the very thing TEPCO was hoping to do at Daiichi (and would have done, with government blessing) before the meltdowns.

It has probably also killed off any hope of building new reactors on Japanese soil. There was certainly a move away from new nuclear in the United States after Three-Mile Island.

It has forced a reassessment (for every single reactor in the country) of the seismic threats. Power stations on fault lines will never reopen. Hamaoka, for a long time before 3/11 the most controversial of all nuclear plants because of its vulnerable location, has been closed. It will probably never reopen. There were five units there, plus a sixth under construction.

The nuclear landscape in Japan has changed permanently. It's hard to imagine how the situation could be grimmer for them: reactors at total standstill, higher costs, no expansion possible, no lifetime extension for old reactors. And a rather high chance of no more nuclear power ever. The one thing that might have helped - effective handling of the Fukushima disaster by TEPCO, the nuclear authorities and the government(s) - never came even close to happening. The industry has been seen for what it is: incompetent in the face of disaster, and a drain on the taxpayer.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

so lets go ahead and open up some more coal power stations and burn more oil burning power plants. way to go greens, save the world for the cockroaches while humanity and all other life swelters its way to extinction. in Hawaii they have recorded carbon in the atmosphere ppm of over v400 for the first time.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Mike Will The plaintiffs of the case are not against restarting the reactors only that safety standards are clearly updated at the plant. Prior to the 3/11 disasters, nuclear energy generated about 27% of total power.

According to the NRA, in future its unlikely nuclear energy will generate more than about 15% of total power from about 16 reactors.

Both before and after the disasters, fossil fuels are used to generate a greater portion of total power than nuclear energy.

You mention Hawaii but America still generates what more than 40% of total power from coal? Coal is cheap and available so the power utilities will go burning it?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

"so lets go ahead and open up some more coal power stations and burn more oil burning power plants."

That's a false dichotomy, promoted worldwide by nuclear shills. If generating capacity in Japan is to be built, then it will come from oil, gas, solar and wind before coal plants are built.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fantastic news. Now we can import more coal, which is a much more green method for energy production.

Oh, hang on...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

coa;? I thought Abe went Middle East and Africa to obtain their oil, etc. Haven;t heard Abe talked to import to Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Anti-nuclear campaigners were seen on NHK celebrating the ruling" Because this is how democracy reaches equilibrium and justice prevails in civilized countries.

What happens next will indicate just how democratic Japan actually is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan imports LNG for it's electric plants. As for coal, that is one resource that Japan has but stopped mining some years ago. One of those early Kaiju movies started in a coal mine. Anyway, all N-plants can be retrofitted. The electric companies don't want to. I also never understood why there is so many electric companies in the country that is the size of California. It is a regulated utility, you don't same money by having more than one. It also doesn't make sense that half of japan is on 60 cycles and the other half is on 50 cycles. It is just insane and sounds like someone didn't want to make a decision. Which seems true for Nuclear in Japan. It is insane to have nuclear in such a small land mass. If the core had been exposed in Fukushima, Tokyo would be a ghost town today.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Downvote me if you like. But the fact remains that coal/fossil fuel is far more environmentaly damaging than nuclear. Fact.

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