Fukushima plant chief: No need to extend decommissioning target


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

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

He (as usual with these appointees) has absolutely no idea! Just parrot the government line. Everything is fine, everything is fine....OH didn't see that coming?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

they have no clue even on how to start decommissioning but , hey, i am 60, so i do not mind to make predictions 40 years ahead, chances on having to apologize in person for being wrong are slim

6 ( +6 / -0 )

This isn't decommissioning. Far from it. It's a serious nuclear disaster with nuclear fuel meltdowns. Second to only Chernobyl. No one at this stage even knows if the melted fuel or corium will never be recovered and removed.

The original costs thought back in 2011 would be ¥5 trillion. Even then I predicted it would cost more than ¥50 trillion and take 100 years or more. The costs are already ¥25 trillion and predicted to eventually cost more than ¥80 trillion.

That does not include the cost of the forever storage of highly radioactive and deadly waste.

In the recent powerful earthquake the rector containments vessels 1&3 were further damaged with new cracks or old ones becoming larger and leaking more cooling water. Showing the plant is in a fragile condition which will deteriorate with time, weather, and 50 years of more earthquakes.

I and all of us won't even survive to know the end of this story.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

No need to extend?

Yeah, right ..... because there is no end in sight!

The "Never Ending Story"!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You could probably envisage that in years to come that the only solution will be a huge cover like the one at Chernobyl. As it stands it looks like they have no answers.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Chernobyl and Fukushima are too very different types of nuclear disasters.

Chernobyl is not next to the sea nor does it have underground water. There's no cooling of the corium. The cover over the reactor site was the best option but will have to be rebuilt and rebuilt endlessly for thousands of years.

Fukushima is next to the sea and as underground water. It's also subject to further powerful earthquakes and tsunamis. Just covering it won't work with this disaster.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Fukushima plant chief: No need to extend decommissioning target

Typical Japanese. Can't face the reality and live in denial. For the sake of just saving face.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You rarely see such level of incompetence by someone who'd you think is a professional in his field of work.

“I don't think we need to revise the target right now,” Ono said Tuesday in an online interview with The Associated Press. “We will stick to the 30-to-40-year finishing target, and will compile a timeline and technology and development plans accordingly.”

Makes me think that there is currently either no actual plan, or they don't want to change the current one because someone would lose face.

Ono said the removal of the melted fuel debris will hopefully progress on track during the 2030s. “The next 10 years for us is to prepare for that goal,” he said.

I'm speechless. He did not say that, has he?

Ono said the plant's end state should be discussed by the government, local residents, experts and other concerned parties, and should be decided by a consensus.

Yes, more discussions, more Excel sheets, surveys, simulation runs! Because there have been no discussions like this before. Because if there were, why do another, right?

Consensus doesn't really work in here. Few local residents may be asked, but that's all. Fill some sheets of papers, surveys and then just discard it.

Can you imagine having a referendum in Japan, similar like they do in Switzerland?

There IS a problem and it needs to be solved. It will not age well like a good whiskey or wine. How about admitting that and do something about it already? It's 2021 and this situation happened in 2011!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

When was Fukushima reactor built?


It was supposed to be decommissioned 1 year before this happened.

How did we get here?

-Old reactor. Not enough safety in place.

-Hit by magnitude 9 Earthquake. So powerful the Earth spins faster.

-Massive Tsunami, worst seen in over 100 years.

Nuclear technology in 2021 should not be judged base on what happened at Fukushima. That reactor is from 1967.

-New Reactors are safer. 3rd gen.

-Nuclear technology was still new when Fukushima was built.

-50 years of advancements has been made since Fukushima Reactor was built. 50 years of new safety features, new ways to prevent a meltdown.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Mr Ono sounds sensible and realistic to me. If you look at what he says, he is listening to his advisors, and weighing possibilities. No immediate need to revise the target just yet. A steady hand on the controls.

“I don't think we need to revise the target right now,” Ono said Tuesday in an online interview with The Associated Press.

Granted that on balance he does sound optimistic, but I would rather have him in charge than any of these pessimists. The situation is grave enough already without added drama.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I pretty much agree with ReasonandWisdom here.

Fukushima was a perfect storm of everything going wrong at exactly the same time on outdated technology. Even then, it wasn't as bad as it could have been.

It was handled badly afterwards, but that really shouldn't be a reason to disavow all (increasingly safe) nuclear technology moving forwards. Especially in a country like Japan that doesn't have many other options.

As far as the article, I do agree with Ono insofar a Chernobyl-style entombment not being the best way to go. There's too much potential for radioactive material to escape, and we have simply improved our ability to handle clean-up since then.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Completion of the removal of the spent fuel in 1&2 pools probably won't be complete until the early 2030's.


When was Fukushima reactor built?


What was only for the No1 reactor, which was due to be commissioned the year of the disaster. The others are later with 5&6 the latest.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There 20 reactors going to be decommissioned for failing the NRA regs. The government needs to decide where all the nuclear waster from these and Fukushima will be stored.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Although its not realistic, sticking with the 30-40 year target at least partially stops them from just kicking the can down the road for the next generation. If they were to set a realistic target, it would probably be over 100 years.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

LDP chief: No need to extend decommissioning target

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Generations yet unborn will be dead before they finish this. It's now a huge welfare project for the area, which has become economically addicted to it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It’ll never get done anyway, and all those responsible for it and soon to be dumps in the ocean will be long dead anyway, so no need.

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