COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.

9 years on, state of the clean-up at Fukushima nuclear plant


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

© 2020 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment


5 ( +8 / -3 )

Dump the water. The oceans are huge and handle much more natural radiation.

Quit making new laws for working visas for training people in various jobs, as obviously they are sent to Fukushima.

Nuclear power is wonderful, but idiots that put backup power storage for cooling down plants in the basements have to get a new job.

Long live nuclear power. It will be resolved.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

The article does not state which control room, I think there are two control rooms. One for reactors 1&2 and another for reactors 3&4.

The spent fuel removal is the most critical with No4 complete and No3 now being emptied but will take until at least next year to complete. Removing the fuel from reactors 1 and 2 will be much more difficult, especially No2 because of the high levels of radiation. The cooling pools remain structurally weak from the earthquake and explosion and another power earthquake could cause serious damage or even collapse. TEPCO thought they could remove the fuel with two years but will actually take much longer. TEPCO stated all spent fuel would be removed by 2023. An unlikely target.

Still no way to remove the corium or melted fuel.

In the beginning TEPCO/government thought it would cost ¥5 trillion and take about 40 years. The costs have already reached ¥25 trillion and take almost a decade. The final costs are likely to be more than ¥100 trillion.

In a normal decommissioning the power company would be responsible for all the costs. But in a nuclear disaster they are limited to ¥120 billion with the taxpayer picking up the tab.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Discharging water after sufficiently diluted is a viable solution. Such is very common even ruled in other active nuclear power plants around the world. Problem we face is not technical or scientific, but political. Local fishery industry is still afraid of contamination, although the risk is minimal, near to zero. Buying up their products under subsidy programmes is plausible.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Well at least with those masks on he should be safe from Wuhan virus :) The removal of the molten core will be a long and difficult job. The cleanup operation has and will cost a vast sum of public money yet the companies get to keep the profits while the tax payer gets to foot the bill for their failures.

Nuclear can be a part of the energy mix but it must show that it is economically viable without any form of subsidy and paying for its own cleanup after. Which rules out the current legacy systems and companies.

There are answers which are viable and will burn the spent fuel from inefficient legacy reactors thus solving a major long term disposal problem but the current nuclear companies don’t have that technology but they do have the regulators and politicians by the short and curlies.

Disposal of the water needs to be openly debated so the public are aware of the facts, risk levels an impact if any of the proposed methods.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Measures Taken at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station

2 ( +2 / -0 )

5000 workers a day!?

Do the math. That's insanity!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Workers are limited to 50 millisievert in one year or 100 millisievert over five years.

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