national

NRA says review of Takahama nuclear plant almost complete

53 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

Not a word about reducing energy use so "expensive fossil fuels" would be reduced.

Anyway, let the fight to keep Fukui-ken nuke free begin.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

For which we can read both sides have agreed on the size of the brown envelope required to facilitate such review.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

There are so many minuses associated with nuclear power,not to mention the current impossibility of decontaminating land of radioactivity that makes it complete idiocy for Japan to rely on nuclear while my neigh our sells her solar generated power back to Kansai Electric on an almost daily basis......

8 ( +10 / -2 )

The Japanese publis does NOT WANT nuclear energy . . . . . .The Japanese people have an amazing ability to adapt . . .but I think if the power brokers don't heed the sentiments of the people there WILL be a major backlash

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Is this thanks to the new pro-nuclear members of the NRA?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Not a word about reducing energy use so "expensive fossil fuels" would be reduced.

Turn on your tv once in a while, or better still ask your office manager why the aircon is set at 29.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

This is the second time they have forgotten to mention that the final decision to restart the reactors lays solely with the local prefectural councils, who are remaining conspicuously quiet about these restarts. Is it possible that they have been paid off by the federal government? Wow! Does hat kind of thing really happen in Japan? (Sarcasm)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

which according to their site, today the peak demand is 22GW out of a supply of 26GW or 87%. These figures are much lower than the years of the DPJ government following the 3/11 disaster.

I don't see the pattern you're getting at here. Today's current projected peak is 23.3 (91%). In 2011 (on the same date) it's 23.4, 2012 is 24.5, and 2013 is 24.3. Couldn't these fluctuations just be down to temperature?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

afanofjapan,

Is this thanks to the new pro-nuclear members of the NRA?

No, the two new commissioners do not take their posts until September.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Cha Ching ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ lots of money for those in charge

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is no way they'll walk over the local people's sentiment and wishes to that extent. No way. It'll make the 60s agitation look like a village fete. This is a much more powerful movement, sprung, ready to snap. It has JA and the JGFA for starters, in the background, shaking their heads saying, 'No'. Niigata, Fukushima, Shiga... all falling into line. The LDP is a dead man walking if they push beyond the line.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Solar power, without the government subsidies, is about six times the cost of nuclear. Germany and the rest of Europe are backing away from wind and solar due to their noncompetitive high cost. Fukushima was an inexcusable regulatory failure, but there is no practical alternative. Japan's per capita energy consumption is not bad, a little less than France or Germany, and about 60% of that of the US. Manufacturing takes a lot of energy.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

There is no way¥¥¥¥ they would go against¥¥¥¥ the public will¥¥¥¥¥ it would be totally ¥¥¥¥¥ against their safety objective ¥¥¥¥¥ to do so. I trust Abe San to¥¥¥¥¥¥ appoint people¥¥¥¥¥ who are qualified¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ in the nuclear¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ industry.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Cricky, but if THAT were the case, TEPCO would already be running its remaining fleet of nuclear power plants, but seeing as it isn't. QED.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Zichi ; That s the best comment here , thanks . There is also another cost though ,, that s not in yen or in dolars ,, its in our genes ,, its the radioactive insult on living things ,, which keeps increasing . We are destroying life on this planet and its irreversible .

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I wonder if all that money had been spent on developing real clean and renewable energy how much more advanced it would all be by now.

Maybe - but it's not very helpful in the historical context. In 1974 the oil shocks hit Japan hard - it desperately needed to come up with ways to generate power without relying on imports. Nuclear power was proven, efficient and (relatively) cheap. Renewable development never would have been an option - it was unproven and would have required a lot of the one thing Japan didn't want to rely on (oil).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There is no way they'll walk over the local people's sentiment and wishes to that extent.

Gee, article 9 ring any bells? Since when does anyone in power in this country care what the minions think?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Zichi,

It was America from the mid 1950's which pressurised Japan to build nuclear reactors and help provide an additional supply of material to built enough atomic weapons and with the help of the CIA persuade the public and the politicians that nuclear energy was clean, safe and cheap. All of this was revealed in recently released documents in the US.

Do you have a reference for that? I ask because LWR reactors are unsuitable for the production of weapons-grade plutonium, and the only power-generating reactor suitable for the task was the British Magnox reactor at Tokai.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@t-marie, JA and JGFA members probably mostly support the lean towards getting rid of Article 9, but threaten their farming and fishing? Watch out!

The CIA funded and promoted the LDP and offered and supplied BWRI and beyond technology. The main reason Imperial Japan began it's war against the States was? Exactly. So supply them with what they went to war for and chill them out.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It was America from the mid 1950's which pressurised Japan to build nuclear reactors

The memos show that the CIA gave support to Matsutaro Shoriki who wanted to support nuclear power as a stepping stone to Japan's own nuclear weapons program. They also state that they wanted to “revive the hopes of the deflation-oppressed Japanese in reconstructing their economy.” - but the true purpose seems to be an anti-Soviet campaign to create a more positive image of America. Tetsuo Arima, the main researcher of the memos, himself admits that the growth of nuclear reactors in Japan can't solely be linked to American influence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wow! TEPCO will avoid paying 99.75% of their (Shimizu's) blunder then? Thanks, Zichi.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I wish everyone in Japan could receive a (translated) version of this Comments thread in their next email.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Zichi- you keep quoting that 50 trillion figure, but I've never been able to find a source with a breakdown of what that number really means. Is that direct cleanup? Economic cost?

Link to source I've you've got one handy, love to take a look at the numbers.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Zichi,

Again, do you have a source for this ¥50 trillion - $1 trillion figure?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Zichi

Sorry but I'm not here to back track and track down links for people and your request was the second on this post.

A google search on "Fukushima 50 trillion" brings up two things:

1) unsourced stories and comments on conspiracy websites 2) comments on japantoday. Guess who makes them. Starts with "z".

You are the only person I see on a regular basis making this claim.

Give me a hint then. Was this figure in a government report? Was it in a study by the IMF? world bank? Another international body? A university?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Under the nuclear liability law, TEPCO will only have to shell out a maximum of ¥120 billion out of the total cost for the nuclear disaster of ¥50 trillion.

Under the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund Tepco does have to pay the loans of ¥5 billion yen back, through both general contributions and (optional) special contributions. The subsidy is that these loans are virtually interest free.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Wow! TEPCO will avoid paying 99.75% of their (Shimizu's) blunder then? Thanks, Zichi.

Well bruinfan, as zichi has told us, TEPCO's majority owner is the Japanese government. So the Japanese government is responsible for the majority of the cost of the blunder.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Zichi-

Well aware of the decontamination cost estimates. Those numbers add up to about ¥5.5 trillion.

That leaves a gap of ¥44.5 trillion, and I've never understood where you were getting that figure.

Prior to nationalisation TEPCO had liabilities of ¥25 trillion and owed ¥8 trillion to bondholders. Since the nationalisation TEPCO have received about ¥10 trillion

Where are you getting these figures? They make no sense. 10 trillion in loans and 8 trillion in bonds are liabilities. You seem to be presenting these figures as separate from the 25 trillion in liabilities.

TEPCOs ledgers are available here: http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/overview/facts-e.html

2009 liabilities: 10.4 Trillion. 2013 liabilities: 14.7 Trillion.

These figures include bond holders and the 1 trillion in loans from the Japanese government (not 10 trillion).

Yes, a lot of money - but only if you have no revenue or fixed assets.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The cost of the cleanup of the Nukes of Hazard, and these figures don't include the cost of compensation to the nuclear victims,

Yes it does. Scroll down the first page to the table. It's right there. Income compensation: 0.63 (Trillion).

Both of these papers are from 2011. A lot has changed since then as far as the information we have on the state of the reactors. For example, we know that construction of a sarcophagus will not be necessary - and that's an important point because the entire basis of their 20 trillion claim hinges on the construction of a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus. It's right there at the top of page 2.

They make the point quite clearly that the cost of decommissioning will only skyrocket to 20 trillion (from 5 trillion) if construction of a sarcophagus is necessary. That was briefly an option in mid 2011 when the paper was written, but it hasn't been seriously considered by anyone since then.

Oh, and even if their worst case scenario HAD come to pass, we STILL wouldn't be at your 50 trillion figure.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@Zichi

Thanks for the many links.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I know. Isn't it just AWFUL when people ask you to provide evidence and facts to your claims.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

No, I read your comment. I read this: I would give a list of more than 30 items involving those enormous losses but JT or the text won't let me do that just no doubt some will request the more than 30 links too.

And I can't speak for anyone else but I would be very interested to see the 30 plus stories that average a different way that 16/17 trillion yen will be used to pay for this and how we will end up with a cost of 500 trillion yen.

The problem with the anti-nuclear crowd is that they make unsubstantiated claims about costs and losses and can't provide any independent evidence to support it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Wipeout, every time you've asked me for something I've responded. I've never made any claim which I haven't been able to support with a credible link.

I certainly haven't complained when I've been asked to provide evidence.

As for the costs of the clean up... I don't know how much it would cost. I haven't researched it and I'm not prepared to guess.

I've also never claimed it would cost 50 trillion yen. And I do think that when someone makes definitive claims, it does make sense to be able to back them up.

You accuse me of trying to downplay this disaster. But I've merely repeated what the experts have been saying, what the WHO and UN have said and what science tells us. All of it is available on Google.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Brilliant wipeout. You provide evidence of me not answering your question with a link that NOT ONLY answers your question (unless of course you are saying that Hansen et al are not leading scientists to which I would say what's your your expertise to say that) but shows where you have avoided one of my questions. And when questioned about that, how do you respond?

'Keep waiting'

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Wipeout

You do realise that moderators frequently delete my links don't you?

They either claim that they are 'Off topic' or because Japan Today is not here to promote website X.

The is a definite article but I would have thought that the contributors on this board are intelligent enough to understand that there is no scientific hierarchy where scientist x is #1. The link that you've been allowed to publish says Top climate change scientists. Top. The leading. Same Same.

And no the letter doesn't mention Japan. It is addressed to world leaders who influence environmental policy though. And I'm at a loss to understand how that doesn't cover Japan? Was it only aimed at English speakers? The West? Everyone but Japan? I read that as meaning everyone. I read that as meaning it's relevant to Japan, and especially given that article which was wholly about the government's new energy policy.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

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