national

Nuclear reactor makers must share accident costs: Greenpeace

30 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

They should, if the reactor design caused the problem. Which was certainly not the case in Fukushima.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Would have been more meaningful if the word 'Greenpeace' was replace with 'Nuclear Reactor Maker'

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Good luck. Big business worldwide has long lobbied for -- and got -- limited liability. That means that when billionaires screw up, they don't have to pay for it. Instead, they force people with much less money than themselves - and who played no role in the mistakes -- have to pay for the mistakes the super rich make.

It's perfectly fair, don't you know.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Why on earth would the electric companies do that when they can get all the money from the taxpayer via government bailouts?

7 ( +8 / -2 )

How about greenpeace share the cost? They are the reason why there was so many spent fuel rods there in the first place!

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

Maker? seriously ??... (^_-) ??? Unless you guys can prove its their fault.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Asking those who cause a problem to at least help pay for the damages it unleashes upon others (and continues to unleash) seems like such a no-brainer. The fact that it's even debatable in most societies today shows how uncivilized and bereft of any common sense or justice we all are.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

How about greenpeace share the cost? They are the reason why there was so many spent fuel rods there in the first place!

What logic do you base that on?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Well here it is explained who stands behind nuclear power. And to make each of the first, but the risk to pay and pay and something goes wrong, it's not ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The reactor vessels and some of the control systems may have been poorly designed or made, but it it likely the actual installation that was at fault. Workers have spoken and written of pipes being so badly designed and made that they had to be bent and pulled with heavy machinery in order to line up properly for welding. The plant could have been built up on the hillside in safety, but was instead built at sea level. Back-up batteries and back up control and communication lines had not been checked and replaced when faulty. The popular idea that nuclear power in Japan was safe prevailed.

Certainly TEPCO did not follow the makers and/ or IAEA recommended upgrades, following experience in the US and elsewhere. One reactor vessel (No 4) was known to have been damaged in the manufacturing process, contained a bump in its shape, and had rebuilding efforts covered up to enable it to be certified it (according to the well-reimbursed whistle-blower Mitsuhiko Tanaka) but that did not appear to have had any bearing on the disaster, as it was not in use at the time.

However as these were nearly joint ventures GE Hitachi, GE Toshiba, Babcock Hitachi, etc., (Mitsubishi did RPV 6), it would be very hard to pin down any responsibility, documentation from 40 years ago would be hard to find or shredded by now.

Training and education were also at fault, as employees had never been trained for a real emergency, including an SBO or Station Black Out with total loss of all AC power, opening of pressure relief valves had never been undertaken or practiced, as it would have given rise to doubts in the safety of the nuclear village.

If anything, partial blame should be attached to regulators for failing to ensure TEPCO had not undertaken these upgrades and education, or that training was adequate and realistic, but as many regulators were ex-utility employees or excessively influenced by the same body that they were supposed to check, objectivity was lacking.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It reads as if you could say "I drank a bottle of vodka, went driving, and crashed my uninsured car into a telephone pole. Toyota should help pay for my repairs."

I think the total amount of damages should rest within the operators and personnel that placed, maintained, and profited from the production of energy there and, if they run out of money trying to pay for damages, then and only then should tax payers step in. And if they do, then that energy company should never show it's face again. I'm not against the usage of public funds in emergencies such as Fukushima, but I don't want to see the businesses that couldn't prevent this accident making money for a long, long time.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

spudmanFeb. 20, 2013 - 10:21AM JST

What logic do you base that on?

On sound, simple logic based on things greenpeace itself has stated:

http://www.greenpeacefoundation.org/history/histsub.cfm?hiid=11

They prevented the shipment of fuel for reprocessing to france, so reactors had to keep their spent fuel much longer since the reprocessing plants in the country can't handle the load. Greenpeace caused the Unit 4 issues highhandedly.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

The Mark 1 reactors in the Fukushima incident not only met, but exceeded design specifications.

That the whole safety concept (reliance on outside power, communication etc) was flawed is a different topic, and the reactor makers have nothing to do with that.

Ditto for the fact, that in the meantime much better designs than Mark 1 have been developed.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Thats like saying weapon makers need to share the cost of those who are killed by their weapons.... Its a hard to sell item!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if governments are willing to you taxpayer money in saving banks, half-way across the world.. i seriously doubt there would be any, political motivation in heeding greenpeace. they might laugh as they sip the champagne given to them by the banks.. actually.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

use taxpayer*

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Everyone who had a hand in this disaster and by their actions could have prevented it should pay. And that includes so much more than the companies who made the reactors.

The only reason I would even demand compensation from the makers is because they knew these were for use in Japan. There was no middle man. The reactors were not bought off the shelf of 7-11. They made these reactors by contract and knew they were for use in Japan, of ALL places. Good old earthquake skaky tsunami swamped Japan! Its just plain stupid that Japan has so many reactors, especially on the east coast. And any company that makes reactors for use in Japan can darn well suck up some of the liability when, oh, surprise, surprise, Japan is hit by tsunami and earthquake!

But even more than the makers should pay, the operators should. That they should be able to avoid so much liability after years of operation is insane and asinine. And every company and person responsible for the cutting of corners (insufficient tsunami barriers and back-up generators in unsafe locations) that lead to the meltdowns should be paying the lion's share.

And every politician and lobbyist involved in making it so that they could avoid liability even after the operators passed the start-up phase and entered the profit phrase should be found and busted down to a lower middle class standard of living (because they may have families) if that is what it takes to cover the damages!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But things are evolving ... a bit. In France a severe nuclear accident has been evaluated at 120 billions Euro, while a major one of the Fukushima/Tchernobyl type at 430 billions Euro. The politics is considering to increase the operator's liability from 92 millions (!) to 700 millions (!).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“However, it’s only the nuclear industry that can avoid this risk despite the large, long-term and trans-boundary impacts that these accidents cause.”

Errr...no.

The Oil, Coal, and Gas industries avoid paying the costs associated with their pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I'm also sure hydro plant operators don't shoulder the costs of their accidents.

Greenpeace needs to decide what is more important to them - ending nuclear power or stopping global warming.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Star-Viking: the topic is nuclear but just for your info, the CO2 generation of an NPP is about 1/3 of a gas power generator per KW/h. It is not zero!

An hydro plant accident will never hit the 100 billions USD and everything will be cleared within a few years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The failure of the reactors at Daiichi was caused by the loss of power to the pumps providing cooling water to the reactor vessel. Had the emergency power generators been positioned in a place where they would not have been inundated with sea water from the tsunami, the meltdowns would not have occurred and there would have been no hydrogen explosions in the buildings. So what part of that is the reactor maker's fault?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Fadamor: you should read the full report properly. The pumps were destroyed by the tsunami! And the future will prove that the earthquake damaged the cooling piping system. And the containment vessel leaked while supposed to be 100% sealed. And the venting system did not work. And the control bars from the bottom gave a way to the corium to escape. And non conformities were noticed during construction. And past incidents were covered up. And ...

It was just a huge chance it did not get worse - sincere thanks to the Tokyo firemen - not the contrary.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

More left-wing nonsense.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

So what part of that is the reactor maker's fault?

That they sold a dangerous product to a customer they knew to operate in a dangerous area.

Its not because they made the reactors. Its because of who they sold them too. If a gun store sells a gun to a known loony, you hold the store responsible right? The makers/sellers knew that Japan is earthquake and tsunami prone. Any fool knows those are bad news for nuclear reactors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fadamor: you should read the full report properly. The pumps were destroyed by the tsunami! And the future will prove that the earthquake damaged the cooling piping system.

None of which are part of the reactor vessels. Greenpeace says that the manufacturer of the reactor vessels should bear part of the cost, when their equipment worked fine until supporting equipment manufactured by other companies failed to do their job.

That's like saying the manufacturer of a gas furnace should be held responsible if the propane tank stops feeding gas and people inside the house freeze to death. These reactors are sold with the minimum requirements for cooling water clearly defined, and it's up to the local regulatory body to ensure the requirements are met, not the company selling the reactor vessel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is the first Intelligent and rational statement coming out of Greenpeace in 30 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A related question I have: Will Chinese/Norwegian Thorium fissioning technology be safer, cheaper for all mankind or is this just 'popular mythology"?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Open MindedFeb. 20, 2013 - 10:54PM JST

Star-Viking: the topic is nuclear but just for your info, the CO2 generation of an NPP is about 1/3 of a gas power generator per KW/h. It is not zero!

First, the topic is obviously not just nuclear, given the exaggerated Greenpeace comparison to other industries. As for the CO2 produced supporting nuclear power plants - IPCC gives it as the third best - Hydro being number one, Wind 2, and NPPs a colose third. Gas is far worse, 30 times the CO2 production of an NPP.

Even the anti-nuke law professor Benjamin Sovacool has NPPs as producing 1/7th of the amount of CO2 as a gas power plant. Where did you get the 1/3 from?

An hydro plant accident will never hit the 100 billions USD and everything will be cleared within a few years.

The problem with a hydro plant accident is that everything will be cleared in minutes. As for the cost - the Banqiao Dam disaster suggests hundreds of thousands of lives can be lost. Monetary wise - who knows?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Back on topic please. The story is about nuclear reactors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever happen to this companies it is our choise if we choose their products in future. Honestly I'm done with them since 3/11. I have my own reasons.

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