national

Nuclear regulator says aging reactors can stay on line for 20 more years

32 Comments

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

© 2016 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

The government doesn't want to spend money on necessary things and taking advantage of the public' apathy.

Whether it's another facet of the 'Shoganai' attitude, penny pinching, the preference of new over old or combination thereof I don't know for sure, but from observation of daily life, there seems to be a lack of a maintenance mindset where buildings or facilities are left without any meaningful maintenance until they break.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I want to keep my car for the next 20 years too but I won't due to the high maintenance costs and increasing inefficiency. Obviously, the same criteria don't apply to nuclear power plants for some reason......

9 ( +12 / -3 )

I'm sure that their judgment is sound. I mean, it's not like we have any reason to mistrust them.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Both are over 40 years old, normally the maximum period under NRA rules.

Slowly the NRA is getting corrupt, why are you breaking your own rules?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Nuclear regulator says aging reactors can stay on line for 20 more years

This is one of the basic truths of the universe. No matter how old a nuke plant is, some nuclear regulator will say it can last 20 more years.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Safety rules seem to be nothing and very ridiculous about extension of 20 more years. These reactors are very old enough. Some kinda disastrous accident would happen during time of 20 years. How stupid they are!

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Somehow,Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) in Japan and National Rifle Association (NRA) in the US deny the risks of using dangerous material! What does NRA really stand for? Narcissist Reckless Abnormal?

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Radioactivity lasts and counts longer than human life... at the end there will be only one. The atom.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Would you expect the pro-nuclear lobby to state anything else? Of course they want to keep them online for another twenty years. That's their job! However, other parties not associated with the Japanese government of power industry have s very different opinion.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Build more, restart the old, and maybe get the Koreans to build them this time, they do it well.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

That's rich, considering they were supposed to be shut down before 3/11 having reached their design limit. You can't just ask radioactivity to stop and accept oyaji corruption.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Regulators should be forced to live within 5 miles of a nuclear reactor they approved.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Seems like a big gamble to take. The Gov't does not appear to put much value on the health and safety of the people of Japan.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

“The NRA is… doing everything it can to ignore the earthquake risks to nuclear plants in Japan,” Kendra Ulrich, senior global energy campaigner at Greenpeace Japan, said in a statement.

There are many famous Japanese who raised their voice against the 20 year extension, such as former Prime Minister Koizumi, and a lot of professors of seismology at famous universities. Actually, Japanese papers are citing true experts. Why couldn't AFP cite them, rather than this "senior campaigner"? The only probable reason I can think of is ....

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Apart of the news for the extension decision there is big misconception in all related information about the reactors in Japan.

There is NO stopped reactor (except the Fukushima daichi, daini reactors). All are idling with fuel so the danger remains constant on or off the power grid!

The ones that sit on an active faults should start decommissioning as soon as possible - only then they can think how to deal with the rest.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Surprise surprise. They'd all be out of a job otherwise.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

NRA would approve a reactor on a seismic fault line in a typhoon zone downwind from an active volcano.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They have already admitted Fukushima will "last" another 40 or more years, . .

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Regulators should be forced to live within 5 miles of a nuclear reactor they approved.

Exactly! How many of those punks would send THEIR kids to school, or buy a house near one of those aged power plants. Nuclear energy in Japan is a Racket. Look, California announced a month or 2 ago that by 2030, HALF of its power will come from solar energy. HALF. Not renewables mind you, JUST SOLAR.

Why do we need to continue to use outdated and nuclear reactors when the gov can easily subsidize solar panels on every single building, house, and factory in the nation? That would take care of AT LEAST half of japan's energy needs. When you add wind energy through turbines you'll get even more. There really is no need for us to keep using reactors that are old and volatile.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Slowly the NRA is getting corrupt, why are you breaking your own rules?

They aren't breaking their own rules. Their rules clearly allow a 20 year extension.

having reached their design limit.

No. Their design limit is not 40 years.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Sounds ok to me. We need the power to keep air pollution at bay.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

It's time to bring in experts from abroad to inspect Japan's aging nuclear facilities. Local assessments are tainted by association with the industry and politicians.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Isn't that what they said about Fukushima.....as long as there was no natural disaster?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

2036 headline: "Nuclear regulator says aging reactors can stay on line for 20 more years"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What could possibly go wrong?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sure, why not?,,, what's the worst that could happen?,,,

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is strange: "The move comes after a district court in March issued an injunction ordering a temporary shutdown of the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors at the same plant. "

3 & 4 are newer, younger reactors. At the time it was not advertised as 'temporary'; the plant has even begun removing fuel rods from 3 & 4 as they realize this shutdown will drag on for the long term.

So the courts have stopped the newer reactors at Takahama, but the regulatory authority has given life extensions to the obsolescent reactors 1 & 2.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The inconvenient truth is that nuclear power generation is indispensable for resource poor countries like Japan. Reduced oil imports would mean less dependence on foreign oil producers and increase the country's energy security. Look at France, a proud independent nation. More than 90 percent of power in France is generated by nuclear power plants.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

What they should do is invest in research in safe nuclear technologies such as Thorium reactors (which actually been in trial operation for many years on some cases, so it is not a pipe dream). Why do we not hear about that?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Meiyou* not too many earthquake faults in France, are there?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Zaphod

Thorium is a red herring. You need Uranium to charge it. It's less of a problem sure but you have to look at the entire process like nuclear itself to see where the waste exists. Zero nuclear nada zip zilch is needed for energy. It's simply a design paradigm that needs to come to an end. Simply moving from one radioactive source to another is not a solution to the real problem of integration of renewables and changing the mindset along with it

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sf2k:

" Simply moving from one radioactive source to another is not a solution "

Instead of typing a kneejerk reaction, you might want to read up on thorium technology. The reactors are fundamentally different, inherently safe, and produce very little nuclear waste (most notably no plutonium).

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

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