The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
Nuclear watchdog approves restart of Miyagi reactor hit by 2011 tsunami
TOKYO©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
43 Comments
Login to comment
Wakarimasen
Slowly but surely they have to turn these back on. Economics and climate concerns all push in that direction.
Cricky
Nuclear watch dog? Haven't really done a good job. Thinking......
Star-viking
marcelito, the costs of the extra LNG that Japan has had to buy to cover the shuttered nuclear reactors runs to between 10 and 15 trillion yen per year, 30 to 45 times the total Tohoku Electric will spend.
nandakandamanda
The tsunami topped the seawall last time around, I seem to remember, so this time they have made it 95 feet high in order to counter possible 75 foot waves. Good luck, and I mean it.
Patricia Yarrow
Yeah, sure. What could possible go wrong?
Yubaru
Its not about recouping costs, its about profit! These reactors are cash cows for the investors, and they cant turn off the public spigot!
Yubaru
The UN should step up, and not just for the sake of Japan, but the world. They need to, if necessary, threaten sanctions against Japan, if they DONT let outside inspectors certify the safety of these reactors first!
Do it for the world!
garymalmgren
T
Patricia YarrowToday 06:00 pm JST
Yeah, sure. What could possible go wrong?
Well, under the worst possible conditions, nothing went wrong.
The Fukushima Daichi Plant was an example of how not to build a nuclear generation plant in an earthquake/tsunami area.
The Onagawa Plant was an example of how to build a nuclear generation plant in an earthquake/tsunami area.
Through and after the disaster it operated as required and is a model of sound design, construction and management.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Gary
Dom Palmer
Also, a recent research paper found that over 20,000 additional deaths have resulted from the increased use of fossil fuels in Japan since the reactors were all shut down, mostly due to increased air pollution.
AlexBecu
Without Nuclear power Japan imports more fossil fuels and spends more which is not good for the environment.
Security wise importing large amounts of oil is also dumb and a potentional security risk which many don't like to talk about.
Remember the two ships owned by Japan who got hit with missiles in the middle east.
It can happen and it did happen.
Disillusioned
Japan's nuclear watchdog? I think that should be, Japan's nuclear lapdog. This is an agency created and employed by the nuclear power ministry of Japan. Would anybody be daft enough to expect a different outcome?
happyhere
340 billion yen spent for refitting which, as pointed out, will take at least 10 years to pay off. Add to that all the costs of running the facility since 2011 (did they lay anyone off?) and what you have in 2030 is a very old reactor that you still have to decommission and no return on investment.
Hokkaido has huge wind resources and plenty of space for windmills. It makes essentially all of its energy burning coal! That 340 billion should have been used building wind power in Hokkaido and a better connection to the Tohoku Electric grid to supply its surplus to. Britain, Holland and Germany have managed this, why cannot Japan?
Zaphod
I disagree with this endless building of higher walls. Reactors should be designed to be walk.away safe. Modern Gen 4 designs are that, the outdated designs they talking about here are not,
GyGene
All I know is that I absolutely loathe everything nuclear. Nuclear waste. I don’t know anything about it except it seems to be common knowledge that it’s a mess to dispose of.
Dom Palmer
You can call BS on anything you want. But doing so based on zero evidence shows you have a massive bias.
The underlying paper is from The IZA Institute of Labor Economics in Bonn Germany funded by the Deutsche Post Foundation.
And you would be wrong, as usual.
And common knowledge, as is often the case, is wrong.
Zaphod
GyGene:
So you loath the sun? Because that is a giant nuclear reactor.
Yubaru
Provide links when you make statements of facts like this. Or do you expect people to believe everything you write?
Tom
Pro nuclear here.
I have not noticed any difference in air quality.
Dom Palmer
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/10/31/shutting-down-japans-nuclear-plants-after-fukushima-was-a-bad-idea/?fbclid=IwAR0lk6rYmIcvoX4FInR7DKno75aiiP2XJZlR5QNxIDj36NW5LQO93fADG30#1258ea1d19a4
http://ftp.iza.org/dp12687.pdf
Now you will complain everytime anyone, including those you agree with, doesn't provide a link to facts to support any claim they make, right?
Yubaru
Nice try, but when someone makes an off the wall statement like you did, it helps to have something to back them up!
Star-viking
marcellito,
What are you taking about? The article says that Tohoku Electric expects to pay 340 billion yen on the countermeasures.
Star-viking
marcellito,
Very conspiracy-theoresque response there.
There have been a few papers on the issue of avoidable deaths from knee-jerk government reactions to the Fukushima accident:
"Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident", Matthew Neidell, Columbia University; University of Chicago; Shinsuke Uchida, Shinshu University; University of Maryland; Marcella Veronesi, University of Verona, Institute of Labor Economics Discussion Paper No. 12687
Summary: Rise in electricity prices after the NPP shutdowns lead to increased mortality during cold weather - they suggest 1,280 extras deaths over the 4 years 2011-2014. Note, this is a preliminary discussion paper.
"Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident", Pushker A. Kharecha, Makiko Sato, Columbia University Earth Institute, Energy Policy Vol. 132
Summary: Post-Fukushima CO2 emission rises in Japan and Germany were limited despite major cuts in nuclear power. This was due to record-high renewable power levels and lower/steady total energy use. However large amounts of emissions and deaths were avoidable if coal and gas were reduced instead of nuclear. These avoidable impacts will make it harder to meet near-term national mitigation targets. Major energy users should reduce fossil fuels instead of or before nuclear.
Nope.
Star-viking
Zichi,
Which has nothing to do with Onagawa.
Nuclear plant operators do have decommissioning funds that should, at least, offset some of that cost. There is also the increasing use of SAFSTOR to consider: closing the reactor concerned, defuelling it, and then keeping it under observation as the radioactivity of contaminate parts reduces over the 60 years of the programme.
Disregarding the fact that we want to end all fossil fuel use to avoid disastrous climate change, there is no guarantee that prices will not rise for LNG.
Where you are getting your stats? From the IAEA*, Onagawa 2 has supplied 81.16 TWh over its lifetime, with an availability of 48.6 % - however this includes the shutdown years - at pre-shutdown the availability was 73.9% - 588 MW. Per year that is 5153 GWh, or 5,153,017,440 kWh.
At ¥20/kWh, that's ¥103,060,348,800 - 100 billion yen per year, neglecting costs.
Working with your stats:
495 MW for 14 months is 495,000 kW x 10220 hours - 5,058,900,000 kWh
Multiplying that by ¥20/kWh gives 101,178,000,000 yen - 101 billion yen per year
So, our basic stats match.
3 years and 4 months of Onagawa 2 operating would pay off the costs of the updates - and also reduce fossil fuel costs enormously.
Star-viking
marcelito,
Great news!
If you check my latest post above, you'll see that Tohoku Electric can be expected to get ¥100 billion per year from Onagawa 2's electricity - probably 70 billion with costs removed (according to Zichi's calcs). So, making 70 billion yen, and saving 35 billion yen in fuel costs is 105 billion yen per year - they could, if they wanted to, pay for the countermeasures in a little over 3 years.
marcelito, this is conspiracy-theory level stuff. The paper has a proper disclaimer, and we will have to wait to see how the final peer-reviewed paper is.
Of course there is support from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: where do you think the health stats come from.
And as for your animus towards the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, do a Google Scholar search for it, with the words "Grant-in-aid" added: around 129,000 results. All, nasty stuff like:
Physarum solver: A biologically inspired method of road-network navigation
Mutations affecting components of the SWI/SNF complex cause Coffin-Siris syndrome
The use of induced pluripotent stem cells in drug development
The fact is, academic research is supported by a range of organisations, using data from other organisations, with the intent to increase knowledge.
nandakandamanda
zichi, quote: I think the highest level of the Tohoku tsunami was 46 meters.
46 meters is over 150 feet! But that was in angles of coves and inlets where the tsunami waves were funnelled and squeezed up.
smithinjapan
Not if, but WHEN it happens again, hope these guys don't try the "How could we have known?" crap again.