national

No. 3 nuclear reactor at Oi plant back to full capacity

61 Comments

A nuclear reactor in western Japan began full operations on Monday, the first restart since the country shut down its atomic stations in the wake of last year's crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Kansai Electric Power Co (KEPCO), operator of the Oi power plant in Fukui Prefecture, said its 1.18-million-kilowatt No. 3 reactor had come back to full capacity just after 1 a.m. Monday after the reactor was switched on earlier this month.

"The reactor has already shifted to a stable output mode without any trouble," a KEPCO spokesman said, adding that the utility plans to resume operations at No. 4 reactor in the same plant later this month.

The return to full operations ended a nearly two-month hiatus in the aftermath of the atomic crisis, but comes amid strong anti-nuclear sentiment in Japan which has seen protesters come out in their tens of thousands.

It also comes less than a week after a damning Diet report said the accident was a man-made disaster, marked by a lack of oversight and collusion between plant operator Tokyo Electric Power, the government and regulators.

On Sunday, the governor of southern Kagoshima Prefecture, who supports the restart, handily won a new term even as the issue divides Japan with strong voices of opposition hanging over the controversial move.

Nuclear restarts were put on hold as the government mulled its options following the 9.0-magnitude earthquake and tsunami last year that crippled reactor cooling systems at Fukushima.

But in mid-June, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda gave the green light to restart two reactors at the Oi plant, amid concerns about looming power shortages this summer.

Japan had been operating without nuclear power since early May when the last of its 50 working reactors was shut down for a scheduled safety check.

The nation turned to pricey fossil-fuel alternatives to fill the gap left by the shutdown of atomic plants which had supplied about one-third of resource-poor Japan's energy.

The government has asked business and households to cut back on their power usage by as much as 15% from summer levels two years ago, with the Oi restart expected to ease KEPCO's power shortfall.

© 2012 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

61 Comments
Login to comment

Good news. Since the output for the week is about 23GW, we can assume they are saving up water for when it's needed at the end of the month.

Still interested in finding out how they went from full shutdown to commercial power in three weeks, usually takes longer even for a PWR.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Well, the news is 'good' from the points of view of a) renewed supply of electricity to the grid, and b) they have somehow managed to do this safely despite the rushed time frame and the jellyfish.

So there it sits, humming away for the time being, doing what it was designed to do, deadly and irrevocably poisonous but somehow fascinating at the same time.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

basroil: "And all nuclear accidents/bombs combined, including Nagasaki/Hiroshima have killed less people in the last hundred years than died from smoking related illness in the last five years."

Ah, so then so long as something else has killed more people then it's okay?

"So far nobody has died from fukushima and likely nobody will ever be proven to have been killed."

Actually, a number of workers have died at the plant since the disaster started, it's just not been attributed to radiation poisoning (although they've done a pretty good job of making vague statements about the causes). You're right that it'll be difficult to prove that the spike in certain cancers that will come about in residents who lived near the plant but were not evacuated until too late are due to the Fukushima plant, especially with politicians and power companies like we have now who'll spin it any which way they can.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Thank god for a bit of rational sanity after so much hysteria. Let's just hope the other reactors follow suit.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

Let's watch the Japanese economy soar to new heights!

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

Cood site Zichi. Totally agree. Should be no nukes on the whole Pacific Ring of Fire.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

With all the reactors offline, there has been a very large increase on fossil fuel imports in order to maintain the supply of electricity(which also includes the all-electric "green" cars) which has contributed in no small way to the drastic reduction in trade balance. If that continues, Japan will find itself not in stagflation or recession, but in deep depression, the likes of which most of the living have never experienced. Certainly, the reliance on current atomic power should be phased out, but without increased reliance on fossil fuels, and the present alternatives aren't sufficient or reliable enough.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

@zichi

The main reason for KEPCO starting it's Oi nuclear reactors was to reduce it's costs of fossil fuels.

Not a bad reason.

The Oi plant don't have an offsite earthquake and radiation proof emergency control center.

It shouldn't have been restarted then, what happened to the new regulating agency?!

It will take most of the power companies more than five years to install better safety standards on it's reactors. In the realm of possibilities another major nuclear events remains on the table.

There's a much higher possibility that a few planes will crash in those 5 years than a nuclear incident should occur again.

Yes, the NPPs should definitely be upgraded to the maximum safety standards, it's the minimum the power companies should do, but keeping them offline will not help Japan. Fossil fuels used to replace them are expensive and, kinda bad for you, on a daily basis too, no need for accidents. Do keep R&D in renewable energies, but please drop the argument those alone can account for the 30% the NPPS provide, it's ridiculous. They can't. Hopefully someday they will, but not in the short-term.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

basroil: "From worldwide averages and the 80% statistic, keeping nuclear and outlawing smoking instead would save over 60000 lives a year (cancer only)."

Outlaw both.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

At any rate, I'm not sure why 'smoking is bad' (and I agree it is!) has become the justification for nuclear power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's me thinking that the government was supposed to represent the views and best wishes of the public....

Who gave them the authority to ignore the public???

Due to the amount of distrust and concern over management competence and safety, the issue of whether to restart the reactors should have been decided by a full public referendum...

Not by some old men who's only concern is power, control and keeping good relations with other old power and control seeking men.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

the issue of whether to restart the reactors should have been decided by a full public referendum...

You'd have to wait a few years until all the heat settles before you can claim a referendum. Unless, of course, you wanna bank on all the emotions running wild, which will give you a No to nuclear fairly easy. It won't be as neutral as it could be, but you'll get what you want. Ever considered politics as a career?

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Vesperto - And your point is what?

If people do not want nuclear energy (regardless of when) those who have been given authority to manage affairs SHOULD LISTEN....... They is no excuse...

Unless of course you live in a quasi communist/democratic country. Hang on!

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

tokyokawasakiJul. 09, 2012 - 02:14PM JST

Who gave them the authority to ignore the public???

The other 80% of the public that doesn't care for activism. From what I hear every day, most people don't care one way or another as long as it doesn't affect them. Raising prices will affect them very visibly very soon. This restart is the first positive step the country has taken since a tiny vocal minority decided to hijack energy policy.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

zichiJul. 09, 2012 - 02:14PM JST

There's a power grid system covering the whole of west Japan, so there's no technical reason why power in Kansai couldn't not be supplied by other companies.

It is, the original plan was 10% surplus capacity from Chubu and another similar chunk from another two companies. Chubu then turned around and said that due to various issues they would not likely be able to provide any power. Hence KEPCO pushed for Oi 3 and 4 (10% capacity or so) to make up for what other companies couldn't. Interestingly, Japan's demand has grown much, much faster than production capacity, so much so that even before nuclear plants went offline they ran around 86% total capacity during peak (actual was above 90% including maintenance and unexpected shutdowns). Japan simply does not have the generation capacity surplus of most countries, it simply never needed it due to costs.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

GREAT ! So we have plenty of electricity now ? I'm going to buy 3 air-cons for my mansion, then I can do the sales to get some cashmere and fur clothes to wear inside...

keeping nuclear and outlawing smoking instead would save over 60000 lives a year (cancer only).

Yes, but very egoistically, I can choose to not smoke. I'm given a choice to not use nuke-power. I want to choose my poison.

Japan lies directly on the Pacific Ring of Fire and experiences many powerful earthquakes and tsunami

Absolutely. And that's hardly a scoop. Japanese authorities never actually believed their nuke plants would not blow some day. They were simply betting on when, which one and budgeting the potential disaster. And they counted that the population that had survived the war, Hiroshima, Nagasaki... could stomach one or two more. Nothing changed in Government, Noda is just bothered that Fukushima went over financial estimation even woke up those punks that now dare being noisy under his windows... For the rest, he lives in 1960. But I think, and hope, the population is no longer as desperate and they no longer accept the Russian roulette.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

. I'm given

Not given a choice...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@tokyokawasaki

And your point is what?

My point is that if you want to do a referendum on something, it would be sane, perhaps even democratic, to assume/desire that the people be well informed and fully aware of their options, without emotional bias.

Making a referendum right now would (probably) mean most people (who would bother voting) would probably be against nuclear because they're misinformed and emotionally affected by the Fukushima incident the media and zichi insist on marketing as "3/11".

However, if you're serious about your We The People BS, you should wait a few years for emotions to settle down - but we don't want that, do we? (Nor would it be feasable for an energy/economic POV.) Then at least there would be time for people to get information - from both sides - and decide, rationally and not emotionally, on what they want. Again, probably there would be a high abstention rate and it's possible a NO would win anyway, but i think it's more fair a balanced and rational 60/40 NO to a misinformed and emotional 90/10 NO. But that's just me...

But hey, feel free to rebuke by calling me a communist. That's a very reasonable and rational way of debating serious issues.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

zichiJul. 09, 2012 - 02:38PM JST

you didn't understand my comment.

Apparently you didn't understand it either. Monopoly or not has nothing to do with USING power from other companies, simply paying for it. Many companies produce electricity in Japan, they simply condensed payment by area and built power systems so that each area was self sustaining in case of major issues. Not that monopolies are good mind you, but it isn't quite as black and white as you describe. Several of the coal plants that Oi originally removed now belong to a few sub contractors, who also happen to own other power generation plants in the area.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Good. 1 down, 49 to go.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

zichiJul. 09, 2012 - 02:32PM JST

Due to the mounting costs of the nuclear disaster, and the cost of increasing safety at the atomic power plants, the cost of nuclear energy is set to double, triple and even higher. By 2030, the cost of power from nuclear energy will be higher than power from renewable energy, and probably even higher than fossil fuels.

Peer reviewed article or it didn't happen. We've gone over it before, even if Oi is the only plant operational, it will cover 5 trillion yen in cost and still be CHEAPER than any other energy source (other than existing hydro plants). Just 3 yen/kWh increase at worst, less than 0.25 yen at 15%. Every day Oi is operational is 160 million yen they can pay out with just a 3 yen increase.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

@zichiJUL. 09, 2012 - 02:16PM JST

The world needs to be free of both atomic weapons and atomic power plants.

I really hope so if possible. You also mentioned some reactors need to restart until alternatives are available. I think that statement is very realistic and I would like to know more about it.

@zichiJUL. 08, 2012 - 11:18AM JST I have stated many times on this forum the need to start and operate the reactors until alternatives are available. Germany shut down 9 of it's reactors but will operate it's remaining 8 until about 2022.

When do you think alternatives will be available?

What kind of alternatives?

Why do you think the reactors need to start and operate (until alternatives are available)? Economic reasons? Environmental issues? Shortage of power? Or something else? Power conservation wouldn't work?

I have also said, no reactors should be started until the new atomic safety agency is functioning, probably after Sept., and the safest reactors should be operated and the unsafe ones decommissioned.

I understand that the new Nuclear Safety Agency will be functioning after September. Which reactors do you think should be restarted after September? According to the link you provided, Genkai 2,3,4 are lower in rank. Do you think they should be restarted? Or some other reactors?

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Blair Herron asked some interesting questions and yet his post gets voted down. The immaturity of some posters in this forum never ceases to amaze me.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Blair HerronJul. 09, 2012 - 03:30PM JST

When do you think alternatives will be available?

What kind of alternatives?

The currently available alternatives to nuclear in the mid-term are coal, gas, oil powered plants. They can be made fairly quickly (a few years) and have reasonable power outputs (about on par with nuclear reactors). Long term solutions are not yet known, as the current alternative non-fossil fuel power systems all have space limitation issues that make them impossible to deploy in needed amounts.

Why do you think the reactors need to start and operate (until alternatives are available)? Economic reasons? Environmental issues? Shortage of power? Or something else? Power conservation wouldn't work?

Japanese manufacturing companies already use the lowest amount of energy in civilized countries. Mandatory manufacturing cutbacks are not advisable. Toyota in particular expressed increasing concern about a lack of power, enough so that they stopped production of one type of car in Japan.

I understand that the new Nuclear Safety Agency will be functioning after September. Which reactors do you think should be restarted after September? According to the link you provided, Genkai 2,3,4 are lower in rank. Do you think they should be restarted? Or some other reactors?

Genkai is fairly well situated, but as in the case of Oi, is a mix of old and new. 3-4 are nearly identical to Oi's 3-4, and should be more than well enough equipped for issues. Rating of 1G+ is also a great sign considering the most recorded in that area is a quarter of that. Tomari in Hokkaido is also pretty well off, it is in a zone that is more or less seismically stable, and very low tsunami risk.

Economic necessity wise though, KEPCO and TEPCO plants are in largest demand, and are probably going to be prioritized for economic reasons.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Readers, please focus your comments on what is in the story and not at or about each other.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichiJul. 09, 2012 - 03:50PM JST

the cost ofpower from nuclear energy is set to rise by ¥30 to ¥50 per kWh

If you want to spout nonsense, at least back it up with something. 30-50 yen/kWh can only happen if Oi is the only plant open and you want 600 billion yen in a year, which ends up being several times government estimated cost of cleanup and other compensation. I have only seen one item (not article) that points to PV being the same cost as nuclear, and it actually only states that nuclear will be 14-16 CENTS, not a 30-50 yen increase (Blackburn, et al).

If you want to see some of the cost analysis of nuclear after fukushima, check http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/4337.pdf . You will see that the lower bound is 0.09 yen per trillion in needed costs and upper limit of 0.6yen per trillion in increased cost (assuming 15%).

Oi is likely currently operating at 6yen/kWh right now, since the extra cost generally associated with pumped hydro is not applicable . That is far cheaper than any other system except hydro-electric (non-pumped). It should allow KEPCO to survive the increasing fuel costs, since they can now cut gas purchases by a significant amount when they decide to rescind the 2013 order.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Please stop being ill-mannered toward other posters and lift the level of your contributions, or you will be leaving us.

The nation turned to pricey fossil-fuel alternatives to fill the gap left by the shutdown of atomic plants which had supplied about one-third of resource-poor Japan’s energy.

Wrong: There is nothing as expensive as nuclear electricity: to the people, country, environment, food chain, eco-system, water bodies, stress,etc... the list goes on. The myth of nuke electricity being cheap, safe, clean and environmentally friendly no longer holds!

What is surprising is that as some Japanese (nuke village, corrupt politicians and cheer leaders) celebrate the restart of nuke electricty plants, the whole world is wondering what has gone wrong with the country: sitting on dangerous earthquakes, not yet fixed the spoilt nuke plants of fukushima, huge swaths of land rendered useless due to nuke toxic wastes, displaced people still leaving in shelters, no independent nuke safety and security board in place one year after the nuclear accident, and no meaningful energy policy in place, BUT still celebrate restart of nuke plants with poor security and safety arrangements. Madness!!

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

zichiJul. 09, 2012 - 04:12PM JST

According to the yearly review by the Federation of Power Comapnies, in 2010, the power companies generated 1.041 TWh of power, and consumption was 906.4 TWh.

Power capacity numbers are done by generation capacity at peak power. Total power is entirely different, and actually pretty useless as a number except to see how much in taxes you can gain. In fact, Oi 3-4 alone can provide (and Oi with all four reactors DOES provide) 2% of the total power even if the capacity is only 1% of total capacity. If Oi is left on for a year, 20TWe will be produced, which is twenty times more than all the solar and wind plants combined (5GW solar by the end of the year at 12% and 2.3GW wind at 20% capacity, or as much as all renewable energy sources combined)

-1 ( +8 / -8 )

zichiJul. 09, 2012 - 04:12PM JST

According to the yearly review by the Federation of Power Comapnies, in 2010, the power companies generated 1.041 TWh of power, and consumption was 906.4 TWh.

Power capacity numbers are done by generation capacity at peak power. Total power is entirely different, and actually pretty useless as a number except to see how much in taxes you can gain. In fact, Oi 3-4 alone can provide (and Oi with all four reactors DOES provide) 2% of the total power even if the capacity is only 1% of total capacity. If Oi is left on for a year, 20TWe will be produced, which is twenty times more than all the solar and wind plants combined (5GW solar by the end of the year at 12% and 2.3GW wind at 20% capacity, or as much as all renewable energy sources combined)

-2 ( +7 / -8 )

No. 3 nuclear reactor at Oi plant back to full capacity

So what? No impact I must say! Summer will soon end and Japan is relatively coping well without your nuke electricty! At least it is not in the interest of the people!

-5 ( +6 / -12 )

Rick KisaJul. 09, 2012 - 04:30PM JST

There is nothing as expensive as nuclear electricity

At 6-12 yen/kWh I hardly call it expensive. Coal pollutes many thousand times more and still costs >10 yen/kWh. Even taking all the worst possible cases for ALL energy production, nuclear still edges out the rest.

-2 ( +7 / -8 )

zichiJul. 09, 2012 - 04:52PM JST

Where are the links, what formulas? Even simple math can tell you it's nowhere near those numbers, even just Oi 3-4 can absorb a trillion yen a year at just 49 yen/kWh, and at 15% nuclear that's just 3.3 yen for a trillion yen a year. Not sure how you manage to get thirty times that even without counting the fact that the companies are responsible rather than the plants, so the shared increase is less than 1 yen (so closer to 100 times more).

And 30 trillion over 30 years? The highest estimates I can find are 640 billion to payouts (at a tune of 4 million a head), 720 billion to 15 trillion for cleanup and decommission, and then 4.3 billion to buy all the land in the exclusion zone (add that to your payout number to get the 5 trillion you talk about). Even those absurdly high numbers in cleanup (official estimate was probably low, but given costs from Chernobyl at less than a trillion for something FAR WORSE, we can expect less than a trillion yen), land prices (average of 10000 yen/sq m, which is about 40% more than the 6500 average going rate for similar areas in other prefectures), and payouts (4 million per person is two year's salary for some there, a year for most others, and a family of four would get 16 million, which is basically hitting a lottery jackpot... before property payouts, so they can comfortably live in Tokyo if they wanted to) only add up to 20 trillion yen over 30 years. Most other estimates are more in the 1-5 trillion range.

As for the bailout you keep talking about, there are two parts, 1 is a 3.4 trillion loan that states TEPCO will cut costs by 3.3 trillion over a decade (that used to pay back the loan), and the second is a 1 trillion yen loan that comes awfully close to covering the extra fuel costs to produce electricity via gas/oil rather than nuclear (cost difference of about 5-6 yen/kWh, you end up with about 1 trillion yen to switch from nuclear to gas/oil)

0 ( +7 / -7 )

amid concerns about looming power shortages this summer.

If people really believe this, then I suppose it is no wonder the Kagoshima guy got re-erected...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Seriously, what number are the Oi reactors in terms of the most dangerous in Japan? I know that ONE of the Oi reactors is considered the most dangerous in Japan, but wondering about the one that just went online. Isn't it 25th or something?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Blair Herron: "Are you serious", which article do you suggest, for Zichi to answer allllll of your question's!!!

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

I still also think it's ridiculous that the new regulatory agency has yet to be started before the nukes are, and that they safety measures the electric companies will put into place to safeguard against disasters like Fukushima will take years to implement.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

zichi, renewable are not available yet and Japan can not afford high cost (money and health) of fossil fuels.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

As for Oi going fully online, I am very sorry to read this. Japan has not even given itself time to make simple cuts in energy demands. The nuk industry is still too strong. See everyone who can make it this Friday at the demo in Tokyo. That seems to be making an impact!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Ranger_Miffy2Jul. 09, 2012 - 09:46PM JST

As for Oi going fully online, I am very sorry to read this. Japan has not even given itself time to make simple cuts in energy demands.

Some companies have made plenty of progress. Just look at Toyota managing to cut electricity use to zero in one plant. Of course, the folks that lost their jobs as a result of the cut aren't too thrilled.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

zichi: "Looking at the reactors ranked by hazard levels, out of 49 reactors, the Oi reactors 1&2 are ranked in first place. The Oi reactors, 3&4 are ranked 26th out of 49."

Thanks. I knew it was about as much. In fact, aren't MOST of the worst and most dangerous reactors owned by KEPCO? You'd think they'd learn, but then... we are talking about the J-government and power companies. What amazed me most, in the baffling sense, after the Fukushima incident occurred was how hard TEPCO tried to cover things up to salvage the plant, even lying by omission to the government and refusing that seawater be poured on the reactors at first.

I pray we don't see the same thing happen again, but with Oi being on fault lines and a major quake being not 'if' but 'when', well, we'll hear the same excuses again.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

basroil: "Some companies have made plenty of progress."

Evidently not the electric companies.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

smithinjapanJul. 10, 2012 - 12:11AM JST

Evidently not the electric companies.

Apparently sarcasm at a situation is not clear enough by itself. The point was that Toyota closed a factory permanently and moved production outside the country due to energy problems. While Oi restart was a good step, it was clearly not enough to convince Toyota that they would be able to avoid energy shortages. If KEPCO was self sufficient (start up another 6 reactors) and Chubu was not at risk of needing to cut it's power to provide KEPCO (to avoid a larger scale blackout), Toyota would have not closed it's Yaris plant (well, there's the issue of 42% corporate taxes, but that can be avoided a bit, power cannot). The economic costs of not restarting other plants including Oi 4 will far outweigh any overstated accident costs.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Zichi,

While some car companies are moving some of their operations overseas, which isn't connected to any lack of power, Toyota have stated a commitment to manufacturing 3 million cars per year in Japan.

Power supply uncertainties certainly can't help matters for a lot of industries - and for some they might be the last straw.

4 ( +4 / -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