national

Removal of spent fuel from Fugen reactor site pushed back 9 years

23 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

My guess is 10 years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

money money money... its a rich mans world.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Oh my! B-b-b-b-b-b-but I thought this was super-friendly, super-safe, super-cheap stuff we're dealing with. I wonder who's going to get the bill for this... hmmm....

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Can be moved to the reprocessing plant in Aomori but with so many reactors and plants being or due to be decommissioned the reprocessing and safe storage of nuclear waste will become a major problem for the government.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

It's getting to be a common occurrence that decommissioning nuclear reactors takes longer than predicted, and costs much more than estimated. These calculations made 40-50 years ago when the first round of nuclear power plants were planned and built have been shown to be incorrect. I could also suggest that the same applies for the newer ones, that the real costs of decommissioning will be underestimated, as well as the time required. And this is for reactors that were shut down deliberately.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Typical of the J Nuclear industry management response - lets kick the can down to road to someone else to deal with...in 9 years the big wigs will all be retired with their huge pensions and golden parachutes ....thats what its all about.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

It's not if the goverment starts to ask for ridiculous safety regulations that could not stop a tsunami from one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history, but is just pure security theater.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

 tsunami from one of the strongest earthquakes in recorded history,

That should be, “in recent history.” Earthquakes of that magnitude have been recorded before in many places over the last few hundred years. Building nuclear reactors in a country that sits on the cusp of three tectonic plates with a long history of earthquakes, tsunamis and a lot of active volcanoes is just asking for trouble, which inevitably happened.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The bright side of this article itself is that the safety regulations are being tightened still despite the expected usual amnesia of news media for past negative news. The government--whatever it flaws may be--is not fraudulently loosening the regulations to make profit or energy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Japan could not have built the nuclear power plants with 100% safety then it should not have built them in the first place.

The irony of the Fukushima nuclear disaster is that the cost of making the nuclear plant 100% safe would have been less than one-tenth of the total cost of the disaster. It could have been so easily done had TEPCO not put profit so much before safety and now would still be making a profit from the plant.

The cost per reactor for decommissioning is ¥15 billion which is to be paid by the owner of it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

zichi, quote: "The cost per reactor for decommissioning is ¥15 billion which is to be paid by the owner of it."

And where does the owner get their income?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is an awful lot of money and trouble just to boil water.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

nandakandamanda

And where does the owner get their income?

Where the power companies always get all their money from, charging their power user consumers. Law and regulations required the power companies to add a small charge to to the monthly power charges so when the time of reactor decommission arrives they have the cash to fund it and can't ask the central government for subsidies.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Japan's Tokai 1 reactor, a 160 MWe UK Magnox design, is being decommissioned after 32 years service to 1998. After 10 years storage, in Phase 2 (to 2011) the steam generators and turbines were removed, and in Phase 3 (to 2018) the reactor is being dismantled, the buildings demolished and the site left ready for re-use. The total cost will be JPY 93 billion (USD 1.04 billion) – 35 billion for dismantling and 58 billion for waste treatment which will include the graphite moderator (which escalates the cost significantly).

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

Exactly. It isn't.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Arnt our future generations lucky to inherit all the cleanup mess we have left them. Short term gain , for long term pain.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

Depends on if you are rich, old and dont care about people, the environment, future generations etc.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@zichi. Aomuri is full. That is why they were storing four times the recommended number of fuel rods in the cooling tank of number 4 at Fukushima.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Last point, before I move alone. So they are going to remove the fuel rods from fukui to ibaraki which means they will be transported right across the most populous place in Japan. I hope there's no accidents.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Goodlucktoyou

@zichi. Aomuri is full. That is why they were storing four times the recommended number of fuel rods in the cooling tank of number 4 at Fukushima.

The main reason all the power companies store their spent fuel at their nuclear sites is because they would have to pay for it at a processing plant like in Aomori. Don't see how more spent fuel could be placed in the pool beyond its physical capacity. Never read anything about storing four times the spent fuel in the No4 pool. Do you have a link.

At Fukushima the fuel was stored in the reactor cooling pools for about five years and then transferred to the common cooling pool for five years and then placed into dry casks and moved into the dry cask storage building on dock area. That building and all the casks survived the earthquakes and tsunami.

The dry casks could be moved to Rokkasho

Rokkasho Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Facility with an annual capacity of 800 tons of uranium or 8 tons of plutonium. In June 2008, several scientists stated that the Rokkasho plant is sited directly above an active geological fault line that could produce a magnitude 8 earthquake. But Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited stated that there was no reason to fear an earthquake of more than magnitude 6.5 at the site, and that the plant could withstand a 6.9 quake.

Reportedly there are about 3,000 tons of highly radioactive used nuclear fuel stored in Rokkasho at the current time.

The policy suffered another setback recently as Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. unveiled plans to delay by three years the completion of its spent-nuclear-fuel reprocessing plant under construction in the Aomori Prefecture village of Rokkasho.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Update/Japan-s-nuclear-fuel-cycle-policy-suffers-another-setback

The biggest problem for the country is where to store the many thousands of tons of high level nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years and who will pay for it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Not my problem?

leave it to untold generations down the line.

shame on us all!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In a country where expediency is the norm this is how they deal with real serious problems. They don't. Might as well be 90 years for all we know. Business as usual.

1 ( +1 / -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