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

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

Tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

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 )

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 )

 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 )

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

3 ( +4 / -1 )

My guess is 10 years.

2 ( +2 / -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 )

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

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Tell me again how nuclear power is cheap and safe.

Exactly. It isn't.

1 ( +1 / -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 )

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 )

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 )

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 )

Not my problem?

leave it to untold generations down the line.

shame on us all!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@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 )

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 )

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