The Genkai nuclear power plant Photo: Wikipedia
national

Trouble-hit nuclear reactor in Saga resumes operations

19 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Nuclear Energy is great. Forget all those fossil fuels. Hope everyone will be cranking up those AC’s July-September.!

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

So that makes 9 reactors are online. 8.5GW.

There more than enough power but hopefully the these power companies can reduce their charges which they increased for the imported fuels.

More use of renewables. The UK is doing better and they also have nuclear power.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Japan's nuclear regulation agency and Kyushu electric power who had missed even piping corrosion.

in case of radiation leaks,

Plutonium-thermal type nuclear plants is more dangerous than other nuclear plants but,

its risk is still ignored among Japanese authorities.

Present safety standard of Japan do not consider risk of direct type earthquake,

and also practicability of evacuation plans are not inspected yet.

Japanese authorities divert eyes from worst case scenario of nuclear disaster unlike worst case scenario of natural disaster.

it is not clear where is responsible of nuclear disaster in Japan yet.

local governor,mayor,government,power company,nuclear agency,

Nobody declare responsibility about nuclear disaster,

Nobody say to guarantee safety.

The side who thrust nuclear plants take risk nothing substantially,

Only residents are burdened with risk.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

in case of Fukushima nuclear disaster,

about 80% of all radiation leaks flowed to pacific ocean side of east side of nuclear plants by wind direction.

Many densely populated areas are around Genkai nuclear plants than around of Fukushima Daiichi.

Not only nuclear policy,

Present most oppressive Abe regime in post-war Japan history thrust politics that prioritize large corporation's profit than safe of residents and labor.

They have learned nothing from Fukushima disaster that many residents lost life,hometown,work,memories,community,even cemetery or remains.

Genkai plutonium-thermal type nuclear disaster will cause many victims more than Fukushima disaster,and far extensive area than 2011 will be contaminated by wind direction.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The radiation from Fukushima will give an annual dose of 120 milliSievert. Prior nuclear workers were admitted an annual dose of 200 milliSievert. The limit value today is 20 milliSievert.

A Swedish voman make a documentary over the Fukushima disaster and explained the the meassuring documented dose value 5 - 6 times the limit value. That means about 120 milliSievert.

A University in Kiev Ucraine has developed a measuring device that will follow the March lander to document which radiation an astronaut will be exposed for during the travelling and visiting on March.

If a do calculate the annual exposition for the astronaut by following the March lander and visiting on March for a total time of one year. He will be exposed for an annual dose of 360 milliSieverts which will increase the lung cancer risk with 1 percent. But smoking do result in an increased lung cancer risk with 1 500 percent.

Of cource nuclear have their risks but we have to compare that with other risks in our society.

Wind power do kill 166 persons during one single year which is more than what the civil nuclear have from the very beginning.

Our society will become more and more electrical. The complete transport sector agriculture earth mowing wood industry etc plus server halls battery facture and furnaces conversion from coal to gas. Like in Sweden only the furnaces represent demand of electricity almost equal to today wind power.

Finnaly. For the future we do need much more electricity than today

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Still have free electricity and getting a nice little profit from my solar panels.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The reason a accident prone NPP can restart near active volcanoes and tsunami/earthquke risks is...it is so, so far from Tokyo. Countryside. No bother to Tokyo if...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The radiation from Fukushima will give an annual dose of 120 milliSievert. Prior nuclear workers were admitted an annual dose of 200 milliSievert. The limit value today is 20 milliSievert.

The radiation level at the nuclear site was increased to 250 millisieverts for the workers from the original 50 millisieverts. The level is now 100 millisieverts over a five-year period. 

For non NNP the legal limit for Japan is 1 millisievert but for Fukushima it was increased to 20 milisieverts.

Many of the workers at the nuclear disaster are not being monitored nor given health checks.

Power demand is down 11% on the pre 3/11 level.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This place was commissioned in 1975. That means all the reactors are over 40 years old. They were only built to last 30 years. Cue the theme from The Simpsons.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

zichi: "Power demand is down 11%"... and most economic models are based on ever-increasing consumer demand.

At my friend's house and farm in the UK they must have a huge electricity bill with all the lights on day and night. Here where I live in Japan we are very, very tight about electricity usage, mostly only one bulb lit in the room we are in. My wife will not allow use of the one air-conditioner that we have. No exponential power demand around here, but I would be really happy to see more harnessing of wind and solar power.

Especially when a collective global voice says that we must all buy electric cars from now on. What kind of grid will support that scenario?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nandakandamanda

At my friend's house and farm in the UK they must have a huge electricity bill with all the lights on day and night. Here where I live in Japan we are very, very tight about electricity usage, mostly only one bulb lit in the room we are in. My wife will not allow use of the one air-conditioner that we have.

The UK uses less power than Japan. 5700 kWh per capita to Japan 7700 kWh per capita. Price is about the same in both countries.

AC on average is between 500 watts to 1500 watts. The power use can quickly build up. Average cost at ¥27/KWhr. For 10 hour use over one month ¥4,000 to ¥12,000 and that's just for one unit.

We use AC in our teaching room and in the family room. You might be surprised how much power your computer system uses. I don't have large units but I do have a lot of various devices. I was using 150-200 watt. Costing ¥2000-¥3000 per month. I bought a little plug in meter from Amazon to show the amount of power used and the cost. Sits on my computer desk so I can see it. Now switch devices off when not in use and reduced my power to 100 watts on average. Reduced my power bill by ¥1000 which over a year adds up.

Especially when a collective global voice says that we must all buy electric cars from now on. What kind of grid will support that scenario?

I haven't owned any car since 1978, when I owned about five cars. Public transport.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Burning fossil fuels kills as well. I bet the odds of getting lung cancer are higher in Tokyo than Fukushima.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Problematic Japan's nuclear policy should Not justified under the name of "climate change".

1 ( +1 / -0 )

AS we know that we do need a lot of electricity in the future we do need nuclear depending on that solar- and wind power is not predictable. A stable electricity production is necessary as a lot of processes do not tolerant short interrupts in the electricity as critical surgery etc.

There are processindustry that note tolerate interrupts of seconds, milliseconds etc. The steel industry as example have e very accurate regulation by cooling etc which means that the quality of the steel in the end differ as effect of bad electricity deliveries.

Prior we have mills but they have been outconquered by other methods. They same ought to happen with wind power.

Sun power. A speaking partner in Sweden have mounted a lot sun power to his farm and as a result earned €120 pro mounth. If we compare that with a normal nuclear plant of 1 000 MW. To get equal income you do need 600 000 of the mentioned solar plant compare to one normal nuclear plant.

In Sweden a private house do install four solar panels to a cost of €4 500 and get an income of only €8 pro mounth. In all he had an annual income of €100.

What I mean is that the renewable energy is very rowmaterial intensive, cost a lot, is man intensive and don´t give that much back.

Of cource nuclear have their risks but according to IPCC that are risks that we can live with.

I beg you. Read this calm through and try to not immedeately oppose the way I am attacking the problem to get Japan and the world an production of electricity that correspond an even more increasing demand of electricity. The electricity consumption in the world are estimated to rice with 25 percent to 2040. If the demand will rice even more as result of an ongoing procedure of replacing a lot of systems with today other types of consumption to become dependent on electricity what will we do. Renewable do not represent a way forward.

In the future nuclear plant converts to generation IV or Thorium reactors. The first can use existing fuel to produce electricity 100 times more and Thorium reactors can use Thorium from the worldwide oceans. That will be a renewable source to nuclear as Thorium in the oceans do increase for each year.

A way for the future I think we shall force the development of gen IV and Thorium reactors. What is your opinion?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Carl-Åke Utterström

AS we know that we do need a lot of electricity in the future we do need nuclear depending on that solar- and wind power is not predictable. A stable electricity production is necessary as a lot of processes do not tolerant short interrupts in the electricity as critical surgery etc. 

Nuclear energy is a failed project which has ever generated about 12% of total world power even though the first reactors were started in the 1960's. The majority of countries can not even afford to build nuclear plants. The club is exclusive and unable to provide power for the majority of people. More use of better eco devices has actually reduced the power demand and in countries like Japan a total of savings of around 20% can be achieved from the power demand levels prior to the 3/11 nuclear disaster.

There are process industry that note tolerate interrupts of seconds, milliseconds etc. The steel industry as example have e very accurate regulation by cooling etc which means that the quality of the steel in the end differ as effect of bad electricity deliveries.

This is not a problem and does not happen.

Prior we have mills but they have been outconquered by other methods. They same ought to happen with wind power.

Sun power. A speaking partner in Sweden have mounted a lot sun power to his farm and as a result earned €120 pro mounth. If we compare that with a normal nuclear plant of 1 000 MW. To get equal income you do need 600 000 of the mentioned solar plant compare to one normal nuclear plant. 

The UK has nuclear energy but also has invested heavy in renewables. Most days the power output from renewables is equal to or greater than the power generated by nuclear energy. The use of coal fired stations is almost zero.

http://gridwatch.co.uk

In Sweden a private house do install four solar panels to a cost of €4 500 and get an income of only €8 pro mounth. In all he had an annual income of €100. 

This is Japan. Sweden population is only 9 million compared with 120 million for Japan. The majority of Swedes are opposed to the use of nuclear energy and several reactors have already been shut down for decommissioning. Several more by 2010.

What I mean is that the renewable energy is very rowmaterial intensive, cost a lot, is man intensive and don´t give that much back. 

I will just disagree but Japan could generate at least 30% of total power from renewables. The costs of building a single nuclear power plants now costs more than $100 billion. There are huge amounts of every type of raw materials needed from across the globe which in itself produces greenhouse gases. The cost of cleaning up the Fukushima nuclear disaster will be more than ¥50 trillion and take more than 70 years. There's still the problem of where to store the highly radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years.

Of cource nuclear have their risks but according to IPCC that are risks that we can live with.

We can not and the majority of Japanese have changed their views on the use of nuclear energy.

I beg you. Read this calm through and try to not immedeately oppose the way I am attacking the problem to get Japan and the world an production of electricity that correspond an even more increasing demand of electricity.

We are calm and decided by a majority not to use nuclear energy and if its not ended by a government decision it will end by default when no new nuclear power plants will be constructed.

What is your opinion?

More better use of renewable energy especially the massive amounts provided by the Sun which gives us life in so many ways,

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan possesses about 10 tons of plutonium inside the country and about 37 tons in Britain and France, the two countries contracted to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The total amount is equivalent to 6,000 of the atomic bomb that devastated Nagasaki in 1945.

When the 2.9 trillion yen ($26.37 billion) reprocessing plant in Rokkasho goes into full operation, about eight tons of new plutonium will be added annually as Japan’s surplus plutonium.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zichi.

According to British expert evacuation was not needed. If a Tsunami hit the coast and destroyed buildings so that the people have to evacuate. This shouldn´t been included in the cost for the Fukushima disaster. Why are we not talking about 10 000 killed as result of that a water power plant was destroyed. Do calcolate the costs re Fukushima in a proper way.

If a lot of buildings were destroyed than as a result of that will be reduced electric power demand.

There are a lot of development within the nuclear area as Gen IV and Thorium reactors. The last use Thorium from the ocean which amount do grow for each year. That is a renewable source.

For each 1000 MW nuclear reactor you need 600 000 plants which gives €120 pro mounth. For the total nuclear program in Sweden we need 6 miljon plants and have in totalt 1.7 private owned house. For Japan you need 30 miljon solar plants. How many houses in Japan. That is you have to install solar panels on most of the houses.

If we transfer the whole transportsector to electricity the electricity demand have to grow rapidly. All transport on wheels will be electric as well as earth mowing-, agriculture-, and wood handling machines plus private boots etc.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Carl-Åke Utterström.

Zichi. 

According to British expert evacuation was not needed. If a Tsunami hit the coast and destroyed buildings so that the people have to evacuate. This shouldn´t been included in the cost for the Fukushima disaster. Why are we not talking about 10 000 killed as result of that a water power plant was destroyed. Do calcolate the costs re Fukushima in a proper way. 

The decision to evacuate the 150,000 residents near the Fukushima NPP was the correct one taken at the time of the reactor meltdowns and explosions. You seem to be confused about the costs of cleaning up the nuclear disaster and decommissioning the nuclear plant.

The cost of the earthquake and tsunami is more than ¥25 trillion, the amount the central government will/have spent to repair the infrastructure. Most of that happened in Miyagi and Iwate Prefectures. Those costs don't include money spent by the governments of those prefectures.

Initially the central government thought the cost of the nuclear disaster would not exceed ¥5 trillion which included decontamination of the areas which had high radioactive readings. To date, those costs are about ¥25 billion. The removal and bagging of the top soils, cleaning of roof tops, cleaning of schools. The building of storage units to store more than one million tons of contaminated soil.

The cost of the nuclear disaster site is already ¥25 trillion, five times the initial expectations of ¥5 trillion and we are only in the seventh year following the disaster. The current figure of ¥50+ trillion for the nuclear disaster. That figure will raise excessively over the more than 50 years to even complete the works, even if that is possible.

The cost of building the ice wall around the reactor buildings to try and prevent underground water reaching the basements was ¥30 billion alone. There's no history of this type and scale of this kind of nuclear disaster and the technology for dealing with it does not currently exist.

There is still no way to locate the melted fuels and how it will be removed. The cost of ¥50 trillion does not include the eventual costs of storing the highly radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years.

If a lot of buildings were destroyed than as a result of that will be reduced electric power demand.

The power demand for the whole country is about 11% lower than before the nuclear disaster. It has nothing to do with the number of homes destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami. The people survived. People reduced their power use and also a great increase in using solar energy.

There are a lot of development within the nuclear area as Gen IV and Thorium reactors. The last use Thorium from the ocean which amount do grow for each year. That is a renewable source. 

The majority of the Japanese people are opposed to the continued use of nuclear energy in whatever form. New plants will not get permission for construction.

Solar energy is only one form of renewable energy. In the UK which also has nuclear plants the daily generation from renewable energy equals and also exceeds that of nuclear power.

For each 1000 MW nuclear reactor you need 600 000 plants which gives €120 pro mounth. For the total nuclear program in Sweden we need 6 miljon plants and have in totalt 1.7 private owned house. For Japan you need 30 miljon solar plants. How many houses in Japan. That is you have to install solar panels on most of the houses. 

Sweden is a country with a tiny population and is not located on the Pacific Ring of Fire and does not experience mega earthquakes and tsunami. The Swedes are also opposed to nuclear energy and are decommissioning the reactors.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Carl-Åke Utterström.

¥50 trillion is 392,730,655,500.00 Euro (nearly 400 billion Euro). The government have also decided to decommission the process plant facility in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture. It will take 70 years and cost more than ¥1 trillion (8 billion Euro). Again a figure which will greatly increase over the 70 years.

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