Kansai Electric seeks to restart two reactors in Fukui from mid-May


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


©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

The irradiated rebar and concrete aren't going to suddenly last twenty years longer. Rebar apparently needs to have been specially treated to not be affected by radiation otherwise the rebar/concrete mix expands. This is punting the next disaster to the next generation who are not going to have the resources to fix them all.

Shut 'er down. All of them. Time to stop the madness. Dumping everything into the future ocean is not sane

5 ( +7 / -2 )

This is like playing Whack-a-mole!

Any reason whatsoever for a ban on a restart can now be overturned, coz "others are doing it, and they got away with it!"

4 ( +4 / -0 )

A very BAD idea. Look at Fukushima ... and learn.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

As a resident of Kansai I say hope not.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Also this makes Japan continually dependent on the rest of the world as it has no capability to deal with all the waste now, let alone new waste tomorrow. The worst thing that could happen is another disaster not only if it happens at all but should it occur before the 2020 games. Total financial loss added on to whatever misery the oyajis have in store for the population.

How can Japan possibly be saved if it continually strives to suffer?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In the past I have seen articles here reporting how NPPs often used to fudge their regular 'safety checks'.

They would check the boxes, some 400-500 as I recall, without actually doing any of the inspections, and hand in the results to the government regulatory agency. Until they got caught, that is. Even then, there seemed to be little outcry, and the punishment was probably a standard warning as I recall.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Monkey see, monkey do. If the next major quake is big enough, we'll have to learn the hard way as a nation yet again in a very preventable way. They won't be quite as eager to pony up for clean-up and compensation costs, as we've seen by the model TEPCO. It's not if, but when.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There are more than 1000 kilometers of electrical cables which become brittle and need replacing.

And the cables aren't

"Every part of a reactor and its associated plant"

Can't be economic because after 20 years the capital cost of the plant is paid.

Yet in your own comment you said

"The cost of updating a reactor to the post Fukushima disaster is $640 million per reactor. If the life cycle is extended to 60 years then further updates are required."

So if extending to 60 years requires upgrades and those upgrades cost money, then WHY can't it be economic.

In Korea,

Is Korea a part of Japan?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Every part of a reactor and its associated plant are suppose to be replaced every 20 years

No, they are not.

cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation.

Yes, they do. And the reactor vessel is over-designed so even with those cracks it maintains enough integrity to do its job for 60 plus years. It is also why the reactor vessel, and all the other parts, are inspected on a regular basis to detect any unusual damage. And why those same parts require special inspections before the extensions from 40 to 60 years are approved.

If the reactors are safe to have their life cycles extended to 60 years why then are more than 15 of them applying to be decommissioned?

Various reason, from economics to politics.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I disagree with the life cycle extension from 40 to 60 years.

OK, but many others including the science agree with the extensions.

The irradiated rebar and concrete aren't going to suddenly last twenty years longer.

But they originally will last well past even the 60-year extensions. The original 40-year licenses where made on guesses about the effect that the radiation flux would have on the materials (primarily the reactor vessel, not any concrete or rebar), but there was no actual data to base the time on because there hadn't been any reactors running for decades to study. So the scientists made an extremely conservative guess, with the expectation of doing samples and studies on the reactors as they ran. Those samples and studies allowed the scientists to better determine how well the materials withstood the radiation flux. And showed that even 60 years would not significantly effect the stuctures or their safety.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

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