national

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

17 Comments

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

© KYODO

  • Sort by
  • Oldest
  • Latest
  • Popular

17 Comments
Login to comment

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 )

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

Reactor 1-----1974--------40 years-------2014------60 years-----2034

Reactor 2-----1975--------40 years-------2015------60 years-----2035

Reactor 3-----1985--------40 years-------2025------60 years-----2045

Reactor 4-----1985--------40 years-------2025------60 years-----2045

5 ( +6 / -1 )

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 )

The reactor containment vessels and suppression rings at Fukushima are built in the way and they suffered cracks which now leak the cooling waters.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

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 )

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 )

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 )

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

3 ( +4 / -1 )

But they originally will last well past even the 60-year extensions

Every part of a reactor and its associated plant are suppose to be replaced every 20 years but the major part, the reactor pressure vessel can't be replaced nor can the containment vessel.

"Cracking, the failure of the pressure vessel, has always been one of the major issues that can limit the life of the plant," neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. 

The decision to extend the life of a reactor is taken by the NRA

3 ( +4 / -1 )

As a resident of Kansai I say hope not.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

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?

There are many critical parts of a nuclear reactor including the thousands of kilometers of electrical cables which become brittle and vulnerable to breakdown.

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.

The pressure vessels, which may have suffered embrittlement due to bombardment by neutrons, cannot be reinforced or replaced.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1382_web.pdf

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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 )

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 )

No, they are not.

According to the Japanese safety standards they are. There are more than 1000 kilometers of electrical cables which become brittle and need replacing. Those cables are also controlling the safety systems. We also know from TEPCO that they were fined for admitting to fake their safety inspections.

I have worked in these type of places, former electrical engineer and from my experience often safety inspections are just filled out but offer never carried out. In Korea, the nuclear power companies were caught using second hand parts.

 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.

The approvals are mostly done by the power companies themselves and often the same wording will appear on the company safety report as the one issued by the safety authority. There have been the whistle blowers over the years. Like one of the reactors at the Fukushima plant became distorted in shape during the forging process and should not have been used but it would have been expensive to make a new one.

Various reason, from economics to politics.

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

And the reactor vessel is over-designed so even with those cracks it maintains enough integrity to do its job for 60 plus years

Then please provide a link to an article so I can read it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

25 October 2016, Tokyo – The safety and regulation of the Japanese nuclear fleet is called

into serious question by the discovery of Japanese-manufactured flawed steel components installed in operating French nuclear reactors forced to shut down last week by the French nuclear safety regulator ASN, according to a new Greenpeace report. The threat to nuclear reactor safety in Japan is due to the supply of steel components to the nuclear industry from both Japan Casting and Forging Company (JCFC) and the Japan Steel Works (JSW), according to the technical report released today by Greenpeace Japan, by the nuclear engineering consultancy, Large&Associates of London.

http://www.largeassociates.com/CZ3235/3235PressReleae.pdf

On August 29, 2002, the government of Japan revealed that TEPCO was guilty of false reporting in routine governmental inspection of its nuclear plants and systematic concealment of plant safety incidents.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

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?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549307001380

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/slr/guidance.html

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/process.html

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Dom Palmer

**I commented “**There are more than 1000 kilometers of electrical cables which become brittle and need replacing.”

To which you replied “And the cables aren’t”

I don’t understand your comment on this. I have personal experience of see electrical cables becoming brittle with age, not only in power plants but also in the heavy chemical plants too. These cables also include the low voltage systems used in instrumentation and safety control systems and the entire systems need replacing. There are many reports on the problem online. There are also parts of the plant which have problems from high energy arcing. The following is interesting

http://www.die.ing.unibo.it/dottorato_it/Verardi/Verardi_Tesi.pdf

Not only electric cable systems but also pipe systems which become rusty and weak. Iron and steel bolts on reactor pressure vessels which become corroded and weak. Some of the pipework systems are buried in concrete.

These problems are impacted when the likes of the American NRC weaken the safety rules.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700145535/AP-IMPACT-US-nuke-regulators-weaken-safety-rules.html

“Nuclear Pipe Nightmares”

http://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/nuclear-pipe-nightmares

I commented that the Korean nuclear power company had used second hand parts and you reply “Is Korea a part of Japan?”

Well I also stated about the likes of TEPCO being fined for faking documents about safety inspection failures. I stated Korea because these offenses are not limited just to Japan but are happening in other countries too. You offered no comments on the nuclear safety tests in Japan?

I also pointed out the discovery by the French nuclear safety regulator ASN on flawed steel parts. The same steel was used in the Takahama reactors which this post is about? You added no comment on that.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549307001380

This is a subscription article?

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/slr/guidance.html

This link is for license renewal in the U.S.

https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/process.html

The above two links are from America how about Japan? 

The Japanese NRA decided that the reactor life cycle should be no longer than 40 years then with pressure from the power companies and the central government it stated that under certain circumstances they could be extended to 60 years. An extra 20 years when French limits it to 10 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