tech

Japan Atomic Power to get ¥350 bil to reboot plant

29 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

...oh dear!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Seems like alot of money for one reactor generating just 1060MW?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If that much money were invested in Japan's underdeveloped geothermal resource, what would be the result? Never heard of a geothermal electric plant melting down and killing people.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Don't approve operation .....

....... even if they want to give you lots of brown envelopes!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Never heard of a geothermal electric plant melting down and killing people.

Never heard of any western design reactor melting down and killing people either.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Zero emission!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All of these are public utilities whose rates are set by the government and who derive their profits from the taxpayer, correct? So it's really the taxpayer being forced to subsidize this boondoggle.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

All of these are public utilities whose rates are set by the government and who derive their profits from the taxpayer, correct?

Incorrect. Their profits come from the people who voluntarily buy their product. Just because the government sets their rates it doesn't make their profits any different than any other company. And it doesn't force anyone to use their product.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Just because the government sets their rates it doesn't make their profits any different than any other company.

Hold on, to me, having the privilege of avoiding competitive tension AND to earn a decent profit is to me a subsidy of the best kind. You don't have to feel like you're getting a handout, and your return on equity is locked in stone.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Never heard of any western design reactor melting down and killing people either.

Did you forget about Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Considering J-Gov. has 51% control shares of TEPCO, wonder how much will come from tax payers.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Did you forget about Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi?

No I didn't. Chernobyl wasn't a western design and the reactor meltdown at Fukushima didn't kill anyone, it was the tsunami and the government ordered evacuation.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Both Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disaster contaminated a large area of land. The cost of dealing with the Fukushima nuclear disaster will cost the tax payer more than ¥100 trillion take more than 100 years.

All of these are public utilities whose rates are set by the government and who derive their profits from the taxpayer, correct? So it's really the taxpayer being forced to subsidize this boondoggle.

The power companies are private utilities not public but have their power charges set by the government. The government own 51% of the TEPCO stock. The profits are from the customers not taxpayers.

Nuclear reactors in themselves might be near zero emissions but nuclear energy isn't since it also requires external power supplies to operate it. Construction. Many aspects involve fossil. fuels. The extraction of the uranium in Australia for instance. Transported to Japan and then to France to be turned into nuclear fuel rods an back to Japan and after use transported for reprocessing and thousands of years of storage.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nuclear reactors in themselves might be near zero emissions but nuclear energy isn't since it also requires external power supplies to operate it. Construction. Many aspects involve fossil. fuels.

And all of those issues also apply to wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, wave and biomass.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And all of those issues also apply to wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, wave and biomass.

except I didn't post that they don't, I was responding to the comment reactors have zero emissions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

except I didn't post that they don't, I was responding to the comment reactors have zero emissions.

Except I didn't say that you did. I was pointing out that none of our current large scale technologies have zero emissions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Dom Palmer

The effects of the fallout from Fukushima has impacted living things.

Research has found genetic changes in insects and plants.

To what extent have humans been impacted by radiation has been evident in children with thyroid growths.

What will become apparent in years to come?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The effects of the fallout from Fukushima has impacted living things.

I never said it didn't

Research has found genetic changes in insects and plants.

Again, I never said there weren't. Of course genetic changes occur in insects and plants (along with every other living thing) from all sorts of causes, including natural background radiation. Definitively attributing changes to fallout from Fukushima is quite a stretch.

To what extent have humans been impacted by radiation has been evident in children with thyroid growths.

Most of which had nothing to do with Fukushima.

What will become apparent in years to come?

Based on the best current science, nothing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Don Palmer

Except I didn't say that you did.

Well you infer when you include a quote from my post and not your own independent post. Stop playing games with other people's post then.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Where is TEPCO finding the money, ¥140 billion when it has stated it will not pay any further compensation payments to the nuclear evacuees?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The revenue produced by the reactor for TEPCO will be about ¥70 billion in one year. Normally reactors are shut down after two years providing TEPCO with about ¥140 billion in revenue before costs and taxes. That will be less than their initial payment of ¥140 billion.

TEPCO stated it would compensate all the victims of the its nuclear disaster but there are many thousands who have not received compensations for their losses.

Victims have lost their homes, belongings, lands, cars......

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Tokai reactor will generate about 76 million MWh over the 20 year extension. The capacity factor of the 1100MW reactor is 61.4% and the availability factor 62%.

Over the 20 year cycle the reactor will generate about ¥1 trillion. Maybe TEPCO will double its capital investment over that period before taxes and costs. TEPCO own 28% of the stock.

The TEPCO yearly profit is about ¥450 billion.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

TEPCO own 28% of the stock

If so then TEPCO's share should only be ¥98 billion not ¥140 billion.

Is there a source for the capacity and availability factors? They seem low even for a BWR and if they are pre-Fukushima then especially the availability factor is probably not a good estimate of what the reality will be after restart.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The restart of the reactor usually needs local consent although not legally required. I don't know the position on that. Also all the nuclear power plants are required by the NRA to take measures against terrorism and again I don't know the current situation on that.

The Tokai plant is also required to take action against volcanic ash fallout.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

All figures and facts are easily obtained by starting from the post, which I did. There are sources for all figures and facts

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Reactor profit over 20 years, after running costs should be about ¥1 trillion or ¥1,000 billion. TEPCO stock share @ 28% would provide about ¥280 billon over the 20 years minus initial capital investment of ¥140 billion and before their own costs and expenses. I guess that beats the bank interest rate.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

All figures and facts are easily obtained by starting from the post, which I did. There are sources for all figures and facts

OK. So no source. Thanks.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Don Palmer

I'm not here to work for a poster who criticise almost every most I make. It's not a two way street. But anyway, starting from the actual post, within 10 minutes you can easily find the figures and facts I quoted.

Japan Atomic Power company are decommissioning the No1 Tokai reactor since 1998 which is made from funds set aside during the life cycle of the reactor which is also the same with it's No1 Tsuruga reactor but still waiting for the NRA to give permission to restart its No 2 Tsuruga reactor.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Haven't they learned anything from Fukushima? With more typhoons getting stronger, guerilla rain and landslides more frequent is this really a good idea??

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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