20 ms·

Right, it will cost only a few hundred billion dollars, maybe a trillion, to clean up the effects from the earthquake on the nuclear power plants. The country

by lispm 10y ago

Right, it will cost only a few hundred billion dollars, maybe a trillion, to clean up the effects from the earthquake on the nuclear power plants. The country lost most of their nuclear power plants in a single day. It takes years, if not decades to bring them back online - partly. 50 plants. Each worth, say, ten billion dollar (current worth and future earnings - just an estimate). That loss alone goes into the hundreds of billions. Additionally fuel had to be imported, other plants had to be built. 'Currently 42 reactors are operable and potentially able to restart, and 24 of these are in the process of restart approvals. The first two restarted in August and October 2015.' Six years after the earthquake/tsunami. Only a few ten thousand people, maybe a hundred thousand, will work in Fukushima under extreme circumstances to keep the site stable and clean it up the site for the next five decades. Robots die regularly after a short time inside the reactors. Humans get a year worth radioactive exposure in a few hours. Where to get all the people needed to work there? We have experience to dismantle functioning reactors. Here we have damaged reactors with damaged fuel... Very little effects... I don't think so. The effects were much more severe than the industry thought. They were thinking that most of the reactors would operate again, by now. World-wide reactor projects were seeing delays. Companies have a hard time to survive. All these are effects of a single earthquake/tsunami on the nuclear reactor industry. It's a huge financial catastrophe for the nuclear industry and the countries financing it.

mpweiher 10y ago
Right, what you describe are largely the effects of the overreaction, as I was describing elsewhere. There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc.
- lispm 10y ago
  > There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc That's your personal opinion. I think it's naive, because you had actually no idea in what state the other reactors were. The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion. Some plants had damages, were shutdown because of the earthquake, every plant needed inspections and every plant needed full safety reviews. That it takes so long to bring some of the reactors back shows that there are lots of doubts about their safety and the industry will need to do more than just say 'there was no need to shut them down' - nobody believes that. Here you can find a good overview what the authorities are doing and when reactors might be restarted - if at all: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro... Japan sits on a seismic very active region and severe earthquakes and tsunamis happen. It's only logical after such damage to question the whole safety architecture. Are the spend fuel pools in similar unfortunate positions? Are they full, too? What happens at complete loss of outside electricity? Are the reactors able to safely shutdown then, unlike Fukushima? Can the spent fuel pools be cooled? Are there instruments in the reactor able to survive massive damage in an earth quake? There are many many questions which have not been asked for a decade, because the consequences would have been costly upgrades and even the shutdown of reactors - for example those sitting near fault lines. Given that the nuclear industry in Japan is corrupt and runs very old reactors with severe design mistakes, I think it is only justified to shut down the industry for a full review. That would also include the whole network of politicians, research, industry, utilities, ...
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    "The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion" Citation needed. I could not find anything supporting that claim in the article you linked to. In fact, there is an article saying the regulator refused to shut down a plant [1] "Despite attempts by politicians in Tokyo to persuade them to do so, provincial governors and local communities won’t allow them to restart."[2] "Utilities were unable immediately to restart them due to public opposition."[3] Also, the regulator that called for tougher standards was a new regulator, politicians having replaced the old one. So very clearly a political move. So as I wrote, the shutdowns were largely political (or in some cases, routine shutdowns for maintenance happened and the reactors were then not allowed to restart for political reasons. Same difference). [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/18/japan-earthquakes-nuclear-regulator-refuses-to-shut-down-station/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/18/japan-earthquakes... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/for-japan-shutting-down-nuclear-plants-brings-surge-in-oil-gas-imports/2012/04/07/gIQAGwPx1S_story.html?utm_term=.672f13479344 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/for-japan-... [3] http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/japan-shuts-down-its-last-nuclear-reactor-goes-100-nuclear-free.html http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/japan-shuts-down-its...
    - lispm 10y ago
      > politicians having replaced the old one. So very clearly a political move. The old regulator: 'The Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) granted a 10-year licence extension for Fukushima Daiichi 1 in February 2011, after technical review and some modifications in 2010.' In March 2011, a month later, the reactor was destroyed incl. a fuel meltdown. It will take decades to clean up the mess. It wasn't even this reactor alone, units 2,3 and 4 were also damaged. Units 5 and 6 are given up in 2013. Yeah, it was definitely a political move to replace the old regulator. The regulator was corrupt, incompetent, without power, ... The experts have failed. They had granted a ten year life extension to a reactor, which only days later was destroyed in a large scale accident. It took a political move to replace them. Fully justified. Don't read the torygraph or treehugger. Read the updates from the World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...

by lispm 10y ago

mpweiher 10y ago

Right, what you describe are largely the effects of the overreaction, as I was describing elsewhere. There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc.

lispm 10y ago
> There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc That's your personal opinion. I think it's naive, because you had actually no idea in what state the other reactors were. The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion. Some plants had damages, were shutdown because of the earthquake, every plant needed inspections and every plant needed full safety reviews. That it takes so long to bring some of the reactors back shows that there are lots of doubts about their safety and the industry will need to do more than just say 'there was no need to shut them down' - nobody believes that. Here you can find a good overview what the authorities are doing and when reactors might be restarted - if at all: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro... Japan sits on a seismic very active region and severe earthquakes and tsunamis happen. It's only logical after such damage to question the whole safety architecture. Are the spend fuel pools in similar unfortunate positions? Are they full, too? What happens at complete loss of outside electricity? Are the reactors able to safely shutdown then, unlike Fukushima? Can the spent fuel pools be cooled? Are there instruments in the reactor able to survive massive damage in an earth quake? There are many many questions which have not been asked for a decade, because the consequences would have been costly upgrades and even the shutdown of reactors - for example those sitting near fault lines. Given that the nuclear industry in Japan is corrupt and runs very old reactors with severe design mistakes, I think it is only justified to shut down the industry for a full review. That would also include the whole network of politicians, research, industry, utilities, ...
- mpweiher 10y ago
  "The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion" Citation needed. I could not find anything supporting that claim in the article you linked to. In fact, there is an article saying the regulator refused to shut down a plant [1] "Despite attempts by politicians in Tokyo to persuade them to do so, provincial governors and local communities won’t allow them to restart."[2] "Utilities were unable immediately to restart them due to public opposition."[3] Also, the regulator that called for tougher standards was a new regulator, politicians having replaced the old one. So very clearly a political move. So as I wrote, the shutdowns were largely political (or in some cases, routine shutdowns for maintenance happened and the reactors were then not allowed to restart for political reasons. Same difference). [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/18/japan-earthquakes-nuclear-regulator-refuses-to-shut-down-station/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/18/japan-earthquakes... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/for-japan-shutting-down-nuclear-plants-brings-surge-in-oil-gas-imports/2012/04/07/gIQAGwPx1S_story.html?utm_term=.672f13479344 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/for-japan-... [3] http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/japan-shuts-down-its-last-nuclear-reactor-goes-100-nuclear-free.html http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/japan-shuts-down-its...
  - lispm 10y ago
    > politicians having replaced the old one. So very clearly a political move. The old regulator: 'The Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) granted a 10-year licence extension for Fukushima Daiichi 1 in February 2011, after technical review and some modifications in 2010.' In March 2011, a month later, the reactor was destroyed incl. a fuel meltdown. It will take decades to clean up the mess. It wasn't even this reactor alone, units 2,3 and 4 were also damaged. Units 5 and 6 are given up in 2013. Yeah, it was definitely a political move to replace the old regulator. The regulator was corrupt, incompetent, without power, ... The experts have failed. They had granted a ten year life extension to a reactor, which only days later was destroyed in a large scale accident. It took a political move to replace them. Fully justified. Don't read the torygraph or treehugger. Read the updates from the World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...