Gov't to introduce regulations limiting life of nuclear reactors to 40 years
TOKYO —
Environment Minister Goshi Hosono, who is also the minister in charge of the nuclear crisis, said Friday that the government is planning to introduce new legislation that will limit the working life of nuclear reactors to 40 years.
Hosono also said that nuclear plant operators will be required by law to ensure safeguards are in place to prevent major nuclear accidents, including the loss of power for cooling reactors, Jiji Press reported.
Hosono said the new regulations will be part of an amendment to the nuclear reactor regulation law, that the government hopes to submit to the Diet by the end of January.
All nuclear plants will have to prove they have the technological capability to ensure safety in the event of an earthquake, tsunami or other disaster, Hosono told a news conference. Up to now, utilities have done this voluntarily; there has been no legal obligation.
Of Japan’s current 54 nuclear reactors, three have already been in operation for more than 40 years—a reactor at the Tsuruga plant in Fukui, one in Mihama and the No. 1 reactor at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi power plant, NHK reported. Over the next five years, another nine reactors will reach the 40-year limit, NHK said.
Japan Today
Order by Time Order by Popularity
11 Comments
Login to comment
0
Fadamor
Interesting. Given the time it takes to build them, fuel them, and test them before they go "live" then the time and expense of decommissioning the reactors after they're "retired", limiting their "live" time to 40 years is a back-door way of making the plants too expensive for the amount of power they would produce. A nice way to "ban" new reactors without actually banning them.
0
KnowBetter
WOW, IT'S NEWS!? They already were listed as 40 year reactors and one of them was supposed to have been offline and the other going to mothballs within months. This new 'rule' changes nothing.
http://energybusinessdaily.com/power/nuclear-power-2/japan-nuclear-power-plant-locations-and-details/
0
jforce
And what of disposing of the spent fuel? How long does that take? Unfortunately our addiction to all things electronic will make any concerns seem irrelevant.
-1
Disillusioned
Eh? New legislation to ensure safeguards are in place? does that mean there were no previous legislations for that purpose?
0
The Munya Times
I am not a nuclear expert but generally speaking I think any industrial establishments including NPPs, or anything else from buildings to cars and air-plains life span should be determined on their technical specifications and for how long working hours they were designed and built, including superior supervision on assembling and on the the basic commodities that were used.
40 years is a general term based on amateurish decision makers' jumping onto conclusion by learning from a one time disaster.
Just because they set 40 years now for safety limit, it doesn't guaranties that others won't crack well before the limit expires. Following their logic what would happen then? After another disaster they will set a new limit for 35 years, another disaster and 30 years and so on?
Couldn't competent experts and decision makers be found who could make some sense?
-1
smithinjapan
This is just a way of indirectly saying they're going to go ahead with plans to build the 13 or so new reactors, and will start the 40 year clock when they are put into use. This is a way of 'justifying' it, and also an indirect way of saying we'll soon need more to replace the nine set to be shut down soon.
-1
Rick Kisa
"in other words, the status quo remains, viz...more nuclear energy plants will continue to be built (and or repaired if damaged) regardless of japan's earthquake prone situation and as long as the plants don't exceed 40 years!!! pheeww! I expected something like: No more construction of new plants until internationally accepted security and safety measures are put into place; all plants constructed 40 or more years ago will be decommissioned; all business will be required to submit future alternative energy plans part from the nuclear energy grid; japan is investing in alternative sources of energy to eventually replace nuclear energy, etc, etc. I think if the intention is to gain public confidence, there must be some intention to reduce reliance on nuclear energy, regardless of the safety measures announced. After all, were people not repeatedly reminded of the saftey measures put in place before the March 11 earthquake?
3
zichi
If nuclear power plants were built to the highest safety standards and factored in the cost of decommissioning and waste disposal, the power charges would be much higher than they are currently.
If the cost of a nuclear disaster was also factored in, like Fukushima will cost at least ¥30 trillion, they wouldn't even build the atomic power plants in the first place.
There is a need for some nuclear reactors but I think 54 and another 14 in the pipeline are way too many. The maximum life of a reactor should be 30 years, and all should be shut down as soon as alternative renewable energy becomes available.
With 10% of the world's earthquakes happening here, it's not a country which should even have atomic power.
0
gaijinTechie
Safeguard plans? So, more sketches on one side of a napkin stating that nothing can happen? Who's going to enforce the safeguards? The same people who didn't do it last time either? Tingling with excitement I am. Phuu.
0
Son_of_Laertes
40 years? Is this what the engineers said? Or are they being ignored again in the interest of money and politics?
0
Fadamor
Reactors initially are given 40 year licenses, then get those licenses extended on a case by case basis. This rule would disallow any extensions.
Back to top