Thursday February 23, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

IAEA begins inspection of nuclear power plant in Fukui

By Mari Yamaguchi

National Jan. 26, 2012 - 05:50PM JST ( 28 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

28 Comments

1

Blair HerronJan. 26, 2012 - 02:09PM JST

IAEA begins inspection of nuclear power plant in Fukui

That's good. But what about Fukushima? Don't tell me "The Fukushima Daiichi plants are cold shut down condition and essentially stable." just like PM Noda said at the press conference the other day.
-5

MaboDofuIsSpicyJan. 26, 2012 - 02:58PM JST

Start them up. We need the electric.
0

nandakandamandaJan. 26, 2012 - 03:40PM JST

I bet none of the plants in Japan wanted an IAEA inspection. They probably drew lots, with poor old Ohi drawing the short straw.

Everyone else meanwhile quickly shut down for 'regular' inspections or simulated 'stress' tests.
10

zichiJan. 26, 2012 - 03:48PM JST

Start them up. We need the electric.

The IAEA boys, who are all pro nuke, with a Japanese General Director are in town to inspect the stress testing on the reactors at two atomic power plants. Most of the power companies have not even completed those tests which are only computer models. The IAEA have also stated that it will be up to the government if any reactor should be restarted. This is nothing more than a PR stunt by Big Nuke.

Since the shut down this week of another TEPCO reactor at their Niigata plant, there are only 4 reactors currently in operation. This includes TEPCO's final reactor in Niigata which will shut down at the end of March.

These four reactors are generating 8.1% of total power or 3,958MW. This compares with about 25% of total power prior to 3/11.

It has come to light, that the government hid a document/report which states even without any power generated by atomic power, the country can generate all the power it needs plus a small surplus.

The pro nuke boys, like to use climate change as a reason for using nuclear power. Since 3/11 and the shut down of nearly all the atomic plants, the level of CO2 produced only increased by 4%.

Because this country experiences 10% of the world's most powerful earthquakes, it's a country which should never have built the nuclear plants in the first place. But now there are 54 reactors ( including TEPCO's 10 in Fukushima) another two are under construction and a further 12 or so, are in the planning stage. Some, like the power plant in Hamaoka, have been built in dangerous locations.

Even to shut them all down and decommission them would take more than 50 years and will produce a very large volume of highly reactive waste.

While I could accept that the country may need to restart some of the reactors, the country does not need 54 of them or 44 of them if we minus the TEPCO Fukushima reactors. But all power plants in dangerous locations like Hamaoka should be shut down, along with all reactors older than 30-years.

Even TEPCO has stated, if it survives its current crisis, it will build no more nuclear plants but instead will go in the direction of geothermal.

Total power generated by nuclear power prior to 3/11 was about 25%. About 20% of that could be generated by other methods without even building a single wind turbine, tidal or wave generator. The current 4 reactors in operation are generating 8.1% of total power. That shows that there's no need for more than 10 or even 15 reactors.

The eventual aim should be to generate all power by renewables within 25 years.
1

wanderlustJan. 26, 2012 - 04:19PM JST

The nuclear village inspects the nuclear village.

The outcome is obvious...
7

zichiJan. 26, 2012 - 04:59PM JST

The government withheld an estimate that there would be no electricity shortages in the upcoming summer in an apparent bid to underscore the need to restart nuclear power plants, it has been learned. Instead of releasing the realistic estimate, the government announced that the supply of electricity in Japan “will be about 10 percent short across the country”.

Furthermore, the released government estimate greatly downplayed the supply of renewable energy, disregarding the country’s actual energy status.

It was found that electric power companies were capable of procuring 7.59 million kilowatts through renewable energy under the current law — equal to the output of about seven nuclear reactors. However, the released government estimate stated that utilities were unable to provide renewable energy supplies.

In addition, the released estimate apparently deliberately presumed that some of the thermal power plants would be suspended in August — a peak-demand period — for regular inspections and also anticipated that there would be no cut in power use at the time of a power crunch through the supply-demand adjustment arrangement with major electricity contractors. The estimate also played down the supply capacity of pumped-storage hydroelectricity, which utilizes night-time surplus power during the daytime.

http://enformable.com/2012/01/japanese-government-hid-reports-in-lieu-of-restarting-nuclear-reactors/
0

Aries PostJan. 26, 2012 - 06:13PM JST

Nuclear energy is always dangerous. It's a lost gamble. It is not worthy since there will always be accidents.
0

some14someJan. 26, 2012 - 06:25PM JST

TEPCO might have given draft (in japanese) to IAEA, -ijo nashi, shimpai nashi hai ryokai (nothing wrong, nothing to worry and it's alright) !!!
1

cactusJackJan. 26, 2012 - 07:08PM JST

"Before you enter the complex, please kindly put on these blindfolds"
0

Blair HerronJan. 26, 2012 - 07:09PM JST

The estimate also played down the supply capacity of pumped-storage hydroelectricity, which utilizes night-time surplus power during the daytime.

I think pumped-storage hydroelectricity should be added to the total amount of electricity that they can supply; TEPCO can supply 6,810,000kw by pumped-hydro, but it seems to be always controversial issue...
5

zichiJan. 26, 2012 - 07:21PM JST

Blair Herron

Pumped storage is controversial because the pro nuke boys will point out that you loss 50% of the power pumping the water uphill. What they don't state, without the likes of pumped storage you loss 100% of power.

Turbines and generators must be kept running even over night at minimum rpm which usually means a slice of power is produced but not used.

If the pumped storage is used in the day time peak period that is the best return.
3

warnerbroJan. 26, 2012 - 09:23PM JST

"suggesting that the government would override possible local opposition if Japan’s energy needs were dire."

The only dire needs in this regard are those of the gangs of irresponsible liars that profit substantially from building, operating, and cheerleading for nuclear power.
-1

JapanGalJan. 26, 2012 - 11:50PM JST

Capitalism has its advantages and disadvantages. Start up the reactors.
-1

UtrackJan. 27, 2012 - 12:45AM JST

Nuclear Power is NOT safe, German Gov’t Study: Children living near nuclear plants have double leukemia rates, high incidence of solid cancers. Reactors cannot prevent radiation from escaping.

The people, Children and Adults in some areas of Fukushima are suffering horribly from Radiation exposure. It's not pretty and it should not be even considered okay to start up any reactors while knowing whats coming out of them. It is damaging to the population who lives in close proximity to these reactors. None of them are safe.
6

zichiJan. 27, 2012 - 12:52AM JST

Utrack no one should be allowed to live within 20 kms of a nuke power plant, nor farming nor fishing nor any kind of business.

There should be a 20km no-go zone around every nuke plant.
0

UtrackJan. 27, 2012 - 01:04AM JST

Zichi I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. The food is poisoned with radiation and so are the people when they live near nuclear power plants.
0

smithinjapanJan. 27, 2012 - 01:08AM JST

Hang on... they just went there and 'exchanged views' (ie. paid lip-service to one another) before the IAEA simply watched them plug the thing in and push the start button? Doesn't sound like all that thorough an inspection.
3

zichiJan. 27, 2012 - 01:29AM JST

Fukui has the largest number of reactors in the country. It also has a history of earthquakes. In 1948 there was a 7.0 mag quake which killed 3,769 people.
3

zichiJan. 27, 2012 - 02:32AM JST

Money and jobs keeps the Fukui Ohi 8,850 residents quiet over their fears of nuclear energy. Its a local taboo to even talk about it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-japan-nuclear-taboo-idUSTRE80P1AK20120126
3

zichiJan. 27, 2012 - 02:41AM JST

Fukui has the largest number of nuclear reactors among all prefectures. The 15 nuclear reactors, including the plutonium-fueled fast breeder reactor “Monju”, are all located in on an active fault zone. Two of them have been used for 40 years, one for 39, and five for more than 30 years.

One aging reactor, Mihama Nuclear Power Plant Unit 3, in 2001 already caused a pipe-rupture accident, resulting in five deaths out of the 11 subcontract workers who were nearby.

http://www.japan-press.co.jp/modules/feature_articles/index.php?id=208
-2

YuriOtaniJan. 27, 2012 - 04:07AM JST

No matter what Japan does, the plants need to be brought back online. The old ones can be shut down but closing them all is insanity. There is no way to prove absolute safety. Without enough electric, might as well complete the deindustrialization of Japan. Japan can be a 3rd world country again.
1

UtrackJan. 27, 2012 - 04:40AM JST

@ YuriOtani

Japan has 22 steam-electric plants - coal and lignite, 14 Gas- and Oil-Fired Steam-Electric Plants, 25 combined-cycle and gas turbine plants - CCGT, 32 conventional hydroelectric plants, 9 pumped-storage hydroelectric plants, 18 nuclear power plants, 7 waste-to-energy plants.

You can still turn on your lights without the NPP's.
-2

YuriOtaniJan. 27, 2012 - 07:55AM JST

Ultrack, as long as Japan can get fuel for them. Really the plants should be looked at and those that can be restarted. My suggestion is any town that does not want the nuke restarted be placed on a list. Not only should they be charged more but the first to lose their power in a shortage. Really until there is a proper replacement they have to be used. Destroying the economy of Japan for paranoia is baka.
0

UtrackJan. 27, 2012 - 08:29AM JST

7 waste-to-energy plants fuel is Refuse ; 32 conventional hydroelectric plants just needs moving water to generate electricity ; 9 pumped-storage hydroelectric plants just needs moving water to generate electricity

That's 49 power plants that don't need fuel at all and that's10 plants shy of being half of the non nuclear power plants in Japan. How is it paranoia when scientists and experts have revealed their research that reactors can't keep radiation from escaping and that children living near nuclear plants are prone to getting cancer. I wish is was paranoia and not a fact.
-1

YuriOtaniJan. 27, 2012 - 09:35AM JST

Utrack, there is no such thing as a lack of radiation. They are using statistics and not hard facts. The lack of radiation is a fact, do you know how much radiation is produced by a 1 megaton bomb ground burst?Japan does not have the luxury of not running them. Remember pollution kills people as well.
0

wanderlustJan. 27, 2012 - 10:32AM JST

Perhaps economists should look more closely at Japan's so-called economic miracle, supported by billions of yen of anonymous donations (aka bribes) to politicians, academics, bureaucrats, the media, local unions and government, run off the faulty premise that nuclear power was cheap and safe.

The hollow economies that have grown around these NPPs, funded by cheap, dirty money, are not sustainable; and the expensive sports and culture facilities to placate the locals - in reality hardly used, subsidised quasi-tourism, and and extensive, one-time construction works have done nothing to stimulate real business or other industries, and have destroyed traditional local industries such as fishing and handicrafts. With the NPPs going or gone, there is nothing left for the locals now the subsidies are drying up.

Even the national power grid, designed to feed power from these rural backwaters to the industrial complexes and mega-cities of Japan's pacific coast, failed abysmally.

Time is running out, this business model is not going to last much longer.
-2

YuriOtaniJan. 27, 2012 - 11:44PM JST

People have been scared STUPID by this accident. Suppose it has to do with the evil radiation. People buying radiation detectors looking for it in their food and homes. How many people have been killed by the radiation? Then compare it to people dying from respiratory illness, traffic accidents and suicide. While it is sad people get killed or sick, why don't we pay more attention to the other deaths? The government and nuclear industry need to learn from this accident and prevent it was happening again. The scientists need to study low levels of radiation and what are the effects on the human body. My knowledge of this is from a military perspective. If I remember right people start getting sick at 50 rems, start dying at 200 rems and almost 100 percent by 1000 rems. If I understand it there is .1 Millisievert per rem. So by cold war standards it would take 500 of them in a short period of time to start showing illness.

I do agree the nuclear industry needs to be better regulated. Until we can replace the plants they need to stay online. Oil, gas and coal kill people as well. Next time you fly out of Handea on a "clear" day, take a look towards the ground and you will see a brown blanket of pollution covering the Kanto area. You are breathing that and it is TOXIC. Though most people do not worry about that. The press has scared people STUPID and if studied more people died in the evacuation than the threat. My question is what is the actual threat?
1

warnerbroJan. 29, 2012 - 09:30PM JST

YuriOtani, cold war standards are precisely the problem. Nuclear power is an antiquated Cold War artifact. It's grossly inefficient and consumes huge subsidies to produce electricity. Cold war standards are not accurate. There are almost no data on the consequences of low level exposure that are not either based on extremely flawed Hiroshima/Nagasaki exposure rubrics and/or collected by people with an interest in keeping nuclear power going. Japan is doing fine with only 3 reactors in the midst of peak winter usage. No blackouts. No brownouts. No problems. The government's projections of shortfalls last summer were completely inaccurate. Japan has enough power without nuclear. Oil and fossil fuels are fungible. If you can't buy it from somebody, say Iran, Iran will sell it to somebody you can buy it from. Japan has enough intelligence to achieve greater energy efficiency and much more effective renewable sources. Japan could easily lead the world into a new era of much cleaner energy if it were not ruled by a gang of people wedded to the Cold War past. In fact, the huge cost of nuclear power that TEPCO intends to pass on to consumers by increasing rates is driving Japanese business to send their manufacturing capacity abroad. Continuing to live in the past is the path to the destruction of Japan's industrial power.