Slashdot Mirror
Japan Plans To Scrap Nuclear Plants After 40 Years
An anonymous reader writes with this news as carried by the San Francisco Chronicle: "After the nuclear meltdown of the Fukushima plant, 'Japan says it will soon require atomic reactors to be shut down after 40 years of use to improve safety.' If, however, a nuclear plant is deemed still safe it may continue operation."
I promised my neighbors I will stop burning cow dung after 10 years, unless I deem it doesn't still smell like sh*t.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
well, people have to reapply for their driver licenses after certain amount of time, this makes some sense.
But I am looking for the people to overthrow governments and finally to take the power into their own hands and to restart economies by looking at things that we've been prohibited from looking into. I want a nuclear powered car, dammit!
You can't handle the truth.
Japan will continue to use nuclear plants after 40 years after some political/financial lubrication and rubber stamping a safety report, just like every other first world nation with old plants in the news lately.
War is peace; Freedom is slavery, etc...
Mmm...chocolate rations...
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Doesn't seem like a change, unless they presently don't shutdown an unsafe plant before 40 years.
So... inspect old plants and shut them down if they're not operating safely. That sounds oddly reasonable.
Make up your mind. Either you pre-determine 40 years or you don't. This is a 100% political announcement.
What if you have a LIFTR or some other Thorium reactor which is good for 45 or 100 years? What if the current Toshiba local reactors which can be installed in Russia or China but not in USA or Japan due to arbitrary regulatory rules become downright popular?
BTW may I please have a Toshiba reactor in my back yard? I promise to charge small rent for the underground storage and electric grid easements. :)
JJ
40 years old nuclear plants will be shut down, unless they're still safe. --> 40 years old nuclear plants that are no longer safe will be shut down
One would assume that this has been the policy all along. Hell, if a nuclear plant is deemed "no longer safe" they should shut it down whether it's 20, 40 or 60 years old!
So, they'll keep doing what they have always been doing, except that they now introduced arbitrary time limit, which they can circumvent if they want to.
It'll be interesting to see if Gen 3+ and Gen 4 nuclear reactors will be allowed longer terms of lease, given that they have less parts to fail and more passive saftey systems. I think that nuclear could really be a keystone of Japan's nuclear energy future. That, and the Japanese have done research on how to extract uranium from the sea after Uranium prices spike in the future once easily mineable resources become exhausted. If we don't get breeders or thorium running, Japan has done the research.
http://www.jaea.go.jp/jaeri/english/ff/ff43/topics.html
Japan's only major energy resource is the sea. And the sea has enough Uranium to keep Japan ticking long after their population dwindles away due to their low birth rate.
So what have they done up to this point? Shouldn't all plants require safety inspections, all the time, and if they're not up to standards they get shut down? Age of the plant shouldn't matter at all -- in fact, a plant built 50 years ago should be held to the same standards as a plant built 2 years ago. It doesn't matter if putting generators in the basement next to the ocean was deemed to be okay in 1967. If current standards say your backup power has to be protected from tsunamis, then the plant has to be fixed, or shut down.
Speak before you think
won't Japan acknowledge its inferior engineering in protecting its plants?
They are dependent on nuclear energy obviously, and 40 years is probably quite a feat. But after those 40 years, when there is radioactive waste that will last for thousands, and after leaving certain zones inhabitable for centuries... was it worth it?
That also implies that if a plant is unsafe, it still gets 40 years. Otherwise, what does the time limit mean? At the end of 40 years, a plant is either safe or unsafe. If safe, they can keep going. If unsafe, why was it still running?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Also cm burns will be the new CEO.
Why not just scrap stupidity in how nuclear power plants are installed, and the technologies that are used ... as well as the politicians that get bought out to support it (yeah, corruption exists in Japan, too). First of all, a plant right next to the sea shore would just asking for trouble. Also look into Thorium for the reaction process, which has fewer risks and more advantages compared to Uranium.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I find that statement very reassuring, unless with future data, it's not.
Funny
Nuclear reactors can only be so safe, it's inherent with what materials they're working with. Even if the systems themselves are fool-proof, as an article I read the other day had pointed out, human beings are the weak links in the chain.
The irony here is people will buy the next new iPod, computer technology, game console, etc. and yet when it comes to progressing in regards to fuel and electricity, where's that same enthusiasm? We trust all our digital information, finances, and a large percentage of our social lives with these computers, iPhones, etc. and yet it's too much to ask us to make a change in regards to energy when it can result in so many catastrophes.
Something isn't right about the logic behind this...
They've pledged to decommission them under a duration-based circumstance, unless they determine they should not be decommissioned under a set of circumstances that they should be using exclusively to determine decommissioning anyway. In other news, the sky is either blue or it is not, depending on the relative positions of the earth and the sun, and the presence or absence of cloud-cover, atmospheric contaminants, etc. So if you can't see the sky, it implies that one of these factors is reducing sky visibility. Or your eyes are closed.
Hey, that's great. In fourty years I'll be dead.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
If you look at the history of the Research and Development of nuclear reactors you will notice they were scaled up from test reactors to full sized commercial reactors very quickly. Speaking in general terms if you look closely at the design of most commercial reactors they just look like big versions of the test reactors. Even the AP-1000 and the EPR reactors suffer from a plethora of design inadequacies that demonstrate the full life cycle of a reactor was not considered.
I reason this because the simplest and most obvious design change to Nuclear reactors would be to build them underground which would mean any nuclear accident would be automatically contained and the entire facility sealed off and, if necessary, flooded with water. It would also mean decommissioning and disposal of the reactor could take place in-situ and that would avoid the energy costs (around one third of the reactors lifetime output) incurred. I've only ever seen an IFR reactor design underground but there are many other safety features that can be applied.
The argument for Nuclear Power generally ignores the entire nuclear industry paradigm and focuses on reactor technology as the answer, whilst the argument against focuses on the consequences of an industry that was rushed into existence based of the premise of nuclear weapons production. But I believe there is a middle ground based on spent fuel containment and a proper infrastructure to support it.
There is little doubt that Fukushima would be much easier to deal with now if the spent fuel pools were empty but the truly sobering thought is that US reactors of the same design have up to five times the density of spent fuel contained in those pools and the same type of accident in one of those reactors would almost certainly result in a un-contained plutonium fire.
It is possible to build a much safer nuclear industry but it would start with an international effort that incorporated the Joint industry findings the NRC commissioned AND the EPR design enhancements applied to all new reactor designs. That and a proper infrastructure program to handle spent fuel would answer most of the arguments the critics have of the Nuclear industry.
It's really only attributable to the arrogance of the 50's thinking that leaves legal artifacts like the Price-Anderson act in existence long after it's use by date and demonstrates that announcements such of these are as insincere as the regulatory enforcement that led Japan, and the world, into this mess in the first place.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I remember reading Asimov's 'Foundation'; where people after colonising the whole galaxy, fell into lackluster apathy and gave up on their knowlege of science, abandoning nuclear energy in favour of combusting carbon based fuels. I'm glad Asimov's not alive to see the day when the human race lives up to the end of days scenario he thought so terrible before even touching the stars.
Seems to me we had multiple reactors hit with a giant earthquake AND tsumani and aside for the major news not a lot of people died. Seems evidence to build more nuclear for me. I swear the anti-nuclear hippies must be funded by big oil cause I can't see any reason not to keep building safer and safer plants till energy is basically free.
I'm not an expert on reactors but I don't this attitude of there being a 'nuclear plant' as if there were only one type there are different types and even the growing popularity of liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs).
Canada, where I live, has plants using natural uranium in vessels that are not pressurized and they work fine without all the drama.
Japan can do as it pleases of course I understand why but everyone else is freaking out over misinformation.
Obviously, Japan HAS been running Nukes for the LAST fourty years, and now AFTER 40 YEARS OF SAFE OPERATION they will close nukes they deem unsafe, and ones they deem safe will remain in operation.
What exactly is the news here? They will close 'unsafe' power plants and keep 'safe' plants up and running. Did Japan knowingly keep unsafe power plants online?
Ken
The voters are running the asylum but I can see how you can confuse them with the insane. The simple fact is that democracy of the masses is ill suited to complex issues where "cheap vs expensive" is only a tiny aspect of a much larger puzzle. Nuclear power isn't unsafe by the nature of nuclear power but by the nature of the enormous costs and length of time involved. You can't build or operate a nuclear plant within an election cycle so cross-party support must be arranged and this invariable can only be achieved by lubricating the system. Bribes? Not directly, more the old boy network being used to extreems. Officials get jobs on boards of directors and appoint people they think got the right frame of mind (IE the same as them) and "trust" their fellow chaps.
If Fukishima had been a coal plant it would have belched forth tons of polutions and the coal might have been spread all over the place when the tidal wave hit. But these are managable. A nuclear reactor by its very nature when it goes wrong goes wrong in a big way. It has no room for compromise and half-hearted decisions. Fukishima should have been build with better protection but it wasn't because the people that were supposed to oversee it were all tied to its success.
Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. Some things just attract corruption. Not outright corruption with clear bribes as in say Italy where corruption is the expected norm but that veneer of corruption that means the chance of the right decision being made is very very small.
Nuclear power is unsafe not because of physics but because of human nature. Sooner or later someone will try to safe money by cutting corners. And that will go right 99% of the time... just a pity that the 1% of the time is noticed around the world.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Book'em Dan O'.
40 years from now no one at Fukushima or even inside the Diet or any other place in what was called Nippon will be around except their corps to raise a stink.
Solar is clearly the way forward. We've made HUGE advances in the last few decades!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
i heard they actually are.
Lets see a report of the employees who worked at fukushima before the event, and ALL their foreign momements.
Did a group from Israel come, do a contract work, then split just before the event?
Anybody checking? No, that's right we are on slashdot, lazy fucks.
Here's what I think, a team from Israel did some work, planted stuxnet, planted bombs, and pulled out 2 weeks before the event, after that either haarp or an underwater nuke caused the tsunami. Why? Because if you look at that news room if a 9 hit, they would have been hitting the walls at 44 miles an hour, that news room would have been all dead, yet they were still sitting in chairs and typing away. That's not a 9! The 9 was the cover story after the Japaneese Government being threatened.
What's the alternative?
Japan is devoid of natural resources.
Slashdot = Sarcasm
40 years was the original design life for nuclear reactors. Of course, this article is pretty much 'life as normal'. In the USA you get a permit good for X years, normally 40. When a reactor reaches the end of that life, the owner of the plant has to decide whether to shut it down or move for permit renewal, where they have to, guess what, prove the plant is still safe to standards. That most likely means spending some millions on plant refurbishment/upgrades.
Look at Fukushima - it was scheduled to be shut down.
That being said - I DO support replacing old nuclear plants with new ones - they're more efficient and safer.
I don't read AC A human right
The mistakes were management cutting corners. The "engineering mistakes" were elementary ones that could have only come from greedy bean counters.
Look at the US NAVY and specifically the Submarine fleet. They have been totally nuclear since the 60's. I served on two boomers and had to tolerate the annual ORSE (Operational Reactor Safety Exam) constantly.
You either passed and the boat could operate or failed, and people get fired, retrained, and retested.
IIRC subs are upgraded every 5-10years (major refits) and refueled every 20.
So everything they are looking to implement is already in place, with a working model to examine.
And I can guarantee you that a reactor on a boat is getting slammed around much more than a powerplant. Drills, PMs, annual certs etc.
I find it HI-LARIOUS that some anti-nuclear people think that (as already posted) that once the last weld cools the reactor is turned on an nothing is ever tested for another 40 years. Are you really that stupid?
It reminds me of the rent control laws in my city. At some point people got rent control laws passed, but were forced to put in compromises that sabotaged the goals of the law. Landlords were given the right to raise rent, significantly after a person was moved out and landlords were given the right to order people to move out for no particular reason, just with 60 days notice. So you get a situation of people getting kicked out of their homes every few years.
This sounds like some good people in Japan started off with a progressive idea for shutting down the worst nuclear power plants and perhaps encouraging their replacement with better models/designs.
It looks reality set in and compromises which took the teeth out of the law.
America should be doing the same. In particular, we should get the GE PRISM going and put it on-site of old gen 1 and 2 plants. Then use that to process the nuke 'waste' that is stored there. In doing that, it allows current nuke plants to tear down old reactors that use old tech, while still maintaining energy, and profits. In addition, it converts a train-load of waste that would be transported to WIPP and stored for 20K years. Instead, we now remove all of the energy, put in place a SAFE reactor, and then drop the large train-load of waste, to less than a car of true waste of 200 years worth of issues.
Then with any new sites, we should instead use a thorium reactor or some of the micro reactors, such as what GA, B&W, etc are working towards.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Snicker, snort. Nice shillmodding, Japanese nuclear playboys! I think I'm turning mutated I think I'm turning mutated I really think so!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What was going to happen. Nuclear disasters in Japan are like fish to water.
Maybe Baquack Obamailure should drop another nuke on them so they can learn just how dangerous nuclear power is.
How about joining the 21st century and leaving the 20th? We are already a decade in and better designs that are much safer exist. Oh yea it is very hard to make bombs out of them. Who would want safe, reliable, cheap energy if you can't have bombs?
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8&feature=player_embedded
TEPCO clearly didn't confess it was unsafe before the tsunami. So this rule is worthless.
That said, I didn't RTFA. But any loophole is inevitably exploited by profiteers.
you had me at #!
Why not just closed when not it is confirmed they are not safe rather then setting an amount of 40 years per facility? Silly Japan!
That a big earthquake in 2011 makes it less likely for a similar quake to happen in the near future in the same area has fuck-all to do with the fact that they should have built it higher in the first place, with data they had at the time.
And that's before you get to the fact that the chances of having to deal with a once-in-a-thousand-years event gets more likely as the number of sites you have increases.
as all the import compact hot rod guys will tell you, Japan also requires cars to be thoroughly inspected after 5 years and mothballed, if the owner can't prove them to be reliably safe, which results in a nice flow of second-hand sporty Japanese engines to America to replace the sedate engines sold here. So, I guess this means we will have lots of junked nuclear powerplants for us to use!
If we had standardized designs, the NRC could issue mandatory safety bulletins are require upgrades across all instances of a particular reactor model much like the FAA/NTSB does for aircraft. As it stands all plants are custom-built, making lessons learned at plant A impossible to apply to plant B.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.