Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Plans To Scrap Nuclear Plants After 40 Years

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the over-the-hill-gang dept.

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."

6 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. if it ain't broke by alphatel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:if it ain't broke by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the point.

      Older plants don't have as many safety features as newer plants, as well existing safety features may degrade as they age. So instead of plants simply getting older and less safe they're proactively saying "this plant will be shut down by X unless you can prove it's still safe enough to continue".

      --
      I stole this Sig
  2. Re:So, no change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, it means that now, a plant has to be shown to be unsafe to be shutdown. With the changes, a plant has to be shown to be safe to qualify for an extention. It basically means more inspections.

  3. OTOH... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

    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
    1. Re:OTOH... by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      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?

      People like you are why I always feel the need to write long pedantic posts :/

      First lets establish the obvious in that safety isn't a binary condition, it's a continuum.

      Now older plants are less safe for two reasons. 1) they were built when the technology was less advanced, 2) they are old.

      Now if a plant is unsafe enough it will obviously be shut down before the 40 year mark, the only reason to believe otherwise is if you're being deliberately obtuse.

      However, we're looking at the situation where a plant is safe enough that there's no immediate reason to shut it down, but if someone started the ball rolling and did a really tough safety inspection it might end in the plant being shut down.

      What this law does is start the ball rolling.

      I'm sorry to sound snippy but comments of the type "I'm going to misinterpret a statement so I can make a clever remark" really bug me and detract from the discussion.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:OTOH... by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First lets establish the obvious in that safety isn't a binary condition, it's a continuum.

      This needs to be expanded on. Safety is not only a continuum but it's an ever changing continuum as new standards for what is deemed "safe". I work at a plant which is quite unique around the world. It's unique in that we've never had a death on site. Does that mean we're safer than other sites? Hell no.

      Looking back at our history we had scaffolders holding onto the top of a tower with one hand with no safety harness on and with the other mounting a scaffold pole. We had a really old control room with a large window facing the plant less than 10m away. We've never had an incident that has damaged that building but that doesn't mean it is safe. We had to build a giant cement bomb proof bunker for our new control room and more recently move all day staff off site.

      When the plant was built there was no emergency shutdown system. Now 50 years later we still use some of the original kit but with a number of SIL rated shutdown systems in addition to the modern control system. Not to mention 50 years worth of changes in process design, check valves and relief valves in critical positions, a massive relief flaring system, etc.

      That point I am trying to make is that if you build a site and maintain a site perfectly to the standards of the day it was designed then eventually it will be deemed unsafe simply because you're ignoring years of changes in standards and lessons learnt from the process safety industry.

      40 years ago you weren't held liable for not putting up a wet floor sign either.