Japan shuts down another nuclear plant

[mr friendly guy]

xinhua

Japan's Hamaoka nuke plant completely shut down over safety concerns
English.news.cn 2011-05-14 14:24:30 FeedbackPrintRSS

TOKYO, May 14 (Xinhua) -- Japan's Chubu Electric Power Co. completely shut down the Hamaoka nuclear plant Saturday following a request last week by Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan to suspend the plant in Shizuoka Prefecture for safety concern.

The utility, Japan's third biggest, finished work at 10:15 a.m. to stop atomic fission at its last active reactor, the No. 5 unit, of the plant in Omaezaki, about 180 kilometers southwest of Tokyo. The utility began putting control rods into the reactor's core earlier in the day.

The No. 4 reactor, the other unit which was operating, was suspended Friday. The Nos. 1 and 2 reactors have already been shut down for decommissioning, while its No. 3 reactor was suspended for regular checkups.

Japanese government predicted an 87 percent likelihood of a magnitude-8 earthquake or higher striking the area near the nuclear plant within 30 years, and deemed the nuclear power plant lacks medium-to-long-term measures for protection against disasters, such as embankments.

The government reached the conclusion to suspend Hamaoka plant after evaluating the country's 54 reactors for quake and tsunami vulnerability after the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami on March 11 devastated the Pacific coastal regions of northeastern Honshu.

Chubu Electric Power Co., based in Nagoya, said it hopes to resume the plant soon after taking measures to block quake- triggered tsunami waves but Shizuoka governor Heita Kawakatsu remains cautious about the idea. The government said the suspension will last for two to three years.

Chubu Electric will lose more than 10 percent of its power supply capacity with the shutdown of the 3.6 million-kilowatt Hamaoka plant, its only atomic plant. Concerns about electricity shortages in summer when demand peaks will purportedly be offset by increased output by non-nuclear power generation.

The Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka, populated by 3.75 million people, is known as "the most dangerous" nuclear power plant in Japan due to its aged reactors, proximity to a massive fault-line and coastal area and inability to sustain a sizable earthquake similar to the quake and tsunami that crippled Fukushima No.1 plant on March 11.

I have heard of lots of protests in Japan (as you would expect) over nuclear. The question is how much of a hit the nuclear industry in Japan (and by extension the world) take with anti nuclear sentiment coming to the fore.

[Patrick Degan]

xinhua

Japan's Hamaoka nuke plant completely shut down over safety concerns
English.news.cn 2011-05-14 14:24:30 FeedbackPrintRSS

TOKYO, May 14 (Xinhua) -- Japan's Chubu Electric Power Co. completely shut down the Hamaoka nuclear plant Saturday following a request last week by Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan to suspend the plant in Shizuoka Prefecture for safety concern.

The utility, Japan's third biggest, finished work at 10:15 a.m. to stop atomic fission at its last active reactor, the No. 5 unit, of the plant in Omaezaki, about 180 kilometers southwest of Tokyo. The utility began putting control rods into the reactor's core earlier in the day.

The No. 4 reactor, the other unit which was operating, was suspended Friday. The Nos. 1 and 2 reactors have already been shut down for decommissioning, while its No. 3 reactor was suspended for regular checkups.

Japanese government predicted an 87 percent likelihood of a magnitude-8 earthquake or higher striking the area near the nuclear plant within 30 years, and deemed the nuclear power plant lacks medium-to-long-term measures for protection against disasters, such as embankments.

The government reached the conclusion to suspend Hamaoka plant after evaluating the country's 54 reactors for quake and tsunami vulnerability after the magnitude 9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami on March 11 devastated the Pacific coastal regions of northeastern Honshu.

Chubu Electric Power Co., based in Nagoya, said it hopes to resume the plant soon after taking measures to block quake- triggered tsunami waves but Shizuoka governor Heita Kawakatsu remains cautious about the idea. The government said the suspension will last for two to three years.

Chubu Electric will lose more than 10 percent of its power supply capacity with the shutdown of the 3.6 million-kilowatt Hamaoka plant, its only atomic plant. Concerns about electricity shortages in summer when demand peaks will purportedly be offset by increased output by non-nuclear power generation.

The Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka, populated by 3.75 million people, is known as "the most dangerous" nuclear power plant in Japan due to its aged reactors, proximity to a massive fault-line and coastal area and inability to sustain a sizable earthquake similar to the quake and tsunami that crippled Fukushima No.1 plant on March 11.

I have heard of lots of protests in Japan (as you would expect) over nuclear. The question is how much of a hit the nuclear industry in Japan (and by extension the world) take with anti nuclear sentiment coming to the fore.

Nuclear is politically dead in the United States and Germany, with the latter probably seeing further pushes in the Bundestag for accelerated phase-out. It won't be popular in Great Britain either and likely any new plant construction will be stalled. Even in France it is likely to become a major electoral issue. But countries like China, India, and Brazil are going to go ahead with their plans for nuclear: they need the reactors to meet growing demand and to secure energy independence.

[Crossroads Inc.]

This is the thing I really hate about Human nature with regards to Nuclear Power.

We have had almost 25 years without a mjor incident regarding Nuclear power. That is 25 years of Nuke plants working without (large) problems. Yet it takes only a single incident to send the world into freakout mode. People never realize the few plants that have problems are all VERY old plants. That not building new ones only makes things worse.

You can talk about wind and solar and alt fuels till you are blue in the face, but the truth is nothing can provide the power output of a nuke plant except coal and oil. What it comes down to is any lose of Nuclear Power is a win for Coal and Oil.

[Sarevok]

One person dying to a nuclear accident is worse than dozens of coal miners perishing in a cave in. Or thousands dying to pollutants released by coal powerplants. Or heaven forbid, people falling ill and perishing due to toxic chemicals released during production of "eco friendly" photovoltaic panels.

Yeah nuclear power is bad because it makes death thousand times worse. Its like the difference between being blown up and being cast into eternal damnation by a magical soul destroying weapon.

[K. A. Pital]

That's crazy. I have not seen until yet anyone producing any viable alternatives to nuclear (renewables including!) and they're losing power. Man... The energy crisis will become even more real - thanks to their efforts.

[Sarevok]

That's crazy. I have not seen until yet anyone producing any viable alternatives to nuclear (renewables including!) and they're losing power. Man... The energy crisis will become even more real - thanks to their efforts.

Well it is easy to have unrealistic fears about nuclear power now. But when energy starts becomes scarce will start to change... The real question is by then willl there be enough time left.

[K. A. Pital]

No, there won't. There was barely enough time left now as it is without the Fukushima disaster; now all of the anti-nuclear crazies rolled out from their Chernobyl shelters and started protesting left and right. The result will be obvious.

[kaeneth]

The sad thing is....

Countries like the US have such large quantities of wide open space that you can build nuclear plants far enough away from major population centers the risk to the population is minimal.

[Hawkwings]

Why build them far away when you can build them closer and save on transmission losses and putting up miles of new high-voltage wire? The risk to the population is already minimal, just look at how many nuclear plants have been safely operated without any mishaps over the entire lifespan of the industry.

[kaeneth]

Why build them far away when you can build them closer and save on transmission losses and putting up miles of new high-voltage wire? The risk to the population is already minimal, just look at how many nuclear plants have been safely operated without any mishaps over the entire lifespan of the industry.

PR. Its hard to be afraid of something when, worst case, it kills the workers and half a dozen random people.

The ridiculous 'NUKE PLANTS ARE SCARY BECAUSE BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN ONCE EVERY 30 YEARS - GLOBALLY!!!' is only a valid concern if they are built near large amounts of people. Of course they aren't being rational so...ya. :/

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Nuclear is politically dead in the United States and Germany, with the latter probably seeing further pushes in the Bundestag for accelerated phase-out. It won't be popular in Great Britain either and likely any new plant construction will be stalled. Even in France it is likely to become a major electoral issue. But countries like China, India, and Brazil are going to go ahead with their plans for nuclear: they need the reactors to meet growing demand and to secure energy independence.

Nuclear has always been wildly unpopular here in Britain (except, ironically, in the areas immediately around the plants for the most part, because that's where all the workers live - Dungeoness is probably the only place in the country where there are campaign groups demanding a new plant be built) and plans to replace plants were already up in the air anyway. If it comes down to nuclear plants, coal plants or not having electricity, though, I don't think most people would actively protest nuke plants, although environmentalist groups would.

[Sky Captain]

Britain has the largest wind energy resources in Europe both onshore and offshore. If they also built large pumped storage plants they could generate large fraction of total electricity from wind although at a considerable expanse, but then again it is not like a new modern nuclear plant is cheap. Costs of new reactors in Europe and US are said to be in a range from 3 to 5 billion. It seems that only China manages to build new reactors on reasonable budget and shedule.

However I bet that if wind energy generation were expanded to the level required to supply large poertions of total electricity you would have massive protests against it too.

[Zaune]

Britain also has an unfortunate tendency to outsource just about everything, usually to the lowest bidder, the most buzzword-compliant or the one whose executives buy various interested parties the most beer at the golf club. If past history with our railway network is anything to go by (or BP's oil rigs for that matter), then just this once I'm forced to admit the more hardline green elements have a point.

[Darth Tanner]

If they also built large pumped storage plants they could generate large fraction of total electricity from wind although at a considerable expanse

A realistic % would be little better than 10%. And that would be at silly cost to the consumer. Nuclear is much cheaper even with the crazy safety requirements and loan guarantees the energy companies demand. Only real alternative is fossil fuels which are skyrocketing in cost. Most of the gas turbines in the UK are shut at the moment because its too costly to run them with current gas prices.

However I bet that if wind energy generation were expanded to the level required to supply large poertions of total electricity you would have massive protests against it too.

Yes as you'd have to increase the household energy bill by several orders of magnitude to achieve it and cover every square mile in wind turbines whilst learning to accept power outages when the wind stops.

Britain also has an unfortunate tendency to outsource just about everything

An amusing if irrelevant story is that a new wind farm up in Scotland has been delayed by perhaps a few years because instead of using a local company they outsourced to a Texas firm which had no experience in off shore and bodged the concrete foundations for the turbines and as such half a dozen of them have started to tip over.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, the cost of a nuclear plant accident is high enough that it is not a great choice for places where there's no room to spare. Britain is small enough that there are very few places left on the island where you could render an area thirty or forty miles across uninhabitable without causing very severe dislocation. Unlikely as that may be (say, "statistically speaking we expect this to happen once every 12000 years per plant," which is about right), it is not a prospect to be taken lightly, which is why the plants have so damn many safety features in the first place.

In the extreme case of nations like Singapore, one plant disaster could render the entire island city-state uninhabitable; obviously the Singapore government is going to view that prospect with some alarm. A low-probability threat of losing the whole island must be taken quite seriously. Whereas it makes more sense in places where it's easier to isolate the plants in relatively remote locations so that the once-in-a-millenium nuclear disaster won't have particularly onerous secondary effects.

While nuclear is a good choice for electrical power in general, that does not mean it's a good choice to power every nation in the world in particular.

[Broomstick]

First of all, the article indicates that the plant was closed due to safety concerns in the event of a quake-tsunami event, based on new knowledge gained from this year's multi-disaster, implying that if adequate safeguards can be put in place the plant can reopen. Safety concerns are a entirely legitimate reason to close down any power plant. Given that we know a tsunami can result in a major nuclear accident this is, in fact, reasonable at least at first glance.

Second, Simon Jester's point is a good one. Nuclear is not and will not be a one-size-fits all solution. While major accidents are rare when they do occur we don't have a good solution. The main reason they don't become mass casualty events is because we move the people out of the way when they happen. Imagine if region around Chernobyl had never been evacuated, if people had never been warned about the hot spots - the injury, illness, and death rates would have been much higher. It's like saying a fire isn't dangerous because we got everyone out of the building safely - sure, human lives are saved but there are losses of other sorts. It will be safe to go near Fukashima briefly but it will be awhile before it's truly safe to live there long term. Rendering portions of the landscape effectively uninhabitable for long periods is a serious problem. Radiation in the food chain is a problem. Nuclear accidents are rare but when they do occur the costs are enormous, even if no one dies.

So, yes, there are places where putting a nuclear plant is a bad idea, or dangerous, or requires elaborate safeguards which, because our knowledge is limited, may not be adequate due to unforeseen events exceeding the worst case projections in play when it was initially designed.

Nuclear power is not safe in an absolute sense, but it should be possible to safely - sensible siting of plants, multiple safeguards, and yes, closing a plant that is found to be at risk of a major accident BEFORE it gets hit by waves 10 meters high.

[Eulogy]

But what choice do people have? Fossil fuels are running out and renewables (while they can take some burden off the grid granted) are unreliable, need to be decentralized, and will spit lots more waste into the environment. If nuclear isn't built, chances are the lights go out.

If island nations have to dig a big hole in the ground or make artificial islands just to keep their freezers running and vehicles moving - without a meltdown effectively destroying the nation - they will. Sooner or later, something's gonna break and governments are gonna have to take extreme measures to make sure we can still use air conditioning. If it means quelling NIMBY riots, so be it.

I'm not saying don't bother putting little wind turbines on every roof, or not researching or using new methods of power generation. But if the spice juice doesn't flow there will be Bad Things happening, and nobody wants that.

[Broomstick]

The point is, there ARE some places it's not a good idea to build a power plant. For example, in the heart of a city prone massive, catastrophic natural disasters. It wouldn't be a good idea to build a dam located so that if it should break it wipes out the heart of a national capital or major population center, either. You can still have hydro-electric damns, just site them in an intelligent manner. Likewise, nations can build power plants but should exercise some intelligence as to where they are located. You will note that while a portion of Tokyo's power is nuclear in origin they don't actually build the damn things inside of Tokyo. That would be stupid.

So yes, nuclear plants will be built. But they won't be built (one hopes) in locations that are hazardous sites. That's not being anti-nuclear or leaving people with no choice, that's being sensible. Yes, it might mean that a nation like Singapore has a problem in regards to using nuclear power - either a distantly located artificial island, or perhaps purchasing their power from a nation that has a suitable site for such a plant (and nations purchase/exchange power routinely, with power grids crossing borders, so it's entirely feasible).

[Eulogy]

So when can we expect underground nuclear plants? You have to MAKE ideal sites when dealing with things like nuclear reactors; a meltdown that gets contained in a deep pit nobody cares about is better for PR and for making sure we don't end up becoming horrific mutant freaks.

[AniThyng]

So when can we expect underground nuclear plants? You have to MAKE ideal sites when dealing with things like nuclear reactors; a meltdown that gets contained in a deep pit nobody cares about is better for PR and for making sure we don't end up becoming horrific mutant freaks.

Isn't there the problem that nuclear plants generally need to be situated near good sources of coolant, and this almost always means by the coast or a major river? And these things are also coincidentally where people want/need to live...not to mention agriculture and fisheries.

[folti78]

So when can we expect underground nuclear plants? You have to MAKE ideal sites when dealing with things like nuclear reactors; a meltdown that gets contained in a deep pit nobody cares about is better for PR and for making sure we don't end up becoming horrific mutant freaks.

Add to what AniThyng said:

Proper, up-to-date* designs has good meltdown protection, while putting them into some remote deep pit will have all the logistical drawbacks of having to ferry people and stuff to there** increasing costs and decreasing efficiency as you have to transport the electricity farther. Depending on the location, lesser incidents like leaking of irradiated/toxic liquids can get into water tables easier***.

* IIRC the Fukushima plants never been updated to latest standards for their designs, not even incorporating design changes made after the TMI incident, which might have helped.
** after the Chernobyl disaster, a new city has been constructed outside of the Zone, but close enough (~50km) to house the people still working in the plant and their families. Welcome to Slavutych.
*** This was a likely scenario back in Chernobyl, where the possibility of the fuel lava burning through the basement meeting the groundwater (thus creating another huge ass steam explosion and contaminating the water) were deemed so high, miners had been called up tunnel under the plant and reinforce the basement.

[Norade]

I guess the thing to say here is that, as always, high population density island nations have drawn the short straw and will just need to be net power importers if they're not willing to stomach the risk of building nuclear power. When you have a very little space and a rather high amount of people space and resources wil always be low.

[K. A. Pital]

They can also use tidal power, if they're willing to shoulder the costs.

[Sea Skimmer]

Dam based tidal power is terrible for the coastal ecosystem; its unlikely to get very far in Japan because of that on top of it being very expensive to install, and only suitable for select coastal sites. The tide range in most of Japan isn't very high. Anchored wave power generators might have a better chance.

[PeZook]

Solar power tangent split to here, as it warrants further discussion.