Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power Japan

Japan Votes to Restart World's Biggest Nuclear Plant 15 Years After Fukushima Meltdown (cnn.com) 70

Posted by EditorDavid from the power-plays dept.
The 2011 meltdown at Fukushima's nuclear plant "was the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986," CNN remembers.

But this week Japanese authorities "have approved a decision to restart the world's biggest nuclear power plant," reports CNN, "which has sat dormant for more than a decade following the Fukushima nuclear disaster."

Despite nerves from many local residents, the Niigata prefectural assembly, home to the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, approved a bill on Monday that clears the way for utility company Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to restart one of the plant's seven reactors. The company plans to bring the No. 6 reactor back online around January 20, Japan's public broadcaster NHK reported...

Following the [2011] disaster, Japan shut down all 54 of its nuclear power stations including Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, which sits in the coastal and port region of Niigata about 320 kilometers (200 miles) north of Tokyo on Japan's main island of Honshu. Japan has since restarted 14 of the 33 nuclear reactors that remain operable, according to the World Nuclear Association. The Niigata plant will be the first to reopen under the operation of TEPCO, the company that ran the Fukushima Daiichi power station. It has been trying to reassure residents of the restart plan is safe...

About 60-70% of Japan's power generation comes from imported fossil fuels, which cost the country about 10.7 trillion yen ($68 billion) last year alone... Japan is the world's fifth-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, after China, the United States, India and Russia, according to the International Energy Agency. But it has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, and renewable energy was at the center of its latest energy plan published earlier this year, with a push for greater investments in solar and wind. The country's energy demands are also expected to increase in the coming years due to a boom in energy-hungry data centers that power AI infrastructure. To achieve its energy and climate goals, Japan aims to double the share of nuclear power in its electricity mix to 20% by 2040...

On its website, TEPCO said Kashiwazaki-Kariwa had undergone multiple inspections and upgrades and that the company had learned "the lessons of Fukushima." The company said new seawalls and watertight doors would provide "stronger protection against tsunamis" and that mobile generators and more fire trucks would be on hand for "cooling support" in an emergency. It also said the plant now had "upgraded filtering systems designed to control the spread of radioactive materials."
A survey published by the prefecture in October "found 60% of residents did not think conditions for the restart had been met," reports Reuters, adding that "Nearly 70% were worried about TEPCO operating the plant."

Japan Votes to Restart World's Biggest Nuclear Plant 15 Years After Fukushima Meltdown More | Reply

Japan Votes to Restart World's Biggest Nuclear Plant 15 Years After Fukushima Meltdown

Comments Filter:

  • Why not (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liqu1d ( 4349325 ) on Saturday December 27, 2025 @12:40PM (#65884787)
    As long as the upgrades have been put in place to make sure it won't ever happen again then I don't see why it would be a bad thing. There should probably be considerable oversight to make sure there's no missed opportunities for more safety.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      As long as the upgrades have been put in place

      The thing most wrong at Fukushima Daiichi can't be fixed with upgrades. When that site was developed, the land was graded to only a few meters above the sea. That makes circulating water easier (read: cheaper,) but it also means the site could be inundated by a tsunami later this afternoon, again.

      Yes, they have more fault tolerance and have obviously adapted the site to actually survive tsunamis, or at least not melt down after a tsunami. But that work will have some design basis, and there is nothing

      • If they can't be fixed or mitigated enough to be moot then I certainly understand why the residents are rightfully concerned.

        • If they can't be fixed or mitigated enough to be moot then I certainly understand why the residents are rightfully concerned.

          I can't. The death toll of the "second-worst nuclear disaster ever" was maybe one (a worker who died of lung cancer seven years later, which might have been related to radiation exposure).

          What residents should demand is that the government establish better evacuation protocols, since the evacuation killed about 2300 people. Or maybe switch to shelter-in-place protocols, since no one would have died had they just stayed where they were. Radiation levels might have slightly increased the risk of cancer dec

      • Re:Why not (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pixelpusher220 ( 529617 ) on Saturday December 27, 2025 @05:27PM (#65885247)

        The problem wasn't the reactors being near sea level, the problem was the emergency generators being in the damned basement.

        So in simplistic terms the only thing they need to not fail in the specific way they did, is some sturdy stilts.

        The other ways a high pressure water cooled reactor can fail, still exist.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That was one problem among many. The flooding of the site and the lateral motion of the earthquake damaged the cooling control system, which meant that even though they were able to pump in emergency cooling water, it was diverted to holding tanks because valves were stuck in the wrong position and the monitoring equipment was broken.

          It's probably impossible to build something that is guaranteed to survive just the earthquake. Immense lateral and sometimes vertical forces, for minutes at a time potentially.

          • That's fair but as you say, you can't really plan for the failure modes, you absolutely can plan to not put generators where they are most likely to be non-functional in a very expected scenario.

            That's also one of my biggest problem with nuclear. A major failure renders most contingency plans non-viable because it's nuclear. As such it must be so over engineered to never fail, it's just not practical economically even before you add the cost of failures to the kwh price.

            All that aside, nuclear is absolut

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I don't think nuclear will help at all with climate change. We can't wait for it, and we can't afford it. The only reason fossil fuels are declining is that renewables are quick and easy to build, and by far the cheapest source of energy.

              • The only reason fossil fuels are declining

                When did that happen and on what planet, because it certainly didn't happen on Earth.

                https://ourworldindata.org/fos... [ourworldindata.org]

              • There's still a whole lot of base load to cover. Renewables plus storage won't be able to cover that for a while. The only base load capable option we have that isn't CO2 producing is nuclear.

                Coal/gas won't disappear overnight.
                Renewable + Storage is growing at significant rates.
                Some new nuclear will come online.
                And overall energy consumption is growing

                Matching those changing values is the question...I think we'll have enough nuclear to cover it but it's definitely not a known fact.

                I hate nuclear, it's te

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  There are plenty of examples of renewables covering base load, and the concept itself is outdated and obsolete.

                  • Do name them - and not tiny small economy countries where the hurdle is basically on the floor.

                    Name established power grids that have covered base load with renewables...and for how long.

                    Base load is, at a minimum, 24 continuous hours of coverage. CA has hit around 40% but mostly that's hydro.

      • None of these things were the problem. They lost cooling water circulation because the backup power were generators that were in the basement. There are many ways to safely and properly address that completely boneheaded decision. This is the same idiotic cost cutting decision that took down hospitals in New Orlenas during Katrina flooding.

      • The thing most wrong at Fukushima Daiichi can't be fixed with upgrades

        OTOH, the death toll from this "world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl" was: Zero. Well, maybe one. A worker died seven years later from lung cancer that may have been radiation-induced. There is a small probability of additional cancer-related deaths, but the risk is so low that researchers don't expect they'll be able to distinguish the effect from the natural cancer rates.

        There were some 2300 deaths caused by the evacuation, though. So if you're going to focus on improving safety, it seems

    • First you need to understand that the city of Fukushima was evacuated for 10 years and everyone there lost everything except what they could carry.

      Next you need to understand that the disaster was completely preventable if the CEOs had done what the engineers had been telling them to do for years.

      Finally you need to understand that the CEOs got away Scott free and the public at large blamed the engineers. There were no consequences and there have been no changes to the regulatory framework that allo

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shmlco ( 594907 )

        "The technical problems involving nuclear power have long since been solved. The social problems have not."

        I have no doubt that the technical problems involving nuclear power have long since been solved. But as long as those plants are run by businesses and corporations looking to minimize costs and maximize profits, the "social" problems will never see solutions.

        Which in turn probably means those plants will never, ever be safe.

        • Finally someone who gets it.

        • That's my concern.

          I have a lot of faith in human engineering.
          I have precisely zero faith in any entity with a bureaucracy, profit driven or not, to stay uncorrupted enough for these things to truly be safe within our actual capacity to make them be.

      • Next you need to understand that the disaster was completely preventable if the CEOs had done what the engineers had been telling them to do for years.
        No it was not.
        The earthquake destroyed the internal piping.

        It has nothing to do with "emergency power engines under water"

        • It has nothing to do with "emergency power engines under water"

          Yes, it does.
          Though you're right it wasn't limited to that.

          The plant relied on seawater pumps for continued operation- those were destroyed, along with their piping. What you're referring to.
          Also, there were diesel generators to maintain the plant's primary cooling loop- those died, virtually ensuring a meltdown.

          • The point is: the piping was destroyed, so the death of the Diesel Engines is overrated ... and was not really the reason ... especially as the melt down was weeks after the earthquake/tsunami.

            • The external secondary cooling piping was destroyed. Not the internal. Had the diesel generators continued operating, there would have been no meltdown.
              The meltdown was offset by weeks because they nearly immediately started injecting seawater directly into the reactors via their very much not destroyed piping.

              The destruction of the diesel generators is not overplayed. Had they survived, there would have been no meltdown. There would have been no scramble to inject seawater to prevent the meltdown.
              The r

              • The internal pipes were destroyed. They tried to pump sea water through them, until the water came out of the building.

                There would have been no scramble to inject seawater to prevent the meltdown.
                As we both know: the melt down was (a) week(s) later. Not related at all to lost diesel generators.
                But perhaps your memory is getting weak. Or the false information everywhere is more persistent in your memory, than what actually happened.

                • No. [world-nuclear.org]
                  The primary cooling loop was not damaged. You are thinking of the seawater loops (Residual Heat Removal)
                  That system was relevant because the primary circulation pumps had no power, so they they had to vent steam to prevent an explosion. This is the point where fuel first started melting.

                  You are mixing up different coolant loops and their importance.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        First you need to understand that the city of Fukushima was evacuated for 10 years and everyone there lost everything except what they could carry.

        Next you need to understand that the disaster was completely preventable if the CEOs had done what the engineers had been telling them to do for years.

        Finally you need to understand that the CEOs got away Scott free and the public at large blamed the engineers. There were no consequences and there have been no changes to the regulatory framework that allowed the

        • Unfortunately, I'm convinced nuclear could only truly be safe with an infinite budget and no budget-based performance metrics.
          The science and engineering behind it isn't hard. We're more than capable, as you mentioned. But frankly, no matter who runs the fucking things, due to their cost, money is going to be a factor, and corners are going to be cut, and the risk involved in that is just too fucking high.

      • This website is full of tech nerds and we don't like to think about or talk about social problems.

        Well put... Took me a few decades to figure this out. Solving social problems with if then else simply does not work. Our brains are just too limited. So if we find a way to upgrade our brains then we can solve all our problems, else this chaos will be here for ever. Damn! Did it again.

    • No amount of "upgrades" will never ensure that it won't ever happen again. This is a "homo sapiens" problem, not an engineering problem.

  • wait - what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by AnnoyingBastard ( 8138122 ) on Saturday December 27, 2025 @12:51PM (#65884805)
    The post title contains: "Japan Votes to Restart Fukushima Nuclear Plant" None of the three linked articles in the post body talk about restarting the Fukishima nuclear plant. So what is this? sloppy editor, hallucinating LLM, both, other?

  • Get off my lawn.

  • The greatest fallacy about deactivated nuke plants (Score:4, Funny)

    by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Saturday December 27, 2025 @01:24PM (#65884855)

    Is that the atoms stop splitting. They don't.

    Here in Massachusetts, the Pilgrim nuclear plant was "decomissioned" in 2018. The treehuggers rejoiced as if all the bad scary radiation was going to go away.

    It didn't.

    Since Harry Reid killed the Yucca Mountain waste storage site back in the early 2010s, all deactivated plants simply take the fuel rods out of their reactors and store them on-site where they're still decomposing into fission byproducts (if a bit more slowly) but instead of dumping their heat somewhere useful like a steam turbine, it's just going out into space.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's not ideal, but at least the probability of meltdown is greatly reduced in that scenario. It also reduced the CO2 emissions of the plant, including those from fuel mining.

  • "60% of residents did not think" (Score:3)

    by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Saturday December 27, 2025 @03:33PM (#65885017)

    This is the problem
    People who know nothing and base their opinion on fear

  • Japan should be seeking renewable energy > investing in a system to radiate shrimp for export.

  • Don't build your nuclear power station near a tectonic plate fault line.

Slashdot Top Deals

On a clear disk you can seek forever. -- P. Denning

Close