Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday December 09 2016, @05:20AM   Printer-friendly
from the dirty-money dept.

Tepco is being loaned more interest-free money to cleanup after the Fukushima disaster:

Japan will increase an interest-free loan to the operator of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power (9501.T), by more than a third to 14 trillion yen ($123 billion), a source familiar with the matter said on Thursday. The increase in the loan from 9 trillion yen is to cover the costs for compensation and decontamination areas around the plant, according to the source.

[...] The disaster is likely to cost 22.6 trillion yen ($199 billion), more than double an earlier government estimate.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday December 09 2016, @07:49PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Friday December 09 2016, @07:49PM (#439352) Journal

    * With sane safety - about as expensive as coal to build (but cheaper to operate)
    * With current safety - most expensive to build.

    You're advocating that safety measures be lessened to save money, in a topic about Fukushima clean-up costs, really?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Friday December 09 2016, @09:12PM

    by Aiwendil (531) on Friday December 09 2016, @09:12PM (#439401) Journal

    Yes. Having more safety in the reactors themselves wouldn't have helped much, but having better mitigation systems (like filters for emergency venting - we installed that back in the 80s in sweden and finland [as a response to TMI]) would have reduced the release to being doubtful if it would have gone far beyond plant boundary.

    Also, forcing a plant to stay below 20mSv/yr has no medical advantage (takes about 50mSv/yr before it might get iffy for the odd smoker) but only adds costs. Then we also have the part with radiation-restrictions are tougher for nuclear than coal in most countries that has both.

    So - having upgraded the Fukushima I - 1-4 plants with better mitigation would have helped, better safety wouldn't have helped at reactor-level (but might have at plant-level). But the "fun" part is that in the case of Fukushima-1 "more safety" would just have meant more drowned diesel-generators ("more safety" has little to do with "better safety" (take a look at the ESBWR for a reactor with less and better safety))

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday December 10 2016, @02:59AM

      by butthurt (6141) on Saturday December 10 2016, @02:59AM (#439545) Journal

      Shutting down the reactors at Fukushima and replacing them with a safer design would have been, I daresay, cheaper.

      Some other things that would have helped at Fukushima:

      - devices to catalytically react hydrogen with oxygen, thereby preventing hydrogen explosions
      - larger containment structures, like those at typical nuclear stations
      - a higher sea wall, or putting the station at a higher altitude
      - putting the station in a less earthquake-prone place

      [...] filters for emergency venting - we installed that back in the 80s in sweden and finland [as a response to TMI]) would have reduced the release to being doubtful if it would have gone far beyond plant boundary.

      I don't understand what type of filtration you're writing about. I'm not disputing what you say. Filters proved invaluable at Windscale:

      When [physicist Terence Price] raised the issue [of a possible fire] at a meeting and suggested that filters be added to the chimneys, the concern was dismissed as being too difficult to deal with and was not even recorded in the minutes. Sir John Cockcroft, leading the project team, was alarmed enough to order that filters be installed, which required them to be constructed on the ground while the chimneys were still being built, and then winched into position at the top once the chimney's concrete had set. These became known as "Cockcroft's Folly" by workers and engineers.
      [...]
      The presence of the chimney scrubbers at Windscale was credited with maintaining partial containment and thus minimizing the radioactive content of the smoke that poured from the chimney during the fire. These scrubbers were installed at great expense on the insistence of John Cockcroft and were known as Cockcroft's folly, until the 1957 fire.

      -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire [wikipedia.org]

      Filters were also in place at Three Mile Island; they didn't stop radioactive noble gases from escaping the damaged reactor, but they stopped other substances.

      In the U.S. the use of tanks of water for filtration has been under consideration; gases would be bubbled through the water.

      pages consulted:
      http://safetyfirst.nei.org/safety-and-security/filtered-vents-and-boiling-water-reactors-its-not-about-the-costs/ [nei.org]
      http://www.rebresearch.com/REB_Hydrogen_Nuclear.html [rebresearch.com]
      http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/11/safety-question-on-fukushima-anniversary-should-plants-of-the-same-design-have-filtered-vents/ [nationalgeographic.com]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESBWR [wikipedia.org]
      http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx [world-nuclear.org]

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:51AM

        by Aiwendil (531) on Saturday December 10 2016, @09:51AM (#439636) Journal

        (Btw, thanks for a great discussion)
        Adding filters and/or hydrgen recombiners would have been cheaper than a complete replacement of the reactors (and would have been in the era of sane safety).

        In the context of japan each extra nuclear reactors save a lot if money (due to displacing imported fossil fuel) - so actually replacing a nuclear reactor would be both costly to propose and would just end up with the old reactors still running until end of life (always been amazed japan doesn't go the korean or french route in regards to nuclear)

        - devices to catalytically react hydrogen with oxygen, thereby preventing hydrogen explosions

        Hydrogen recombiners - yup, great mitigation system.

        - larger containment structures, like those at typical nuclear stations

        Would required a complete rebuild of the reactor. Also, the BWR Mark I was the typical containment at the time the Fukushima I 1-4 reactors where built.

        - a higher sea wall, or putting the station at a higher altitude

        Plant-wide safety, but yeah - this would have worked as long as long as an even higher wave didn't hit

        - putting the station in a less earthquake-prone place

        The reactors handled the earthquake just fine, it was the water that was an issue

        One really cheap option that would have worked would have been if they had sited the generators in a submersible building, sited generators _inside_ the reactorbuildings (would been considered less safe however), or have had the major powerlines underground (which is a great mitigation against lightningstrikes, fires and typhoons as well).

        The filters I mention are the ABB-designed Multi Venturi Scrubber System ("haverifilter") - interesting enough ABB tried to sell them internatiinally (incl to the japanese) in the early 1990s. (A more expensive but similar option is the vacuumbuilding use for CANDUs).

        Oooh, the filters you describe being considred seems like the MVSS mentioned above.

        Kinda sad that we sold off ASEA/ABB (now part of the Westinghouse-division of Toshiba) - their nuclear division made some seriously interesting things (BWR90+ for instance).