Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:02 AM
bananas (24,576 posts)
UPDATE: Tsuruga nuclear plant may have to be decommissioned as active fault found
Source: Asahi Shimbun
Japan Atomic Power Co. may have to decommission one of its reactors after seismologists concluded the plant is sitting over an active fault line, potentially the first permanent shutdown of a nuclear unit in Japan since the Fukushima disaster last year.
A panel of seismologists and geologists with Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) has been reviewing geological records and this month visited the Tsuruga nuclear power plant to watch the results of drilling and other tests.
"There is no way we can carry out the safety assessments (that are required) for a restart," the chairman of the NRA, Shunichi Tanaka, said on Dec. 10 at an open meeting after being presented with the panel's assessment that there is an active fault under the plant's No. 2 reactor.
But about 160 geological fault lines cut across the premises of the Tsuruga nuclear power plant, including some that lie directly beneath its two reactor buildings. In addition, the Urasoko fault, which is active, runs about 200 meters east of the reactor buildings.
Read more: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201212110030
Nuclear energy is dangerous, dirty, expensive, and unnecessary for stopping global warming.
13 replies, 2237 views
UPDATE: Tsuruga nuclear plant may have to be decommissioned as active fault found (Original post)
|marions ghost||Dec 2012||#4|
|marions ghost||Dec 2012||#7|
|marions ghost||Dec 2012||#12|
Response to joshcryer (Reply #2)
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:31 PM
NickB79 (11,665 posts)
10. Nope. In fact.......
Increased use of fossil fuels for power generation was the main driving force behind a rise in Japanese greenhouse gas emissions for 2011, even though the country saw a fall in manufacturing output.
Response to marions ghost (Reply #4)
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:23 PM
Art_from_Ark (21,465 posts)
11. The Tsuruga unit was completed in 1966
That is, more than 45 years ago when much, much less was known about geological faults in the area. Although the city of Fukui up the Sea of Japan coast from Tsuruga had had a major earthquake in 1948, it was thought at the time that Tsuruga was in a more stable geological area and that the seismic design of the unit could withstand a similar earthquake. Also, the Tsuruga unit is in a relatively sparsely populated area, and Fukui Prefecture (where Tsuruga is located) welcomed the reactor at the time because it would bring lots of jobs and money to what had been a fairly poor area of the country.
Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #11)
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:22 PM
marions ghost (18,194 posts)
12. They got lucky
probably time to mothball it anyway...
Such naivete about earthquakes. If Japan and the world don't learn from Fukushima, then just too stoopid.
Response to marions ghost (Reply #12)
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:15 PM
Art_from_Ark (21,465 posts)
13. They did get lucky
That 1948 earthquake was a really bad one. But apparently it was not so bad in Tsuruga, which perhaps gave people there a false sense of security.
There is yet another nuclear reactor at Mihama just down the coast a little bit from Tsuruga, that was completed in 1967 and went into operation in 1970. I imagine that one will be mothballed as well.
Response to bananas (Original post)
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:16 AM
cstanleytech (7,896 posts)
5. I agree with 3 out of 4 of your claims OP.
Those 3 are that nuclear energy is currently dangerous, dirty and expensive especially when you factor in long term storage for spent fuel.