Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


(27,509 posts)
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 06:02 AM Dec 2012

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.
UPDATE: Tsuruga nuclear plant may have to be decommissioned as active fault found (Original Post) bananas Dec 2012 OP
The most ill-conceived idea man has come up with madokie Dec 2012 #1
We're not "stopping global warming." joshcryer Dec 2012 #2
Nope. In fact....... NickB79 Dec 2012 #10
Meh. What could possibly go wrong? VWolf Dec 2012 #3
And so... marions ghost Dec 2012 #4
So you are asking...whose fault is it? dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #6
yeah marions ghost Dec 2012 #7
*rimshot* sakabatou Dec 2012 #8
was wondering if anyone would get it. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #9
The Tsuruga unit was completed in 1966 Art_from_Ark Dec 2012 #11
They got lucky marions ghost Dec 2012 #12
They did get lucky Art_from_Ark Dec 2012 #13
I agree with 3 out of 4 of your claims OP. cstanleytech Dec 2012 #5


(18,600 posts)
10. Nope. In fact.......
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 03:31 PM
Dec 2012

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.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
4. And so...
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:10 AM
Dec 2012

why did they build this there in the first place? The Japanese standards must be no better than American.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
7. yeah
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 02:04 PM
Dec 2012

that would be the question...

At least Japan is starting to do something bout the most glaring offenses.


(27,247 posts)
11. The Tsuruga unit was completed in 1966
Wed Dec 12, 2012, 09:23 PM
Dec 2012

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.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
12. They got lucky
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 01:22 PM
Dec 2012

probably time to mothball it anyway...

Such naivete about earthquakes. If Japan and the world don't learn from Fukushima, then just too stoopid.


(27,247 posts)
13. They did get lucky
Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:15 PM
Dec 2012

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.


(25,660 posts)
5. I agree with 3 out of 4 of your claims OP.
Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:16 AM
Dec 2012

Those 3 are that nuclear energy is currently dangerous, dirty and expensive especially when you factor in long term storage for spent fuel.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»UPDATE: Tsuruga nuclear p...