Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

14. Does this describe the view you are laying out?

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 07:19 PM

Dec 2011

Gov't should play leading role in decommissioning crippled nuclear reactors

...

Due to high levels of radiation, it is extremely difficult for workers to enter the buildings housing the crippled reactors, requiring the development of 14 kinds of new technology, including a remotely-controlled robot, to recover and manage melted fuel.

"We've instructed the plant operator not to delay the work because of high costs," Goshi Hosono, state minister for nuclear accident countermeasures, told a news conference.

Still, some government officials are skeptical of the feasibility of the decommissioning plan. "We don't know whether the reactors can be decommissioned and dismantled in 30 to 40 years until the work is actually done," one of them said.

If the development of necessary technology proves a serious challenge, the time and money required to decommission and dismantle the reactors will certainly increase....

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20111222p2a00m0na005000c.html

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYT - Japanese Government Says Decommissioning Fukushima Reactors Will Take 40 Years [View all] hatrack Dec 2011 OP

Notice there is no mention of cost in the NYT piece... kristopher Dec 2011 #1

1.151 trillion yen Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #2

But what did they cost to build in the first place? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #3

Since the public is going to have to pay eventually, TEPCO's shareholder value should disappear now Kolesar Dec 2011 #4

TEPCO appears to be on track to be nationalized kristopher Dec 2011 #5

Good. joshcryer Dec 2011 #6

Transferring liability to the public is good? kristopher Dec 2011 #8

Which way do you think the job will be done better? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #10

If a for-profit company does it under proper regulatory oversight. kristopher Dec 2011 #11

How soon did you want work to begin? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #12

I'm not sure of your point kristopher Dec 2011 #13

Well, this is the model you said you prefer, a for-profit company with government oversight OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #15

I think you'd eventually have a raft of problems just as bad as you now see. kristopher Dec 2011 #17

Well, I think the motivations are different here OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #21

True. kristopher Dec 2011 #22

Actually after considering it a bit I see a problem. kristopher Dec 2011 #23

Lack of funding isn�t a problem OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #31

Anything that is legislated can change. kristopher Dec 2011 #32

And your point here would be? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #33

It isn't black and white thinking kristopher Dec 2011 #34

�Anything that is legislated can change.� OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #35

Apparently you've lost the ability to reason... kristopher Dec 2011 #36

Does this describe the view you are laying out? kristopher Dec 2011 #14

The lead paragraphs sums it up nicely OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #16

I can see that perspective. kristopher Dec 2011 #19

Why should anyone profit off of a major disaster? tinrobot Dec 2011 #25

You have it wrong. kristopher Dec 2011 #29

To play Devil's Advocate here XemaSab Dec 2011 #30

Nuclear shouldn't be in the hands of for-profit corporations. joshcryer Dec 2011 #18

And energy shouldn't be in the hands of governments that amass power over people. kristopher Dec 2011 #20

Profit always trumps environment. Strong regulations can help... joshcryer Dec 2011 #24

What energy sources? Nuclear? kristopher Dec 2011 #28

Of course... letting the likes of Enron run wild makes perfect sense. tinrobot Dec 2011 #26

Nothing I wrote endorses that. kristopher Dec 2011 #27

They've been decomissioning Hanford pscot Dec 2011 #7

Hanford, the gift that keeps on giving... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #9