This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

News Japan to restart the world’s largest nuclear power plant in Kashiwazaki

thomas

Unswerving cyclist
Admin
Joined
14 Mar 2002
Messages
21,057
Reaction score
18,914
Japanese regulators have approved the restart of the world's largest nuclear power plant, which has been shut down for more than a decade since the Fukushima disaster. Japan seeks to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. In Niigata Prefecture, where the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant is located, the prefectural assembly approved legislation on Monday allowing Tokyo Electric Power Company to proceed with plans to bring one of the facility's seven reactors back into operation, despite lingering concerns among residents. The utility is aiming to restart the No. 6 reactor around 20 January.


TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Kashiwazaki, Niigata (via Asahi).









 
That didn't go well.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. on 22 January halted the restart of the No. 6 reactor at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant only hours after operations resumed, after an alarm sounded during the withdrawal of control rods. The reactor, brought online for the first time in 14 years, began its start-up sequence at 7:02 p.m. on 21 January and reached criticality—sustained nuclear fission—by 8:28 p.m. An alarm was triggered at about 12:28 a.m. the following day while a third set of control rods was being removed.

TEPCO said the process calls for withdrawing 205 rods in groups of 26. The utility suspects a fault in the control rod operating system; a component was replaced, but the issue continued.


 
The reactor, brought online for the first time in 14 years, ...
So it's an experiment. I wonder what kind of ongoing attention and maintenance there was over that period--and was it done for simply for preserving the safety of a shut down reactor, or for a restart like this. Even if both, it's an experiment to see if they got it right.

I also wonder what was the initial projected lifespan of these (and I know that they're often re-certified for another 10 or 20yrs or more after that, I'm just wondering).

The article doesn't mention the other reactors there, timelines for those, similar problems or not, and so on.
 
Considering that TEPCO's track record for maintenance, especially expensive maintenance, is not great I would guess that if any was done over those 14 years that it was likely the bare minimum they thought they could get away with or that the government forced them to do.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…