[mpweiher]

> single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years.

Comically incorrect.

The Tsunami took out a single reactor.

Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors. Just like human overreaction took out Germany's accident-free, reliable and cost-effective reactor fleet.

> Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry".

Incorrect. The elected Japanese government.

> "3-fold" also means, that they just want to restart some of the old reactors.

Interesting interpretation of the 3-fold commitment from Japan. I doubt it's actually a correct interpretation.

Let's see:

"Japan adopted a plan on Thursday to extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors, replace the old and even build new ones, ..."

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144990722/japan-nuclear-powe...

"Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct. And that's just one country out of the 22 who signed the pledge. And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China.

Germany's phase out has been a great advertisement for nuclear power.

[lispm]

> Comically incorrect. The Tsunami took out a single reactor.

If you don't know it, the Fukushima power plant had six reactors. Three reactors had meltdowns. Four of the six reactors were destroyed. The remaining two are in shutdown since then.

The Tsunami was caused by a strong (series of) Earthquake. The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country, not just the Tsunami.

The fact is, and this is not comical, today only 12 of 54 reactors are running. More than a decade later.

> Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors.

That only shows that you are living in an alternate reality, where you are the expert and you know better than the authorities in a country, where the actual event happened. I doubt that you have any more experience of nuclear technology than the authorities in Japan.

> "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct.

You can't fully read the thing you posted? Look here:

"Under the new policy, Japan will also push for the development and construction of "next-generation innovative reactors" to replace about 20 reactors now set for decommissioning."

So they will lose 20 reactors. They also want to develop a next generation and deploy it. How many? Doesn't say. When? Doesn't say. What technology? Doesn't say. They say "next generation". Clear: 20 reactors will be decommissioned. Unclear: when and how they want to replace them. Many of the reactors to be decommissioned are probably not even running now, since only 12 reactors are online.

My guess: it won't happen. Second guess: if it happens, it'll take >30 years.

The "next generation" (then) EPR in France has cost increase estimations between four and six times. Planning and construction is now ongoing for roughly 25 years. (-> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(Kernkraftwerk)#Beginn_der... -> "Bereits 1998 wurde das grundsätzliche Design der Anlage festgelegt.")

The only thing which is sure: it will be late and extremely expensive. Plus: the decommissioning of 20 reactors will cost > 100 billion USD.

Japan is a fast aging country. Where do they get the engineers for all this from? Japan expected to lose 20% of its population until around 2050.

> And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China.

In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online. Now. -> https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/chinas-coal-po...

India has 3% of electricity production from nuclear. Tripling that over the next decades won't change much. 72% of electricity is generated from coal.

Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ...

You just need to check the existing capacity for various power plants and the newly built capacity for power plants from the last years. The trend is clear: nuclear stagnates and struggles to replace aging capacity. Renewable energy is massively expanding, world wide.

[mpweiher]

> six reactors.

Pardon me: a single power plant. Well, not even a whole power plant. Parts of a single power plant. Doesn't change anything.

> The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country

You are trying to insinuate that the earthquake somehow caused damage to the plants so that they needed to be shut down. This is not the case:

"Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

The reactors were fine. The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

>> "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct.

> You can't fully read the thing you posted?

Yes I can. Alas, you don't seem to be able to read or remember what you wrote:

>>> "3-fold" just means, that they want to restart some of the old reactors.

This was false and continues to be false. They are building new ones.

> In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online.

Yes, in addition to building out nuclear and renewables, China is als still building coal plants.

Can you explain how that is related to anything? I mean, they als build cities, bridges, railway lines, ships, ...

> Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ...

Citation needed.

Nuclear is quicker than renewables. France converted their electricity to nuclear in 20 years. Germany has taken 20 years so far to try the same with renewables and we are flailing. We have the 2nd most expensive and 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. And we haven't even started on the more difficult part yet.

> ...the last years.

The underinvestment into nuclear in the last 10-20 years is a well-known problem that is just now being corrected. Linearly extrapolating the past is ... not wise. Particularly when there has been a massive policy change.

Germany is alone in the world with its Atomausstieg. The rest of the world is looking at us with pity and bemusement while they build reliable, grid-level electricity generating capacity in the form of nuclear reactors.

[lispm]

> Pardon me: a single power plant. Well, not even a whole power plant. Parts of a single power plant. Doesn't change anything.

A large power plant with six reactors. Zero of them are operating anymore. None will. Nothing of that was a political decision.

> The reactors were fine.

Fukushima reactors have three melted cores. They are fine?

> The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

Look, you claim that you are knowing it better than the authorities in Japan. This is laughable.

[mpweiher]

>> The reactors were fine.

> Fukushima reactors have three melted cores.

We were talking about the non-Fukushima reactors. Which you claim were "shut down by the earthquake".

Which were not shut down by the earthquake.

>> The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

> Look, you claim that you are knowing it better than the authorities in Japan. This is laughable.

No, I am quoting. Once again:

"Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

They withstood the earthquake. They were not shut down by the earthquake.

The one claims to know better than the Japanese authorities is the one who says they are not building new plants, just reactivating old plants. When the Japanese themselves say they will be building new plants.

[lispm]

> They withstood the earthquake. They were not shut down by the earthquake.

You know nothing about safety of nuclear power plants in Japan?

There is a nuclear power plant. Then there is a strong earthquake.

Technical systems will automatically shutdown the powerplant, if the earthquake is of a certain strengths. If not, it might be shutdown because of other factors (like loss of outside electricity).

Then one does not know the state of the power plant.

Then an inspection will determine the state of the powerplant. It might also be the case that damage was minor. Still the question again: is this powerplant still safe to operate? Will it survive another earthquake? Are the assumptions about the strength of earthquake still correct etc.

It will be determined if powerplants will need technical improvements, for example powerplants on the coast might need better flood protections. It is then seen if technical improvements are possible & economical.

Take for example Fukushima Daini, another nuclear powerplant on the coast:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_...

To make it clear to you: Daini is ANOTHER power plant and not the Daiichi powerplant. It also sits on the coast and it has four reactors. A single powerplant with four reactors, on the coast. Affected by both the Earthquake and the Tsunami (which was caused by the Earthquake).

"All four units were automatically shut down (scram) immediately after the earthquake"

"The tsunami caused the plant's seawater pumps, used to cool reactors, to fail. Of the plant's four reactors, three were in danger of meltdown.[19] One external high-voltage power line still functioned, allowing plant staff in the central control room to monitor data on internal reactor temperatures and water levels. 2,000 employees of the plant worked to stabilize the reactors. Some employees connected over 9 kilometers of cabling using 200-meter sections of cable, each weighing more than a ton, from their Rad Waste Building to other locations onsite."

"The tsunami that followed the earthquake and inundated the plant was initially estimated by TEPCO to be 14 meters high, which would have been more than twice the designed height.[11] Other sources give the tsunami height at Fukushima Daini plant at 9-meter-high"

"In unit 3, one seawater pump remained operational and the residual heat removal system (RHR) was started to cool the suppression pool and later brought the reactor to cold shutdown on March 12."

"The loss of cooling water at reactors 1, 2 and 4 was classified a level 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (serious incident) by Japanese authorities as of March 18."

"As of June 2011, 7,000 tons of seawater from the tsunami remained in the plant. The plant planned to release it all back into the ocean, as the tanks and structures holding the water were beginning to corrode. Approximately 3,000 tons of the water was found to contain radioactive substances, and Japan's Fisheries Agency refused permission to release that water back into the ocean."

and so on.

The reactor was early on in a critical state and three more meltdowns were feared.

You did not do any research on what happened with the reactors in Japan.

Sad.

They had a lot of luck that this powerplant did not have the same fate as the one in Fukushima Daiichi.

TEPCO has closed the plant and it will be decommissioned.

The Japanese nuclear industry was prone to corruption, incompetence and criminal behavior. Especially TEPCO the owner of the plants:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/fumbling-toward-f...

"On March 2, 2011, just days before the start of the current earthquake catastrophe, Japan's nuclear regulators lobbed accusations of mass negligence against Tepco. It alleged that Tepco had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, one of the sites of the current catastrophe, including central cooling system elements in the six reactors, and spent fuel pools that hadn't been inspected according to regulations. The company has since admitted to having made the errors."

"At the same time, Tepco also reported to the nuclear regulatory authority that it had not only failed to do the 33 inspections at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, but also 19 further inspections at the nearby Fukushima-Daini plant."

Just shortly before the Earthquake, the reactors were claimed to be safe by Tepco.

[mpweiher]

Thanks for digging up the story about Daini.

Checking the Wikipedia page, this was a sister plant to the one with the meltdown, located very similarly and inundated by the same 14m Tsunami that was twice the height both plants were designed for.

It got a bit luckier and avoided the same fate.

So same kind of plant, same Tsunami, better results.

What exactly was your point here?

Oh, and there was corruption in the Japanese nuclear industry.

I also remember reading about those problems after Fukushima, and that actually informed my change in opinion about nuclear power:

There was corruption, they were using an old design, they disregarded new directives, the Tsunami was unprecedented.

Yet despite all that crap going on, very few people were harmed by the reactor accident, whereas a LOT were harmed by the Tsunami.

Maybe this nuclear stuff isn't nearly as dangerous as I thought?