Tweet
After one 'lost summer' due to disaster, what will this second summer bring?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...414823596.html
In the meantime:
Yokosuka oil fired electricity plant. Capacity 900 Megawatts.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/imports
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...414823596.html
Japanese authorities have introduced stress tests for all nuclear reactors in the country in an effort to ease public worries over nuclear-power safety, but the tests are being called inadequate by some.
The test's computer simulations, meant to show the risk of a meltdown if a plant is damaged by an earthquake or tsunami, have been criticized by experts as being far too narrow and unable to ensure that a disaster like the one at last year's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex won't happen again.
"These tests gauge only the possibility of a meltdown under certain circumstances," which is a very limited aspect of comprehensive reactor safety, said Masashi Goto, a former designer of nuclear reactors.
Mr. Goto, a member of the government's panel reviewing the tests, and other experts in the field warn that the tests have a number of flaws.
One glaring oversight, they say, is the measurement used to determine the test levels for a potentially crippling tidal wave. In at least one case, the perceived maximum level was set at 38 feet—even though Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Daiichi was hit by a 46-foot-high tsunami in the March earthquake and some towns saw waves of up to 132 feet.
They also contend a computer model can't effectively gauge the risk of metal fatigue among plants that have been in service for decades. The first unit at Fukushima Daiichi had been in operation for 40 years when the crisis hit.
But their concerns are also broader in nature.
They say the tests don't explore other types of risks, such as a deliberate attack, and don't look at multiple causes of failure, like what happened at Fukushima Daiichi, which was first hit by a major earthquake and then a tsunami.
"The key issue is whether these tests should be linked to restarting reactors offline," Mr. Goto said.
For Japan, the stakes are high. Since the Fukushima accident in northern Japan in March 2011, none of the nation's reactors have been brought back online after shutdowns for the mandatory inspections that take place on 13-month cycles. At present, just two of Japan's nuclear reactors are still operating and the last one will power down by May.
With nuclear power previously accounting for 30% of Japan's power output, officials are concerned about power supplies for the peak summer period. The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency designed the two-stage tests in July 2011 after then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan told the nation that no reactors would be restarted unless they underwent a thorough round of tests.
So far, utilities have submitted results of the first stage of testing on 16 reactors, with NISA certifying the results for two units, known as Oi Nos. 3 and 4, operated by Kansai Electric Power Co. and serving Osaka in western Japan.
Mr. Goto and another expert on the panel filed immediate protests, citing concerns about the narrow nature of the tests.
One issue with the tests, which were borrowed from Europe, is that they are based on computer models instead of hands-on tests of components, experts say. While groups such as the International Atomic Energy Agency say the tests meet global standards, they aren't typically used to determine if a plant should be operating.
The governor of Fukui prefecture, Issei Nishikawa, said in February that the prefecture wants revised safety regulations that reflect the lessons of Fukushima, rather than relying on theoretical tests. The prefecture hosts all three of Kansai Electric's nuclear plants, including the two Oi units.
The stress test results are "limited findings measured in a specific framework," said Tomoya Ichimura, director of NISA's Nuclear Safety Regulatory Standard division.
He added that it isn't up to the agency to determine if the tests are sufficient to authorize a restart of a reactor. "It depends on how the Nuclear Safety Commission sees the outcome, and how the local communities and the nation receives them—and, finally, the politicians," he said.
Public opinion is running against the use of nuclear power. A survey by national broadcaster NHK found that 51% of respondents said they wanted less reliance on nuclear-power plants, while 27% supported maintaining existing plants.
Also undermining confidence in the approach is the fact that the tests submitted to date were meant to be only one part of the safety equation.
Stage two tests were meant to look at whether utilities would be better able to cope with any new accident.
These tests were due to be completed by the end of 2011, but now completion by the end of the summer is seen as close to impossible.
International experts who took part in a recent meeting of the government's Fukushima investigation panel said Japanese authorities have to demonstrate a culture of safety.
"There is a significant lack of trust in the government and the [nuclear power] operators today by the Japanese public," Richard Meserve, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told the Feb. 25 session. "There has to be a foundation on which trust can be restored."
At the center of the controversy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano, wants to ensure no summer power outages will put more pressure on industry. Big manufacturers already are reeling from the quake, a strong yen and soft overseas markets, prompting them to cut jobs domestically and shift production overseas. Economists say summer power shortages could speed up that trend.
Mr. Edano says he is moving cautiously on the issue, with the safety issue being separated from the problem of a potential supply shortage. He said in a January interview that the government's planning includes "the possibility or option of no nuclear plant restarting by the summer."
The test's computer simulations, meant to show the risk of a meltdown if a plant is damaged by an earthquake or tsunami, have been criticized by experts as being far too narrow and unable to ensure that a disaster like the one at last year's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex won't happen again.
"These tests gauge only the possibility of a meltdown under certain circumstances," which is a very limited aspect of comprehensive reactor safety, said Masashi Goto, a former designer of nuclear reactors.
Mr. Goto, a member of the government's panel reviewing the tests, and other experts in the field warn that the tests have a number of flaws.
One glaring oversight, they say, is the measurement used to determine the test levels for a potentially crippling tidal wave. In at least one case, the perceived maximum level was set at 38 feet—even though Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima Daiichi was hit by a 46-foot-high tsunami in the March earthquake and some towns saw waves of up to 132 feet.
They also contend a computer model can't effectively gauge the risk of metal fatigue among plants that have been in service for decades. The first unit at Fukushima Daiichi had been in operation for 40 years when the crisis hit.
But their concerns are also broader in nature.
They say the tests don't explore other types of risks, such as a deliberate attack, and don't look at multiple causes of failure, like what happened at Fukushima Daiichi, which was first hit by a major earthquake and then a tsunami.
"The key issue is whether these tests should be linked to restarting reactors offline," Mr. Goto said.
For Japan, the stakes are high. Since the Fukushima accident in northern Japan in March 2011, none of the nation's reactors have been brought back online after shutdowns for the mandatory inspections that take place on 13-month cycles. At present, just two of Japan's nuclear reactors are still operating and the last one will power down by May.
With nuclear power previously accounting for 30% of Japan's power output, officials are concerned about power supplies for the peak summer period. The government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency designed the two-stage tests in July 2011 after then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan told the nation that no reactors would be restarted unless they underwent a thorough round of tests.
So far, utilities have submitted results of the first stage of testing on 16 reactors, with NISA certifying the results for two units, known as Oi Nos. 3 and 4, operated by Kansai Electric Power Co. and serving Osaka in western Japan.
Mr. Goto and another expert on the panel filed immediate protests, citing concerns about the narrow nature of the tests.
One issue with the tests, which were borrowed from Europe, is that they are based on computer models instead of hands-on tests of components, experts say. While groups such as the International Atomic Energy Agency say the tests meet global standards, they aren't typically used to determine if a plant should be operating.
The governor of Fukui prefecture, Issei Nishikawa, said in February that the prefecture wants revised safety regulations that reflect the lessons of Fukushima, rather than relying on theoretical tests. The prefecture hosts all three of Kansai Electric's nuclear plants, including the two Oi units.
The stress test results are "limited findings measured in a specific framework," said Tomoya Ichimura, director of NISA's Nuclear Safety Regulatory Standard division.
He added that it isn't up to the agency to determine if the tests are sufficient to authorize a restart of a reactor. "It depends on how the Nuclear Safety Commission sees the outcome, and how the local communities and the nation receives them—and, finally, the politicians," he said.
Public opinion is running against the use of nuclear power. A survey by national broadcaster NHK found that 51% of respondents said they wanted less reliance on nuclear-power plants, while 27% supported maintaining existing plants.
Also undermining confidence in the approach is the fact that the tests submitted to date were meant to be only one part of the safety equation.
Stage two tests were meant to look at whether utilities would be better able to cope with any new accident.
These tests were due to be completed by the end of 2011, but now completion by the end of the summer is seen as close to impossible.
International experts who took part in a recent meeting of the government's Fukushima investigation panel said Japanese authorities have to demonstrate a culture of safety.
"There is a significant lack of trust in the government and the [nuclear power] operators today by the Japanese public," Richard Meserve, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told the Feb. 25 session. "There has to be a foundation on which trust can be restored."
At the center of the controversy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano, wants to ensure no summer power outages will put more pressure on industry. Big manufacturers already are reeling from the quake, a strong yen and soft overseas markets, prompting them to cut jobs domestically and shift production overseas. Economists say summer power shortages could speed up that trend.
Mr. Edano says he is moving cautiously on the issue, with the safety issue being separated from the problem of a potential supply shortage. He said in a January interview that the government's planning includes "the possibility or option of no nuclear plant restarting by the summer."
Yokosuka oil fired electricity plant. Capacity 900 Megawatts.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/imports
Japan’s trade deficit widened to a record level in January, as falling exports combined with surging imports of energy.
Imports rose 9.8 per cent from a year earlier, while exports were down 9.3 per cent, resulting in a record monthly deficit of Y1.48tn ($19bn).
Last year Japan’s trade balance fell into an annual deficit for the first time since 1980, driven by subdued global demand and soaring fossil fuel imports in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power crisis.
The timing of the new year holiday in China, which this year fell in January rather than February, also affected the year-on-year comparison. Japan’s exports to China fell by a fifth, while imports increased by 8 per cent, almost doubling the trade deficit with China to Y588bn. China is easily Japan’s biggest export market, accounting for 21 per cent of total shipments in January.
Import data underlined Japan’s rising dependence on imports of coal and liquefied natural gas, to substitute for nuclear plants idled after the Fukushima crisis. Mineral fuel imports increased 24 per cent year on year, accounting for three-quarters of the overall rise in the value of imports.
Imports rose 9.8 per cent from a year earlier, while exports were down 9.3 per cent, resulting in a record monthly deficit of Y1.48tn ($19bn).
Last year Japan’s trade balance fell into an annual deficit for the first time since 1980, driven by subdued global demand and soaring fossil fuel imports in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear power crisis.
The timing of the new year holiday in China, which this year fell in January rather than February, also affected the year-on-year comparison. Japan’s exports to China fell by a fifth, while imports increased by 8 per cent, almost doubling the trade deficit with China to Y588bn. China is easily Japan’s biggest export market, accounting for 21 per cent of total shipments in January.
Import data underlined Japan’s rising dependence on imports of coal and liquefied natural gas, to substitute for nuclear plants idled after the Fukushima crisis. Mineral fuel imports increased 24 per cent year on year, accounting for three-quarters of the overall rise in the value of imports.
Comment