Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) has said that it may use the robot to inspect the suppression chamber of Japan‘s Fukushima Daiichi plant, where a meltdown triggered by the massive tsunami caused nuclear devastation last year. Toshiba began developing the robot soon after the disaster, hoping that it would prove useful in decommissioning the plant. No human has yet been able to enter the highly radiated chamber and the new robot, which features a dosimeter to measure radiation, can stay in a 100 millisievert environment for about a year and can tolerate even higher radiated areas for shorter periods. At 100 millisieverts, the rise in cancer cases caused by radiation becomes statistically detectable, and the last time it was measured by TEPCO, the Fukushima suppression chamber was 360 millisieverts.

However, although many were impressed by the robotics of the new creation, there was doubt as to the real impact such a machine might be able to have, given the magnitude and complexity of the disaster. During a demonstration to reporters, the robot showed itself to be prone to glitches, and on one occasion froze and had to be rebooted. Although its jointed legs are operated by a ‘movement algorithm’ to allow it to climb steps, it was noticeably slow in this endeavour, taking about a minute to mount each step. Reporters from Japan Today questioned the robot‘s potential to successfully clear obstacles inside the plant, as it is thought to be full of debris; the current model of the machine may need as long as ten minutes to figure out how to clear an object. It is currently also unable to get up on its own if it falls.

Toshiba were, however, adamant that such a machine would be useful in the project of decommissioning the plant. Senior Manager Goro Yanase said, “we need this to go in and first check what is there”. The company said that it is still working on designs with the aim of creating robots able to install radiation shields, stop water flow and remove obstacles as part of clean up and dismantling project at the plant.

It was unclear when a decision on the robot’s use inside the plant would be made by TEPCO, but the decommissioning project is expected to take decades.

Sources include: Japan Today, The Register

————————————————————————————-

The Japanese Connection offers a wide range of Japanese translation or interpreting services worldwide, with specialists in many areas including engineering and technical fields. To find out how our services can assist you, please visit our website or contact us directly by email.

Members of: ATC, ITI, Proz

See our LinkedIn profile or visit us on Twitter

Image via CrunchBase

rubicon lychee (Photo credit: osde8info)

Nov. 21

According to Business Insider Yahoo is seeking to expand via Merger and Acquisition and has set its criteria when analyzing targets:

Available at http://www.amazon.com

Related articles

• Marissa Mayer’s Comeback Plan: Take On Google And Facebook (huffingtonpost.com)

Available at http://www.amazon.com

 

AND Give The Gift Of Money This Christmas The Gold Investor’s Handbook – click here for  investment profits and much more detail on the ins and outs of investing in gold 

Available at http://www.amazon.com

Mitsuhisa Watanabe is a tectonic geomorphologist and one-fifth of a five man team charged by the Nuclear Regulation Authority with the task of investigating the tectonic landscape beneath the nuclear plant in Oi, Fukui Prefecture, the only plant to have resumed operation since last year’s nuclear disaster in Fukushima.

Watanabe’s research strongly suggests that the plant, including important water pipe equipment for half of the plant’s nuclear reactors, is located above an active seismic fault.

The geologist, along with other experts on the panel, have determined that the underground structure on which the plant stands has showed movement as long ago as 125,000 years. Watanabe suggests that this underground movement is due to faultline activity, and has called for the plant to cease operation immediately until further research has been carried out, concerned that failure to do so could result in a repeat of Fukushima, the tsunami-triggered nuclear meltdown that left hundreds of thousands of people without homes. “We are not seeking to decommission the plant,” Watanabe said. “We should first stop operation and then carry out underground investigation thoroughly before reaching a conclusion.”

Whilst it is against government regulations to run a nuclear plant under an active fault line (where ‘active’ is classed as any seismic fault that has shifted in the past 130,000 years), the plant is still in operation. Watanabe claims that the line has showed activity in the past 130,000 years, though other members of the team are reluctant to close the plant, suggesting instead that the land scarring is due to nothing more than a past landslide, rather than any seismic activity. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology researcher Norio Shigematsu has cautioned jumping to any conclusion until more experts are consulted.

The experts may remain in disagreement, but the several thousand protesters that joined together in Tokyo’s government district this Sunday spoke with a different voice, as shouts of “No need to wait for the panel’s finding! We must stop the Oi plant now!” could be heard outside parliament. After the Japanese government’s declaration in September of their plans to phase out nuclear power in Japan by 2040, the issue of nuclear power and public safety has never been so important.

Watanabe is keen that seismologists do not underestimate the possible effects of future earthquakes. “We have to sound the alarm as soon as we find the possibility of active faults,” he said. “The accident in Fukushima had really never been imagined. Scientists must learn from that.”

Sources include Japan Today

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

If you need Japanese translation or interpreting services worldwide, the Japanese Connection offers a wide range of services, with specialists in nuclear energy, business, finance and more. For more information, please visit our website or contact us directly by email. Alternatively, visit our sister site for professional translation and intepretation services in multiple languages across the globe.  For more information, please visit our website, or send us an email.

Members of: ATC, ITI, Proz

See our LinkedIn profile or visit us on Twitter

The definition of insanity, according to Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results – What can the man who gave the world the theory of relativity – a critical discovery on the road to nuclear energy (and weapons) – tell us about Turkey’s troubled nuclear tender process? A lot 

Plagued by a chronic trade imbalance, fueled largely by its reliance on foreign energy suppliers, Turkey has long identified nuclear power as critical for its energy future. The Turkish government has engaged foreign companies for the sale of nuclear power reactors in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s. In all cases, the government justified its interest in nuclear power by arguing that Turkey’s energy use was increasing, its reliance on unstable foreign energy suppliers was growing, and that it needed nuclear energy to combat both issues. Despite its enthusiasm, Turkey’s efforts to come to terms with foreign suppliers have been plagued by a slow tender process, internal instability, and the government’s refusal to provide financial guarantees for foreign nuclear firms. Turkey has, since at least the 1980s, insisted that the contracting firm provide 100 percent of the financing, partner with a private firm, and recoup expense from guaranteed electricity sales. Eager nuclear companies have agreed to this unique model, but have conditioned the conclusion of contracts on the government guaranteeing the loans needed for construction. Turkey has refused to provide these guarantees, which inevitably leads to the break down in talks and the eventual cancellation of the tender.  Despite having dropped the tender process – in favor of bilateral negotiations – Turkey is still following the same financial playbook. If Ankara does not change its demands, or Western/Asian (non-Chinese) suppliers don’t have a radical change of heart, Turkey will not be able to meet its very ambitious nuclear power plans. Will Turkey cut corners to fulfill its promise to derive 5 percent of its energy from nuclear power by 2023? Or will Turkey change its terms? The answer is likely to dictate Turkey’s nuclear future.

Turkey first decided to pursue a build-operate-transfer financing model for its 1983 nuclear tender. Turgut Ozal, the late Prime Minster and former President, argued that the supplying company should pay 100 percent of the construction cost, operate the reactor for a specified period of time, and then transfer the operation and ownership to a local firm. The foreign nuclear firm would recoup its expenses through guaranteed electricity sales at a fixed cost. Once the specific time had elapsed, and the reactor had been transferred to the Turkish private company that had partnered on the original deal, the Turkish company would pay a percentage of the plant’s profits to the constructing firm.

This financing model had never been used for nuclear reactor construction before it was first proposed by Turkish atomic energy officials. Canada’s AECL, which was eager to win a nuclear contract in the lucrative Middle Eastern market, emerged as the front runner for Turkey’s 1980s era nuclear tender. Progress, however, slowed when the two sides began discussing the BOT financing model. AECL appeared willing to accept BOT, but when it approached the Canada’s Export Development Bank for the multi-billion dollar loan, the financing officials (very naturally) wanted some collateral – namely a guarantee from the Turkish government. Turkey refused, the deal fell through, and the tender was eventually cancelled in the late 1980s.

Eager to try again, Turkey invited suppliers to submit bids for the construction of nuclear power plants at the Akkuyu site in 1996. Necmettin Erbakan, Turkey’s former Islamist Prime Minister, was reported to have favored the AECL bid. Erbakan believed that the Candu heavy water reactor, which operates on non-enriched fuel, would allow Turkey to use its own domestic uranium reserves to power the reactor. This would allow Turkey to be more self sufficient. Erbakan was eventually forced from office in 1997 in what has been dubbed Turkey’s post-modern coup. After Erbakan’s forced departure, Mesut Yilmaz, Turkey’s more pro-Western Prime Minister, was reported to have favored Westinghouse’s nuclear bid. Yilmaz delayed the tender process to accommodate Westinghouse’s proposal, drawing the ire of French and German nuclear companies competing for the contract. Nevertheless, the tender process was continually delayed (the Turkish government missed seven self-imposed deadlines), and eventually cancelled in 2001. The government had made clear that it supported the BOT financial model; however, the mis-managed tender process prevented negotiations with any suppliers from reaching an advanced stage.

Turkey tried again in 2008, launching another tender for the construction of nuclear reactors at the Akkuyu site. However, this time around only a Russian consortium made up of Inter RAO, Atomstroiexport and Turkey’s Park Teknik submitted a bid. The other Western and Asian suppliers passed, simply sending thank you notes. They quietly made clear that Turkey’s 2015 deadline to begin construction and . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . the BOT financing model were the two major reasons for the lack of interest. Turkey, which appeared to be caught off guard by the lack of Western/Asian interest, found itself in a bind. The Russian consortium appeared willing to accept a build operate own format (rather than BOT – more on this later), but it wanted to charge Turkey 21.35 US cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). Turkey had set its price point at 12.35 US cents per-kWh. After Turkey proposed its counter offer, the Russian consortium agreed to the price change. The new terms raised questions about the legality of the last minute price change and prompted officials to cancel the tender, rather than risk being sued by Western/Asian energy companies.

Rather than pursue a new nuclear tender, Turkey and Russia opted to negotiate bilaterally. The two sides struck a deal in May 2010 for a Rosatom led consortium to build-own-and operate four 1200 MWe VVER (AES-2006) units at a cost of  $20 billion. The reactors will be 100 percent Russian owned, though Rosatom has indicated that it may sell a 49 percent stake in the managing company to a local Turkish company. Turkey has agreed to buy 70 percent of the energy output from the first two reactors for 15 years, or until 2030, for 12.35 US cents per-kWh. Turkey has also agreed to buy 30 percent of the output from reactors three and four for 15 years at the same price. Russia will sell the excess energy at market rates. After the contract expires, and recouping its initial investment, Rosatom will pay 20 percent of the profits made at the Akkuyu site to the Turkish government. Rosatom has agreed to go ahead with construction without receiving financial guarantees from the Turkish government.  Rosatom, backed by the Russian government, has  assumed all of the financial risk in the project. Construction was slated to begin 12 months after the signing of the agreement. However, the Turkish government has yet to grant the Rosatom a construction license. Rosatom has announced that they expect to receive the permit in 2014 and begin construction on the reactor in 2015. (This has put the project behind its initial construction timetable)

Buoyed by its success with Rosatom, Turkey turned its attention to securing a second agreement for the construction of power plants at Sinop. Ankara had dropped its pursuit of the open tender process, in favor of bilateral negotiations for reactor sales. Ankara and South Korea’s Kepco began discussion in 2010. The two sides had wanted to sign a reactor construction agreement at the August 2010 G-20 summit, but Kepco and Turkey could not agree on the financing. Kepco reportedly wanted the Turkish government to be the largest stakeholder in the contracting Turkish company (thus guaranteeing the financing); however, Ankara refused, arguing that it wanted Kepco’s partner to be a private company. Thus, the BOO financing model prevented the signing of a construction contract and appears to have been the major reason for the break down in talks in late 2010.

Turkey pursued similar discussions with Japan’s Tepco pre-Fukuishima. Tepco cancelled its negotiations with Turkey shortly after the meltown at the Daichi plant, leading Mitsubishi to step in and begin negotiations. Canada’s AECL has also expressed interest, and the two sides have engaged in discussions for the construction of four Candu reactors at the Sinop site.

China has also had some discussion with Turkey, and has indicated that it is willing to provide 100 percent of the financing without receiving government guarantees. If true, this would mean Beijing is willing to follow the Russian financing model. China, however, is not able to export its most advanced reactor designs. They are being built in cooperation with Areva and Westinghouse, meaning that the two Western firms own the design information. Therefore, China would have to export its older reactor models, which are based on older western designs. While not unsafe in theory, China has little experience exporting reactors. Thus far, its only client outside of mainland China has been Pakistan.

Turkey, therefore, faces a choice. Previous efforts to contract with Western/Asian (non-Chinese) suppliers have failed because of the Turkish government’s refusal to give loan gaurantees. Ankara, therefore, has opted to contract with Russia. While the Russian VVER-1200 is a safe reactor – meeting EU standards – it does little to address Turkey’s original goal of becoming more energy independent. (Turkey is already dependent on Russia for its natural gas) Turkey will rely on Russia for the supply of the reactor’s fuel rods and will return the spent fuel (Though it must be noted that spent fuel sits on site in spent fuel ponds for at least 5 years before being transported back to the country of origin). Moving forward, Ankara appears to be at a crossroads. It remains rhetorically committed to nuclear power, but unwilling to break with precedent and offer loan guarantees. If Ankara opts for the Chinese reactors, it will also have broken its pledge to pursue only the latest and safest nuclear designs.

Therefore, Turkey watchers are likely to be subjected to stories like this for a while, unless one side capitulates. Given the massive costs involved, it remains unlikely that any Western/Asian (non-Chinese) firm will give in to the demands. It simply seems infeasible for a government in a democratic country to underwrite the construction of a multi-billion dollar reactor in a foreign country without any semblance of a financial guarantee. This leads me to believe that Turkey is unlikely to meets its self imposed nuclear goals. However, the negotiations point to a larger issue – namely Turkey’s insistence on an infeasible financing model.  No matter how you spin it, the BOT/BOO format has prevented Turkey’s nuclear expansion. Ankara does not appear to have learned from its previous encounters.  Turkey remains committed to pursuing a failed policy, while also expecting a different result. Insanity.

Japanese media said on Saturday the deal was expected to be worth more than 50 billion yen (£390.1 million) while analysts have put the value of Horizon at about 500 million euros (£401.3 million). Other bids have also been made by the Canadian counterparty SNC-LAvalin and Japan’s Westinghouse, along with its parent company, Toshiba Corp. France’s Avera surprised analysts earlier this month by pulling out of the race, announcing that it was instead bidding with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding.

Horizon’s current owners, German utilities E.ON and RWE, put the venture up for sale in March of this year. Both companies had been suffering from financial difficulties since Germany decided to end its nuclear power by 2022, following the Fukushima disaster. E.ON and RWE are thought to have debts amounting to approximately 75 billion euros (£60 billion).

In contrast with Germany, the UK is planning to significantly expand its nuclear industry, with new power stations expected to come on line by 2025 to replace ageing plants. A sale to Hitachi may prove controversial given that the company plans to build Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWR), which are associated with the Fukushima nuclear plant that used an older Hitachi design of the same reactor. The building of ABWRs may however be some time from now as the new design is yet to be submitted to UK regulators and the design assessment process can take four years.

The new owner of Horizon will be officially announced on Tuesday.

Sources include: Reuters, Japan Today, The Telegraph, The Financial Times

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

If you need Japanese translation or interpreting services worldwide, the Japanese Connection offers a wide range of services, with specialists in nuclear energy, business, finance and more. For more information, please visit our website or contact us directly by email.

Cameco* (CCO : TSX : $18.44)

Denison Mines* (DML : TSX : $1.29)

Paladin Energy* (PDN : TSX : $1.21)

Uranium One* (UUU : TSX : $2.15)

China released details of its latest five-year plan for its energy sector, including the approval of a small number of nuclear power projects along its coast by 2015 as it seeks to “steadily” resume normal construction of nuclear power facilities.

The approval of new nuclear safety and development plans comes after a near 20-month ban by Beijing on approvals of new plants following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. New plants must be built based on the strictest global safety standards and equipment must conform to third-generation safety requirements, the government said in Wednesday’s statement.

Bloomberg noted that the government mapped out “immediate and future” planning for the construction of nuclear power facilities, without specifying when the new plant approvals will resume. Chinese news service, Xinhua News Agency, reported that nuclear power capacity will reach 40 GW by 2015, citing a government source. Xinhua also noted that currently nuclear power accounts for 1.8% of the Asian giant’s total power generating capacity, below the global average of 14%, Xinhua reported.

Related articles

• China Resumes Nuclear Power Plant Construction (voanews.com)

Until now, the company had insisted that nothing could have been done to protect the Fukushima plant against the earthquake and tsunami that triggered three meltdowns at the nuclear plant. In its most recent statement however, TEPCO conceded that the potential political, economic and legal consequences of implementing safety measures had discouraged them from introducing improvements. It had not made any safety improvements since 2002. The fears were that efforts to better protect nuclear facilities from severe accidents such as tsunamis may encourage anti-nuclear sentiment, interfere with operations or increase litigation risks. “There was a worry that if the company were to implement a severe-accident response plan, it would spur anxiety throughout the country and in the communities near where nuclear plants are sited, and lend momentum to the anti-nuclear movement,” the report said.

In its statement, TEPCO said that the impact of the accident could have been mitigated by using multiple power sources and cooling systems. It admitted however that it had not taken this action as it would have required the plant’s temporary closure and added to its costs.

The four damaged reactors at the Fukushima plant are currently being decommissioned by workers, in what could be decades of labour.

Many have criticised the Japanese government for its role in the disaster, blaming collusion between the company and government regulators for lax supervision which allowed TEPCO to continue lagging behind in safety steps.

TEPCO now plans to reform its safety measures at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in northern Japan. The company wants to restart the nuclear plant but has denied that its reforms are aimed at improving its public image in order to re-open the plant. “The reforms are intended to improve our safety culture, and we have no intention to link it to a possibility of resuming the (Kashiwazaki-Kariwa) plant,” said one TEPCO official “We don’t have any preconditions for our reforms.”

Sources included: Japan Today, The Guardian

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

If you need translation or interpreting services in and around Oxford and worldwide, TJC offers a wide range of services in more than 100 languages and dialects. For more information, please visit our website or contact us directly by email.

Thank goodness for gas.  I say that because many forces buffet the economy; things like technology, government regulation, and even natural events.  The effects cancel out when we’re lucky.  Let me explain the current collision of technology, nature and bad economics.  These offsetting factors are saving lives around the world and saving jobs at home.  And its all because of gas.

Natural gas is cheap.  Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing increased the supply and lowered the cost of natural gas.  The increased supply lowered fuel prices and kept electricity rates down.  This happened at the same time that coal power plants were being outlawed.  Lower electricity rates kept some companies in business so there were a few more jobs in our economy.  Lower fuel prices helped offset inflation so costs didn’t rise as fast.  Yes, there is a significant inflationary bubble in our economy.  Thank you!

That is the least of the benefits of cheap natural gas.  We are inches away from a food crisis, and natural gas is used to make fertilizer.  Again, let me put the pieces together for you.  The US government requires that we buy domestic corn to make ethanol.  (We are not allowed to import ethanol, so this is a welfare plan for farmers rather than minimizing the environmental effects of burning gasoline.)  We are also in the middle of a drought that caused low farm yields.  Both the increased demand for ethanol and the reduced corn supply have bid up the price of food.  Fortunately, lower fertilizer costs are holding down food costs for the entire world, not only the US.  We would see world wide famine without the low price of natural gas.  We didn’t plan to increase food supplies around the world during our drought.  It just turned out that way.

The world is uncertain, but we do know about general trends.  Technology should lower prices over time, and fracking sure did that for oil and natural gas.  An economic depression should lead to lower prices as we buy fewer goods.  That effect was masked by inflation.  Crop yields.. well, they are never certain, but sometimes you get lucky and the effects cancel.(1)  Low gas prices kept people fed and kept our economy going while our politicians stumbled.  Lower prices for natural gas should have led to an economic boom in the US as it has in other countries.  We squandered that boom with bad economic policy.  The waves cancelled.  One effect offset the other, and our economy got a smoother ride.  So did people struggling to eat.

It could have been worse.  It should have been better.  We were lucky.. and I try to be grateful for the many gifts I did not earn.

~_~_

Would it kill you to leave some fingerprints so I know you were here?  Please rate, share and comment.

Rob the grateful

(1) The technical term for cancelling effects is interference.

Press TV – October 3, 2012

Chinese and French investors have dealt a blow to the British nuclear projects pulling out of a bid for buying a company that will be constructing two nuclear power reactors in Britain.

French nuclear engineering group Areva said it is no longer interested in buying into Horizon Nuclear Power that was supposed to build Wylfa reactor in Wales and Oldbury reactor in Gloucestershire.

Areva added that its Chinese partner the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) has also withdrawn its bid for the contract.

“Areva and CGNPC have suspended their interest in the planned sale of Horizon Nuclear Power and did not submit a bid,” an Areva spokeswoman said.

The news is a blow to the British government as Areva has the latest technology in line with European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) regulations needed for the project.

The withdrawals come amid other reports that another Chinese company China National Nuclear Power Corporation, which is the main backer of a US engineering group also bidding for the contract, is no more interested in the project.

The situation leaves London with a single bidder that is a consortium led by the Japanese Hitachi.

Horizon Nuclear Power was formerly run by German utilities E. ON and RWE that suddenly announced they want to drop out of their contracts on a short deadline last week.

Related articles

• United Kingdom: British nuclear plans suffer blow as Chinese investors pull out (guardian.co.uk)
• New UK nuclear power station plans suffer setback (guardian.co.uk)
• AREVA drops out of race for Britain’s Horizon nuclear project after 3 months (enformable.com)

Sept. 25

Cameco  (CCO : TSX : $20.52)

Denison Mines  (DML : TSX : $1.50)

Paladin Energy  (PDN : TSX : $1.37)

Uranium One  (UUU : TSX : $2.41)

Global uranium miner and nuclear reactor maker AREVA announced that it has signed contracts to supply more than 30,000 tonnes of natural uranium to France’s power group EDF from 2014 to 2035, in what will be one of its largest ever uranium deliveries, the companies said. Highlighting that these contracts further consolidate AREVA’s position as a key partner to the world’s leading supplier of nuclear power, and secure EDF’s natural uranium supply over the very long-term.

Commenting on the deal, Henri Proglio, Chairman and CEO of EDF, stated, “These agreements are part of the implementation of the strategic partnership established with AREVA at the start of the year. They represent an essential contribution to the EDF Group‘s security of supply and demonstrate the unity of the French nuclear sector.”

Ur-Energy (URE : TSX : $0.99)

Decision imminent? 

In the last couple trading days, volume has picked up significantly in shares of Ur-Energy. The company has been patiently waiting multiple years to receive the final permit needed before commencing construction at its Lost Creek uranium project in Wyoming.

In late August, Ur-Energy shares jumped after the company announced that it had received its Lost Creek Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Final EIS is not a decision document and the company stated that the Record of Decision (final hurdle!) is expected to be signed shortly after the Final EIS availability period closes thirty 30 days from receiving the Final EIS (August 17).

Also of note, a couple weeks  ago it was reported by a local Wyoming news service that the Wyoming Business Council had voted to support Ur-Energy’s request for $34 million in State-funded bonds. One Bay Street analyst commenting at the time, noted that the funds from the bonds “will be used for the construction of the Lost Creek mine and should provide adequate funding to bring the project into production.” The analyst further added, “If Ur-Energy receives the bonds as anticipated, this will alleviate most of our balance sheet concerns.”

 Related articles

• Undervalued Uranium Miners and Nuclear Design/ Build Firms (amp2012.com)
• Uranium – Seasonal Update On Potential Catalysts (amp2012.com)

Q: The Lib Dems seem to be led towards backing nuclear power. Can you confirm there will be no public subsidy for nuclear power?

Clegg says the commitment in the coalition agreement, saying there will be no subsidy for nuclear as an industry-specific subsidy, will be kept.

He says he does not think there is any nuclear industry in the world not reliant on subsidies.

That is why he insisted on the wording in the coalition agreement.

But he wants to see if the nuclear industry can come up with a way forward without relying on subsidies.

This is very convenient. It is a way of sidestepping the issue, showing a belief that an objective form of economics will make the decision on nuclear power, rather than politics. Of course, when a company spends almost a billion investing in a development that is yet to be built, and National Grid spends millions constructing power lines before the decision on the power station is made one may suspect that the economics, far from objective will continuously bend to the political will of nuclear power, until it can work.

Citizens demand the closing of Fukui Prefecture’s Monju Fast Breeder (seen in the distance). Photo by KYODO News.

made it very clear that the government intended to continue the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, and did not plan to give up on the Monju fast-breeder (a prototype reactor that theoretically will run on reprocessed uranium and plutonium. The reactor has been plagued by accidents and cover-ups, and currently sits idle; it has actually only produced a single hour’s worth of electricity since its completion, which involved four decades of work and an appalling amount of money),  scheduled to come on-line in 2050.  Hmmm…..no nuke plants at that time, but the country would still be producing a stockpile of uranium. And for what purpose??  The potential for nuclear armament could not be separated from the equation.

On September 15th, the Asahi Shinbun published an article on the Zero Nukes announcement, asking the question, HOW FIRM IS THE NO-NUKE POLICY? IT CONTAINS GET-OUTS, CONTRADICTIONS.  Asahi made no bones about calling Noda’s announcement a “hollow promise” as well as a shameless plug to win the support of ordinary voters (good luck with that).  From this article, I learned that a Legal Requirement Clause, added to the policy by minister Motohisa Furukawa, had been struck out at the last minute, meaning that in fact local and central governments were not bound by law to effect the policy at all. The whole declaration was, in fact, a non-binding promise thrown out in a desperate attempt by the government to save face (again, good luck with that).

Yonekura Hiromasa, Chairman of Japan’s Business Federation, had plenty to say about the Zero Nukes by 2030 announcement. (photo from Asahi Shinbun files)

Let me now skip ahead: Just five days after the original announcement, the Asahi Shinbun ran another article with this headline: JAPAN’S NO-NUKE PLEDGE IS ALREADY FRAYING AT THE EDGES,  followed by the next day’s Japan Times annnouncement CABINET FAILS TO OK NEW NUCLEAR STRATEGY, describing the “shocking reversal” that took place in a matter of six days.  The entire policy had been watered down to nothing due to opposition from both the US and the Japanese Business Federation (Keidanren). This was only “shocking” for those who believed that the government was seriously committed to its own policy, however, and since many folks wanted a break with nuclear power immediately (rather than 18 years down the road), they had not been terribly excited about the announcement in the first place.  Still, even for cynics, it was a disheartening and disappointing week.  What an embarrassing excuse for a government.

Yet although the government seems like a bundle of contradictions and broken promises to citizens of Japan, citizens abroad have differing perspectives. Let’s jump now to Vietnam, a nation which, with the assistance and “know-how” of both Russia and Japan, is about to go nuclear.  In spite of the Fukushima disaster, the Vietnamese government plans to honor their contract with a Japanese firm to build a nuclear power plant, and in fact, preparations are already underway. While the Noda administration waffles and stumbles before its own citizens, it is “leading the way” with confidence in Vietnam, where residents believe that 1) the nuclear industry is safe and trustworthy, and 2) Fukushima was something unfortunate, but unrelated to their own situation.

Vietnamese students analyzing radiation samples at the Hanoi workshop (photo by Chau Doan, for NY Times).

Japan lobbied aggressively to win the contract to build a nuclear power plant in Vietnam.  As critics correctly charge, Japan and other nuclear powers are now desperate to sell plants to developing nations, since Fukushima has destroyed the dream of a nuclear renaissance in advanced economies.  And in this case, since Vietnam does not yet possess the technology or even the know-how, Japanese experts must train a generation of young Vietnamese who hope to become nuclear engineers: future researchers, operators and managers of the nuclear power plants that the government hopes will revitalize the country.  A New York Times article  from this past March details a workshop held in Hanoi, sponsored by members of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency; in a Japanese-built research lab, Japanese specialists held a ten-day workshop for a group of twenty young and eager Vietnamese students, described as “Radiation Physics 101″.  Radiation Physics in ten days??  Is that something like the old cassette tape I used to have entitled, “Ten Classics in Ten Minutes”?  I loved that tape: you got a synopsis of Moby Dick, Great Gatsby, Gone with the Wind, and seven other novels, TRULY in ten minutes, complete with funny voices and sound effects.  At any rate, the Vietnamese government intends to move fast enough to have a  sufficient number of qualified experts to manage the first nuclear reactor (scheduled for 2020) and to build and operate at least nine more by 2030. I don’t know about funny voices and sound effects.

And I am not the only one who thinks this all a bit too hasty.  According to the same NY Times article, both Vietnamese and foreign experts have already expressed concern that this leaves “…. too little time to establish a credible regulatory body, especially in a country with widespread corruption, poor safety standards, and a lack of transparency, ” and that “…the overly ambitious timetable could lead to the kind of weak regulation, as well as collusive ties between regulators and operators, that contributed to the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan last year.”  That sounds like a pretty sound assessment to me.

Artist’s vision of Vietnam’s first nuclear power plant.

Still more disturbing was an article I found in the Asia-Pacific Journal entitled “Japanese Nuclear Power Comes to a Vietnam Village” (under the “What’s Hot” tab) . It’s an essay by photo-journalist Kimura Satoru, who journeyed to the village of Tay Anh, in south central Vietnam, where the first of the nuclear power plants is scheduled for construction.  The village, as Kimura-san describes it, is much like some of the coastal villages in Tohoku: sustained by both fishing and farming, and rich in wildlife and natural resources. My daughter would be interested in the rare sea turtles that come onto the sand to breed and lay eggs.  Seven hundred households make up the village, and their inhabitants will be re-located to an area two kilos away, as early as 2014. “It can’t be helped as it’s for the development of the country,” says a farmer interviewed by Kimura, and this seems to be the general attitude of other residents as well.

Kimura-san relates the story of village residents who were invited to fly from Vietnam to tour a Japanese nuclear power plant in 2010; they returned suitably impressed and convinced of the safety of nuclear energy, and were instructed to relay what they had learned to other villagers.  The following year, meltdowns at Fukushima naturally caused  anxiety abroad, and a Japanese delegation was dispatched to Vietnam to assure villagers that Japan had learned from its mistakes and that nuclear power was, in fact, as safe as ever.  Kimura is convinced that residents of Tay Anh have accepted this explanation, as villagers he spoke with showed little evidence of fear or distrust regarding the forthcoming construction project that will overtake their homes and farms in less than two years.  Here’s the situation in the journalist’s own words:

What I see among Vietnamese in the midst of nuclear power plant construction is the impossibility of their learning about nuclear power. Above all, they lack both consciousness of the issues and sufficient information.  The reason the Tay Anh villagers are not negative about nuclear power is not that they actively endorse its safety.  The reason is that no negative information is disclosed to them.  Their trust in the Japanese people’s high technical ability seems to influence the residents’ consciousness of nuclear power.   Thus I unexpectedly heard the safety myth about nuclear power in Tay Anh village. It floated among villagers like a ghost that has no substance.

And that’s the bottom line to me: in this small Vietnamese village there seems to be a myth of safety and security associated with nuclear power, combined with a dearth of information.  Ordinary citizens have a basic right to know about the proposed facility–in detail– and to have a say in where, how, or even IF it should be constructed.  That’s only natural, since it’s their own health at stake.  And the environment does not seem to have a spokesperson at all…is there anyone pleading the case of the sea turtles?  Or the nearby National Park that could become nothing more than a cesium repository?  So far I’ve heard nothing, but my ears are open.

Reporters and Tepco workers accompany Environmental/Nuclear Minister Hosono Goshi on a tour of Fukushima Daiichi’s battered number four reactor in May, 2012.

I do not live in Vietnam, and it could be said that whether or not their government builds a nuclear reactors is none of my business. Yet since Japan is behind the construction and “education” process, I cannot help but have an opinion.  In this case, my message is to the Japanese government: “Clean up your own mess before you start a new one!”  It’s as simple as that, and I’ve written about it in a previous post.  With new revelations seeping out insidiously on almost a daily basis (this week’s shocker revealed that the town of Futaba was essentially blanketed in radiation even before the first hydrogen explosion occurred) and large pieces of machinery tumbling into the fuel pools of the damaged Fukushima Daiichi reactors (a thirty-five ton machine was discovered submerged at one point.  This week, a large steel beam tumbled in) , it is clear that the crisis in Fukushima is ongoing and that nuclear power will never be completely “safe”.  We have no business selling a form of energy abroad that our own citizens have solidly rejected and that has poisoned our own environment.

Govt. official Maeda Tadashi: “Hey, it’s no big deal. If we don’t sell nuclear power, someone else will, anyway.” (photo from Asahi Shinbun)

Worse yet, Maeda Tadashi, an official at the “Japan Bank of International Cooperation”, has rationalized Japan’s actions in Vietnam by saying, “They’ll just buy from another country”  if we don’t sell them nuclear power.  Send that man back to elementary school, where Japanese students study “Morality” (Dotoku)!  I would zap my own son instantly (and effectively) with the Scornful Glare of the Righteous Mother if he ever dared to use such a snivelling excuse!  Poor Mrs. Maeda, both the wife (if he is married) and the mother (if she is still alive).

As for the officials enthusiastically promoting the nuclear power plant in Vietnam, we must hope that they have the decency to put the safety of their own citizens above the lure of profit and economic development.  Journalist Kimura-san sees it as a dual responsibility and a grave one, as Japan, “….which painfully experienced the danger of nuclear power and is still unable to resolve the pain, is not sufficiently conveying that pain to the country which is for the first time planning to use nuclear power. I wonder how much the presence of the residents is within the consciousness of the planners [in Vietnam] and whether these people, who are to be placed at the front line of a national enterprise, will be protected.”  Well-considered, and well-said.

Residents of Fukushima were not protected, in the end, and citizens across the country continue to feel a deep sense of betrayal by the government.  Yet before 3/11, we too were complacent, and believed in (or allowed ourselves to be deceived by ) the myth of safety. Is it any wonder that we want to warn the citizens of Tay Anh?

Good night, and thank you again for reading.  I hope it won’t be another month before I can post again, but bear with me if that’s the case. Please rest assured, anyhow, that a long silence does not mean I have jumped ship; I plan to stay on board for the whole journey. Stay with me.

English: Internationally recognized symbol. Deutsch: Gefahrensymbol für Radioaktivität. Image:Radioactive.svg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sept 17.

Uranium

Cameco* (CCO : TSX : $21.08)

Paladin Energy* (PDN : TSX : $1.44)

Uranium One* (UUU : TSX $ 2.48

Japan‘s government, as expected by most, announced that the country’s new energy policy intends to stop using nuclear power by the 2030s. According to a 22-page policy paper released Friday, Japan will restart existing reactors deemed safe by regulators and retire them all by the 2030s. The strategy calls for spending on renewable and recyclable energy, as well as added conservation efforts, to make up for the absence of nuclear power, which provided 30% of Japan’s energy prior to last year’s Fukushima Dai-ichi partial nuclear meltdown.

It remains to be seen whether the policy shift will be enough to convince voters to re-elect the incumbent Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s government. If they are defeated by the Liberal Democratic Party in the coming months, Japan’s nuclear policy could change again. The Washington Post reported this week that political analysts in Japan predict that Noda’s ruling Democratic Party of Japan will be handed a landslide defeat in an upcoming parliamentary election, opening the door for the Liberal Democratic Party to return to power.

Of note, until 2009 the LDP ruled almost uninterrupted for half a century, engineering Japan’s rise into one of the world’s most nuclear-dependent nations. One Bay Street analyst commenting on the decision stated Friday, “The potential restart of reactors in Japan is a greater positive than the eventual phase out is a negative.” Adding, “It is worth commenting that 2030 is a long time in the future, and we have seen other countries make similar announcements in the past (e.g. Spain, Sweden) only to continually postpone the date of the phase out.”

Since the reopening of the Oi nuclear power plant (near Fukushima) at the beginning of this month, thousands have taken to the streets in the capital in protest, bearing banners bearing the words “No Nukes!”.  The protest in Yoyogi Park in central Tokyo on 16^th July this year represented one of largest of these protests and was reported to have continued throughout the day, despite the stifling summer weather in the city. The Japanese police have been present at such protests in Tokyo and on certain occasions have intervened. However, despite the large number of people present there appears to have been few reports of violence by the protesters themselves.

Concerns regarding the Japanese nuclear switch-on could also be fuelled by recent reports of dishonest radiation level recordings in the Fukushima plant after the disaster and the results of a government enquiry into the safety of Japan’s other, currently inactive, nuclear power plants. In particular this report appeared skeptical about the plants’ capacity to withstand a disaster such as that at Fukushima, if history were to repeat itself.

As Japan emerges from the wake of last year’s nuclear catastrophe, it is perhaps difficult to reconcile a need to move beyond what has happened and the need to approach Japan’s energy needs. At the moment it appears, by evidence of the large scale rallies and protests, that many people are keener to err on the side of caution. For example, with the reopening of the beaches near the Fukushima plant early last week, a sobering reminder of the dangers of the radiation emitted by the plant after the tsunami was put in place as radiation readings were set to be shown twice a day, as reassurance but also a means of recollection for those who have now dipped their toes back in the water.

News sources: Labornet Japan, The Guardian online, BBC News website

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

At The Japanese Connection, we have over twenty five years’ experience in providing professional, accurate and reliable Japanese interpreters and translators working in a wide range of fields. Whether it is for a conference, a deposition or a trip to Japan with a Japanese business partner, we can offer you a high-quality Japanese language service tailored to meet your individual interpreting or translation needs. For more information and for a free quick quote, please visit our website or contact us.

While experts emphasise that this study of the butterfly population in the Fukushima area does not necessarily entail similar consequences for the human population and that the deformities visible in the butterflies are due to both external and internal radiation exposure, as a result of eating plants also affected by radiation, it is difficult to ignore the very tangible and visible effects that radiation exposure can have on living creatures. In fact, it is a chilling reminder that these effects have the potential to escalate at an unpredictable rate and in unpredictable ways. In this sense the study almost acts as the starting pistol to a very long waiting game for those who were exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant….

News sources: The Guardian, The Japan Times, BBC online, The Seattle Times

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

At The Japanese Connection, we have over twenty five years’ experience in providing professional, accurate and reliable Japanese interpreters and translators working in a wide range of fields. Whether it is for a conference, a deposition or a trip to Japan with a Japanese business partner, we can offer you a high-quality Japanese language service tailored to meet your individual interpreting or translation needs. For more information and for a free quick quote, please visit our website or contact us.

We also have professional interpreters and translators specialising in the field of nuclear engineering