Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nuclear - future for Ireland?

Options
1…4546474850

Comments

  • Options
    #1472
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122180387#Comment_122180387

    Why would anyone want a uranium mine anywhere near them ?

    Lots of nasty chemicals and dust and radon. You don't want to be downwind or downstream.

    How much would insurance be to cater for any and all future issues ?



  • Options
    #1473
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,131 ✭✭✭gjim


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122180183#Comment_122180183

    You've repeated this claim many times about the projected 37GW of offshore wind capacity. I've never heard anyone make such a claim and you're clearly confident you know what you're talking about so have simply asked you to justify it. Can you do so?



  • Options
    #1474
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122160866#Comment_122160866

    Our wind has a 24% capacity factor. A Korean built APR-1400 has a likely 96% capacity factor.

    Offshore wind has a 50% capacity factor and only needs spinning reserve for the largest single point of failure and the duty cycle on things like transformers is lower than for nuclear.

    You need to show how nuclear can work on this island without being backed up by fossil fuel during construction and usage before you can claim it's zero carbon.

    So lets say we have an annual system demand of 10 GW of constant generation, currently being met with gas.

    In 2022 we got 39% of our electricity from renewables. Factor that in only that and using your number, after 20 years nuclear produces just 2.7% less CO2.

    1273.7 TWh x 61% is 777 TWh which is just 34.2 TWh more than 742.8TWh you suggest for nuclear and that's without including spinning reserve etc. ( 2.7% of 1273.7 TWh )

    Already in 2023 10% more wind came on line and we're adding lots of solar too. 20 more years like that and we could probably reduce our emissions by 2.7%

    And your argument about NPP taking only 7 years longer than wind is moot in the face of solar construction times and costs over the same timescales. I cannot over-emphasise that having extra solar and wind means that perhaps 75% of the time nuclear will be competing with the marginal costs of renewables, and during the other 25% of the time it can't ramp up generation.



  • Options
    #1475
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,010 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122180193#Comment_122180193

    The supposedly low PV price is BS. It's the same old LCOE fallacy.

    Calculate what it would actually cost to try and power a house or a country using just solar or wind for an entire year - that's the true cost, not what you calculate it to be when a panel is actually getting direct and unobscured sunlight and you are relying on something else to provide your energy the other 89% of the time.

    If your grid needs a constant 10 GW of supply, unvarying, night and day, all year, installing 10GW of solar will not even remoyely begin to supply your needs. You could put in 100 GW of your cheap PV and it still wouldn't even scratch the surface of the true cost of supplying your needs.

    Put in 10 GW of nuclear capacity and you only have to add the cost of satisfying a 4% shortfall vs demand. Put in 10 GW of solar and you need to fill an 89% shortfall. LCOE does not include the cost of that 89%, it's a BS measure, it fails utterly when applied to renewables.

    Yet another cheap storage hopium that's so great no one has implimented it at grid scale, just like all those cheap batteries using, X, Y, Z amazing technologies that US startups flog with lashings of fake promise that falls apart when reality gets involved. A decade ago the University of Limerick came up with an absolute game changer for Li-ion batteries.

    https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/irish-researchers-breakthrough-doubles-battery-life-of-phones-laptops-and-e-cars

    It's just like all the other promising energy storage technologies that never make it to a scaled reality. Seriously, you have to be incredibly gullible to trumpet laboratory announcements as solutions. All of these startup and lab announcements are just shrill cries of help for more investment or funding. Remember super-capacitors?

    Heat up some rocks - spare me the BS.

    Buying cheap Chinese solar panels is voting for slavery, forced sterilisation of Uigher women, forced abortions, labour camps, re-eduction and indoctrination and cultural genocide, and possibly physical genocide, ultimately, but hey, they are cheap it's not my daughter who was put on a table by the butchering Han Chinese and now will never have children, because bits of her were cut out. This is all stuff that these Chinese bleeps have been doing in Tibet for decades, we've the satellite photos showing the concentration camps.

    You might think your beloved Chinese solar panels are cheap, I cost them a different way and they are the most abhorrently expensive thing you shouldn't use.

    Post edited by cnocbui on


  • Options
    #1476
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122180815#Comment_122180815

    You didn`t simply ask me to justify about 37GW of offshore achieving what we are supposed to believe it would.

    Do you actually read any posts here before you jump in with the first thought that comes into your head ?

    You said you were " absolute confident" that the cost of offshore would be cheaper in 2024 than it was in 2023. Had you read anything here or anywhere else in relation to that, then you would have seen it is complete fantasy. In 2023 myself and others posted that from the number of turbine manufacturers alone operating at a loss and going out of business that was not going to happen.But it is even worse than even we imagined with offshore having created it`s own inflation bubble with companies refusing to even tender bids and refusing to honor existing contracts claiming that to do either would result in heavy financial loses as costs have increased by 60% or more.

    You found it "Hilarious…. beyond parody" that I was so concerned about not being able to predict a cost for this 37GW offshore proposal being the reason why I favoured nuclear. Had you bothered to read back in this thread you would have seen that I have posted the costs of just the Capex for the offshore part of this proposal on many occassions using U.K. costs for both before the recent massive jump in costs and after. Even without the cost of the proposed hydrogen part of this proposal and the added expense to consummers for this hydrogen never mind the committment by Eamon Ryan that we pay for everything these companies could produce even if we did not use or need it the costs are insane and financially unviable. What is "hilarious and beyond parody" is that those opposed to nuclear come up with the most exaggerated claims on the cost of nuclear, yet when challenged cannot put a cost to their own favour proposal.

    AS to my claim about this proposed 2050 37GW proposal regarding our 2050 needs and that it would result in our electricity generation cabon neutral I have already posted those figures which show a major hole in our requirements. And that was before Eamon Ryan admitted that the floating turbine part of that proposal for our South and West coasts was not even going to be technically possible for the next 20 years or more. Something hilarious in its own way as that is the claim by some here as to how long it would take us to build a nuclear power plant. So rather than me wasting my time reapeating what I already have posted here on the short-comings of this proposed plan in relation to our 2050 requirements read back, factor in the nothing from floating turbines, and if you have a problem understanding what I posted get back to me then.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1477
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122180764#Comment_122180764

    Compared to gold or silver mining which Eamon Ryan had no problem granting licences for ?

    Neither of which have a great reputation when it comes to being environmentally friendly. Especially gold.



  • Options
    #1478
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122181347#Comment_122181347

    image.png

    "If your grid needs a constant 10 GW of supply, unvarying, night and day, all year,"

    It doesn't. Peak demand is three times minimum demand. Here's an old graph for all-island that goes up to your 10GW. The old rule of thumb for nuclear was to be averaging 80% of capacity, and that only covers 5GW even if you could force the grid to buy nuclear preferentially.

    40% of the area under the curve is already being supplied by renewables so it's not even like you'd have that 5GW demand.



  • Options
    #1479
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,010 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122182366#Comment_122182366

    Our future energy needs are far in excess of 10 GW of actual capacity. How literal of you, FFS, the figure was illustrative. Stick to techno wish fulfilling crap about lasers, ion beams and hot rocks.



  • Options
    #1480
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122182366#Comment_122182366

    I noticed in some of your earlier posts that you mentioned you could not ramp up or down output from a nuclear power plant.

    As far as I understand nowadays reactors have the capability to regularly vary their output between 30 - 100% of their rated power up or down by 2 - 5%/minute during load following. If there is maximum demand, as we have seen here during prolonged periods when wind is providing 6% or even less, then when you do not have enough capacity to fill the demand we are predicted to have by 2050, which under this proposed 2050 plan we will not have, then there is nothing to ramp up with other than gas.



  • Options
    #1481
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122183339#Comment_122183339
    image.png

    As a general rule existing commercial ones don't.

    Capacity factor of 96% don't ya know. Using nuclear as peaking plant would be insanely expensive.

    By 2050 any gas would be from carbon neutral like energy to fuel or from biomass etc. And there are interconnectors and other forms of storage.

    By 2050 the prediction is for global solar to be expand to 20x what we have now. With a learning curve of 40% each time production doubles it suggests that price of solar will fall to 11% of today's price. It's happened repeatedly in the past. The only thing that will matter is storage and distribution costs.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1482
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,792 ✭✭✭SeanW


    One thing that seems to be overlooked in the discussion of capacity factors, is that for the weather based renewables, it's literally dependent on the weather. How would all these solar panels and windmills handle - for example - a repeat of the anti-cyclone cold snap around Christmas of 2010, when energy demand was off the wall and there was no solar warmth or wind?

    In fact, come to think of it, how would those air pump heating yokes the greens want us to use instead of fuel work in -17C temperatures?

    Post edited by SeanW on


  • Options
    #1483
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184209#Comment_122184209

    Are you seriously suggesting that nuclear baseload could have been ramped up to meet record demand ?

    Please tell us how nuclear would have saved the day, remembering that France had half of it's nuclear plants offline in 2022.

    They aren't as reliable as portrayed. Frozen cooling water has taken out nuclear plants, as have floods. They don't cope as well with weather extremes as you'd imagine. High temperatures can also cause problems with cooling water.



  • Options
    #1484
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users Posts: 9,683 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122180764#Comment_122180764

    Alot of folks don't want those useless noisy white elephants your fond of near them either. Also compared to the scale of mining needed for the rare earth metals solar and wind depend on, Uranium is a drop in the Ocean.



  • Options
    #1485
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184405#Comment_122184405

    AFAIK the only nuclear plant that started construction on a greenfield site in Western Europe in the last 40 years was Civaux.

    All the others have been on existing nuclear power plant sites.

    The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.



  • Options
    #1486
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122184105#Comment_122184105

    Nuclear has a capacity factor of 92%. For Ireland onshore wind 27% offshore 42%. When needed, especially during periods of maximum demamd nuclear can be ramped up to that 92%, wind you have what you have and as we have seen during prolonged periods when demand has been high wind has dropped to 6% and less.

    Presently we consume 33 TWh, Eirgrid are predicting that to increase to somewhere between 73 TWh and 86 TWh by 2050. Our latest maximum demand 15th Jan. was 5.58 GW. From Eirgrid predictions that would mean we have to plan for maximum demand for 2050 being around 13.5 GW. (12.25 - 14.4 GW)

    I have said before I could see the logic behind the 37 GW offshore/hydrogen plan in principle. What I could not see, especially with the hopium that hydrogen would work to scale, was how even if it did work as planned and cover demand how it was financially viable. Seeing as nobody who favours this plan can give a cost for it then it seems neither can they make a case of its financial viability.Now we see that from Eirgrid`s projections it is not going to fulfill the 2050 demand either.

    Our installed capacity for solar is presently 1GW. Increasing that x20 would give 20 GW with a capacity factor of 11%. Annually 2.2 GW. But by the nature of solar that is the annual average. In Winter, where we have maximun demand, that will have dropped to around half that, 1.25 GW, and now way of ramping that up either. That is not going to fill the gap in the 37 Gw proposed plan.

    As to the cost of solar dropping due to the law of supply and demand. The same was being said about wind less than a year ago here, and even in that short time it hasn`t aged well. There are other serious etnical issues with solar panels. Biomass is nothing more than a carbon emissions accountancy con that we have now joined in on where even green advocacy groups have declared it producing more CO2 than coal. Interconnectors during prolonged periods of little or no wind when demand is highest will be supply nothing other than nuclear and we will be at the end of a long line hoping. Carbon neutral like gases are hopiums, not a plan, like hydrogen when it comes cost and to working to scale where nobody has a clue.



  • Options
    #1487
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122185835#Comment_122185835

    14.4GW would be the peak. That's how much dispatchable plant we'd need.

    86TWh a year is 10GW average but we are already getting 13TWh a year from wind which leaves an average of 8GW left to get by 2050.

    By 2030 the plan is to add pdf

    5GW of on shore wind @ 27% = 1.35GW average

    4.5GW of offshore wind @ 42% = 1.89GW average

    5.5GW of solar + 2.5GW microgen @ 11% = 0.88GW average (more for non-solar microgen)

    So 4.4GW average. Which gets us more than halfway to Eirgrid's highest 2050 target.

    Add in hydro and biomass and you are looking at ~3.2GW left to find between 2030 and 2050.

    The good news is that's the annual energy output from one Hinkley C if we abandon new renewables after 2030 and start building that nuclear power plant tomorrow and truly believe that the 10 year delays won't happen just like the did with the previous 4 European reactors.

    The bad news is that we'd still need to have enough dispatchable power on the grid to get to 14.4GW even it was offline. So it would be a useless white elephant.



  • Options
    #1488
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122187672#Comment_122187672

    The average system demand here is 5 GW. Even today at 9 am for a very mild day at the end of May it was 4.9GW.

    5GW from 33TWh is 13GW from 86TWh. Currently 38% of that 5GW (2GW) is provided by all renewables not just wind, so that leaves 11GW to get by 2050 not 8GW.

    The current proposed 37GW offshore/hydrogen plan is not about 2030. It`s about Ireland being carbon neutral in electricity generation by 2050 and it is not going to come anywhere close to that after a spend that nobody in favor of can put a figure too. The plan is for a 50/50 split of that 37GW between hydrogen and consumption. !8.5GW for each.

    We now know from Eamon Ryan that the 25% of those planned floating turbines will not be technically possible within at least the next 20 years. so that 18.5GW is now 14GW. Less in fact as those floating turbined were meant to have a capacity factor of 50%, so in reality 13GW. At 42% capacity that leaves just 5.6GW, but lets for handieness call it 6GW. add that to the 2GW that we are already generating from all renewable sources and you have 8GW. 5GW less that we will require by 2050. So after all that unviable financial spend on this current plan we will be left worse off. 5GW from fossil fuels and greater carbon emissions than we have now.

    Hydro is tapped out, and biomass is a con where emissions are concerned. Even greens have seen through that one, Hydrogen other gases or hot stones are just hopiums so the only answer for you other than nuclear is to throw good money after countless billions of bad with 20 times the solar we currently have that on average would provide 2GW but which by it`s nature would only provide at best 1.25GW during Winter when our needs would be at their greatest. Even after throwing added on, again uncosted "solutions" , at this 2050 plan it would still come up short.

    Post edited by charlie14 on


  • Options
    #1489
    Shoog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,733 ✭✭✭Shoog


    Damning news for the fantasy that is SMR

    https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2024-05/apo-nid326992.pdf?__cf_chl_tk=5fIS4Yh1QfTgfo1KWYcA5Ne2aO2kO_1iARQkzikr0MI-1717181978-0.0.1.1-4137



  • Options
    #1490
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,010 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122208095#Comment_122208095

    What a fatuous, pathetic hit piece:

    Investment in SMRs will take
    resources away from carbon-free and
    lower-cost renewable technologies
    that are available today and can push
    the transition from fossil fuels forward
    significantly in the coming 10 years.

    No sign of a biased agenda there. OMG, carbon free, if only nuclear energy could match that.

    Must try harder, Shoog.



  • Options
    #1491
    Shoog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,733 ✭✭✭Shoog


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122208568#Comment_122208568

    Sorry but the analysis is compelling if you aren't up the arse of the nuclear industry.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1492
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122208609#Comment_122208609

    A good rule of thumb with these charitable organisations that are funded by "global philanthopic organisations and individuals" is whose ass that funding puts them up.

    Influence Watch analysis is that they are a think tank that is heavily funded by left-of center and/or environmentallt-focused foundations which has repeatedly opposed the use of nuclear energy.



  • Options
    #1493
    Busman Paddy Lasty
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Busman Paddy Lasty


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120808912#Comment_120808912

    "Now that Olkiluoto 3 is online nuclear should be the greater contributor, if it can stay online."

    The shame of having to quote myself :(



  • Options
    #1494
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122235202#Comment_122235202

    The U.K. Heysham 2 NPP operated by EDF stayed on line for 895 consecutive days of operation, as did Canada`s Darlington Unit 1 for 1106 days, to name just two. Both with a capacity factor over 90% compared to onshore winds 28% and solars 11%

    Germany`s Grohnde NPP between 1984 and 2020 generated over 400TWh at a capacity factor of 92% with zero carbon emissions. Using gas, which Germany is now investing €30 Billion in for LNG terminals and plants, would add 400 million tonnes of carbon emissions to generate the same.



  • Options
    #1495
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 20,010 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122235202#Comment_122235202

    There is no grid power source more reliable then nuclear:

    Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close

    https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    Nuclear power in S Korea has a capacity factor of 96% The latest two reactors they commissioned have capacity factors of 100%, because in the two years since being commissioned, they haven't stopped. Solar and wind vary in output significantly, every day - they are inherently unreliable.

    Renewables are a heinously expensive way to produce energy and are not a viable path to net zero or to affordable domestic electricity rates.

    We have been wrestling with finding the holy grail of cheap and efficient energy storage for over a hundred years, and we have not cracked the problem and are not even close, despite the tech fanboy nerds kidding themselves about batteries of which ever flavour is currently in vogue.

    I have yet to see any renewables advocate, or our precious government, provide any costing of the energy storage necessary to achieve the desired aim. That is ridiculous.



  • Options
    #1496
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,813 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Charlie, do you think it's valid to compare a specific NPP with an industry average for wind and solar?



  • Options
    #1497
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122237777#Comment_122237777

    Without knowing what the capacity factors are some could be inclined to believe that the installed nameplate capacity is what will be delivered.

    It was not a specific capacity factor for a particular NPP. No more than it was a specific capacity factor for a particular wind tubine or sloar panel. If anything it was in the low range for NPP`s. Which along with a much greater capacity factor have close to 3 times the life span of wind turbines.

    Post edited by charlie14 on


  • Options
    #1498
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122236167#Comment_122236167

    Germany shut down nuclear for political reasons. No amount of uptime beats that. See also Italy and Japan.

    Heysham, please see my previous post about cherry picking and how the more you look at nuclear the worse it gets.

    Actually that reactor Heysham 2, R8 ended up running for 940 days. 18/2/16 - 16/9/18 , it had an unplanned outage 8 months earlier. uring 2016-2018 Heysham R1 had 7 outages after being offline more than 132 days in most of the 4 years previously. R2 had 6 outages. So cherry picking and that site lost two reactors at the same time during that run.



  • Options
    #1499
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122238102#Comment_122238102

    The capacity factor of an NPP that isn't built is exactly Zero.

    50% of US nuclear units that started construction in the US after July 1977 were never finished. The most recent Nukegate cost $9Bn

    Vogtle Unit 4 started commercial operations less than two months go on April 29, 2024. It's the only operational nuclear power plant in the USA where construction started after 1978. It arrived 7 years late and cost $17Bn extra.

    $26Bn of nothing. There isn't even a hole in the ground at the V.C. Summer plant as they had to fill it in.



  • Options
    #1500
    charlie14
    Registered Users Posts: 15,005 ✭✭✭✭charlie14


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122264802#Comment_122264802

    Germany shut down reactors that were providing 14% of their electricity for green ideological reasons that were counter to reduction of carbon emissions and to add insult to injury are now spending €30 Billion on LNG terminals and gas fired plants. Japan are re-opening nuclear plants and are planning to build more. Italy after shutting their NPP`s are keeping their lights on importing nuclear power from France.

    Meanwhile we have a all egs in the one basket 2050 offshore wind/hydrogen plan where 25% of the turbines cannot be constructed and there will be around a 6GW gap between what it would provide and what our projected demands for 2050 are and all for the princely sum of north of €200 billion.

    If it wasn`t so insanely financially unviable it would be, as a clusterfcuks go, funny



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1501
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,059 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122264876#Comment_122264876

    Well that's how politics works. That risk can't be avoided.

    image.png

    Japan has re-opened less than a quarter of the plants they shut down in 2011. It's politics.

    And not even national politics.

    Japanese media reported that on March 14, Takeshi Saito—Japan’s minister
    of Economy, Trade and Industry—asked Hideyo Hanazumi, the governor of
    Niigata Prefecture, for permission to restart the first of seven
    reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear facility. Local officials
    must sign off on any reopening of a nuclear power plant in Japan since
    the country took all its nuclear reactors offline after Fukushima.



Advertisement