• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Savannah River Site

Monitors a host of energy and nuclear issues from a public interest perspective

  • Home
  • About Us
  • News
  • SRS Watch News
  • Library
    • Department of Energy
    • General Documents
    • Freedom of Information Act Documents
  • Photos
  • Show Search
Hide Search

SRSW · May 15, 2020 ·

“Japan should end its nonsensical effort to recycle nuclear fuel”

One day Japan’s costly, dangerous and failed program to reprocess highly radioactive spent fuel and stockpile plutonium will end.

But, as usual, certain companies engaged in the plutonium proliferation business – disguised under the bogus and transparent term “recycling” – will continue to fight to harvest money from the public until the Japanese government finally terminates the reprocessing disaster and MOX boondoggle (sound familiar…?).

editorial: Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo, Japan, May 14, 2020 – linked here:  http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13372798

Japanese nuclear regulators have endorsed the safety of a contentious plant to reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) on May 13 approved a draft report on the safety inspection of the reprocessing plant being built in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd.

The report says the plant meets the new nuclear safety standards introduced after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. The NRA’s decision represents a big step forward toward bringing the long-delayed Rokkasho reprocessing plant online.

Japan’s policy program to establish a nuclear fuel recycling system to recover plutonium from spent nuclear fuel to be reused in reactors, however, is already bankrupt beyond redemption. Operating the reprocessing plant simply does not make sense because of the many problems it entails with regard to nuclear proliferation, cost effectiveness, energy security and other important policy issues.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration should change its policy concerning nuclear fuel recycling. It would be irresponsible to maintain this unsustainable national policy aimlessly simply because of the NRA’s verdict that the plant meets the new safety standards.

TROUBLE-PLAGUED PLANT

The government and the electric power industry have been promoting the concept of recycling separated plutonium back into the fuel of reactors as a valuable “semi-homemade” energy source for a nation without much natural resources.

The Rokkasho reprocessing plant, the core facility for this strategy, was originally scheduled to be completed in 1997, but the deadline has been delayed as many as 24 times due to a series of technological glitches and other problems.

The plant started a trial run in 2006, but the process was plagued by malfunctions and suspended after the catastrophic accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in 2011.

The NRA, which was created after the accident, spent six years carefully assessing the safety of the reprocessing plant. It was the body’s first safety screening mission for a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility.

Despite the nuclear watchdog’s effective endorsement of its safety, the plant still has a long way to go before it becomes ready for full-scale operation. The details of its design will be scrutinized while the work to install required safety measures has yet to be carried out.

It is unclear whether the plant will be completed in fiscal 2021, the new deadline set by the operator. Winning the consent of the local community is another challenge that has to be overcome before the plant can come on stream.

At nuclear power plants across the nation, growing amounts of spent nuclear fuel are waiting to be shipped to the reprocessing plant. At some nuclear plants, there is not much room left in the spent fuel pools. The power industry warns that there could be disruptions in power generation unless the reprocessing plant starts operating.

The Rokkasho plant is designed to reprocess up to 800 tons of spent fuel annually to extract plutonium. It is true that the facility would help prevent a situation where there is no room left in the pools.

UNUSABLE PLUTONIUM

The plant, when it operates at full capacity, could extract as much as seven tons of plutonium from spent reactor fuel a year. The problem is that there will be few plausible ways to use the material.

The plan to develop a fast neutron reactor that can burn and breed plutonium, which was supposed to be the key technology for plutonium consumption, has gone awry after it was decided that Japan’s “Monju” prototype sodium-cooled fast-breeder reactor should be decommissioned following a sodium leak accident.

There is no plan to develop a new demonstration fast-breeder reactor to succeed the Monju.

The Japanese government then considered participating in France’s Advanced Sodium Technical Reactor for Industrial Demonstration (ASTRID) project to build a prototype sodium-cooled nuclear reactor. But the idea was dropped after the French government decided to scale down and possibly pull the plug on the project.

Japan’s plan to burn so-called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel, which is usually plutonium blended with natural uranium, in existing nuclear reactors has also failed to make progress as fast as the government expected. Currently, only four reactors are using MOX fuel, far less than the industry’s target of operating 16 to 18 MOX reactors.

In short, there is little prospect for massive consumption of plutonium in this nation, at least in the near future.

Japan has a stockpile of 46 tons of weapons-usable plutonium, enough for producing 6,000 atomic bombs. Japan has made an international commitment to reducing its plutonium stock.

If Japan starts extracting plutonium from spent nuclear fuel through reprocessing, the international community will become doubtful of its commitment to reducing its plutonium stockpile despite being the only country to have suffered the devastation of atomic bombings.

Japan could even be suspected of harboring an ambition to develop and possess nuclear weapons in the future.

The government plans to limit the amount of plutonium extracted from spent fuel to less than the volume consumed at the MOX reactors.

But reprocessing spent reactor fuel to recover plutonium simply does not make sense in the first place when the amount of material stored in Japan should be slashed.

SHIFTING FINANCIAL BURDEN IS UNACCEPTABLE

The nuclear fuel recycling policy is also losing its economic rationale as well due to ballooning costs.

Even ordinary nuclear power generation is losing its competitiveness against other energy sources because of higher costs. The cost of building the reprocessing plant is now estimated at 2.9 trillion yen ($27.13 billion), four times higher than the original estimate. The total amount to be shelled out for the project, including operational and scrapping costs, is projected to be nearly 14 trillion yen.

Most major industrial nations have given up on the idea of nuclear fuel recycling as not being worth the cost. All the other countries that are still pursuing this path, including China and Russia, are nuclear powers. Most of these projects are strategic state-financed efforts that disregard costs.

But the reprocessing and MOX reactor projects in Japan are private-sector businesses. The costs involved have to be passed onto consumers through higher electricity bills.

The government and the industry should not be allowed to continue pursuing this unreasonable nuclear fuel policy at the expense of consumers.

In many other parts of the world, renewable energy sources are fast gaining ground, eroding the share of nuclear power.

In addition to sharp declines in costs, the fact that solar and wind power is a purely “homemade” energy source for any country is accelerating the trend.

If Japan really places a high policy priority on energy security, it would make much more sense for it to expand “purely homemade” energy sources than promote a “semi-homemade” one.

But the government continues sticking to the nation’s traditional nuclear power policy, putting a damper on growth in renewable energy production.

If the government decides to scuttle the nuclear fuel recycling agenda, it will immediately face the sticky challenge of deciding how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.

But the project should not be kept alive through irresponsible collusion between the government and the power industry to avoid tackling this challenge.

Political leaders should make the tough decision as soon as possible to put the nation on a path toward a new energy future.

–The Asahi Shimbun, May 14

photo: Rokkashao reprocessing plant – a failed project whose fate is termination

Filed Under: Latest News

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Updates via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

  • Workshop on Plutonium Pit Production PEIS & New Nuclear Weapons: May 22, 2025
  • News Flash! Lawsuit Compels Nationwide Public Review of Plutonium Bomb Core Production by DOE’s NNSA, May 9, 2025 Federal Register
  • Talk on SRS, the Nuclear Arms Race & Upcoming Meetings on Plutonium “Pit” Production – May 10, Columbia, SC & livestream archived
  • SRS & Growing Nuclear Weapons Role: Talks April 28 (Aiken, SC) – with linked presentation – and May 10 (Columbia, SC)
  • Excellent article on NNSA’s scheme to make new plutonium pits: “DOGE’s staff firing fiasco at the nuclear weapon agency means everything but efficiency,” April 16, 2025, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

Categories

  • Events
  • Latest News
  • SRS Watch News

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE WATCH
1112 Florence Street, COLUMBIA, SC 29201  | 803-834-3084  – srswatch@gmail.com

Footer

The information produced on this website is the sole property of SRS Watch unless otherwise noted and may be reproduced or quoted if credit is given to SRS Watch. Materials published on this website are for non-profit public interest purposes only. SRS Watch is a registered corporation in South Carolina and in December 2014 and has obtained non-profit 501(c)(3) public -interest organization status from the IRS. SRS Watch is responsible for all material published on this website. We strive to be accurate in all material produced. For inquiries, comments or corrections, please contact us at srswatch@gmail.com or 803-834-3084. Donations are most welcome and are tax deductible. Mailing address: Savannah River Site Watch, 1112 Florence Street, Columbia, SC 29201. This site or product includes IP2Location LITE data available from https://lite.ip2location.com.

©SRS Watch 2019  All Rights Reserved in All Media.