Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Goes Dark in Japan

For now, anyway, Japan is doing without nuclear energy:

Over the weekend, Japan's last remaining nuclear reactor shut down for regular maintenance. In the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, reactors have not been allowed back on. Japan is now the first major economy to see the modern era without nuclear power.

Tomari Nuclear Power Plant's reactor 3 in Hokkaido shut down Saturday evening in a much-watched move by government, industry and environmentalists, who are waged in a public battle over the future of Japan's energy policy.

This is especially tough as Japan enters one of its sweltering summers, but really, that’s the least of it:

The party's deputy policy chief, Yoshito Sengoku, bluntly said without nuclear energy the world's third-largest economy would suffer. "We must think ahead to the impact on Japan's economy and people's lives, if all nuclear reactors are stopped. Japan could, in some sense, be committing mass suicide," Sengoku said.

The party in question here is the ruling Democratic Party (similar to our Democrats – the main conservative party is – yes – The Liberal Democrats). Japan has 50 operable nuclear plants – the four at Fukushima, of course, excluded – but that’s a lot of workers in a twilight zone.

Right now, most of the facilities are in refueling or maintenance mode. But a lot of the talk is what will happen if Japan doesn’t proceed with nuclear energy.

Hiromasa Yonekura, chairman of Japan's biggest business lobby, Keidanren, joined the plea in an April press conference. "We cannot possibly agree to do the kind of energy saving yet again this year, or every year from now on," he said, referring to the country's efforts to turn off air conditioners and shift operation of production lines to weekends. "The government must bring the nuclear power stations back into operation."

And:

Some also warn of the long-term fallout as the rising cost of electricity, coupled with a strong yen, hits production and could prompt companies to shift operations overseas.

"Depending on the weather, power supply could constrain output during the summer," the Bank of Japan said.

"But we must be mindful not just of such short-term effects but the chance (the power shortages) could hurt Japan's medium- and long-term growth expectations," the central bank said in a twice-yearly report on the economy issued on April 27.

We shouldn’t be hypocrites about this. If Japan chooses a different direction for energy, that’s its right. Government and industry and business seem to understand the possible consequences and if they can live with them – or a find a way around them - so be it.

With the loss of nuclear energy, the Ministry of Environment projects that Japan will produce about 15 percent more greenhouse gas emissions this fiscal year than it did in 1990, the baseline year for measuring progress in reducing emissions. In fiscal 2010, Japan's actual emissions were close to 1990 levels. It also raises doubts about whether it will be able to meet a pledge made in Copenhagen in 2009 to slash emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

But that doesn’t mean you can reasonably think it a good outcome. Japan is working with communities to turn the facilities on – Japanese society is exceptionally consensus based – and that may prove successful for at least some of the plants before summer kicks in.

So it’s not all grumbles and hrumphs. But it’s mostly so.

---

I paid some attention to the French presidential election because it looked for a time that it would be consequential for nuclear energy. But that seemed to fade.

We should at least finish the story:

Francois Hollande became France's first socialist president in 17 years on Sunday, ousting conservative incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy in what one observer called an "earth-shaking" election.

With 95 per cent of the ballots counted, official results showed Hollande with 51.6 per cent of the vote compared with Sarkozy's 48.4 per cent. More than 80 per cent of eligible voters cast their ballots in the run-off election.

It is a consequential election. Hollande is, I believe, only the second socialist president since the founding of the fifth republic in 1959 (though Francois Mitterand, the first socialist president, did hold on for 15 years). But you can explore what that might mean on your own – for our purposes, Hollande is not anti-nuclear energy and has no plans to close any plant aside from an older one due to retire.

So, um, anyone else having an election soon?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hollande is a socialist and the lifeblood of socialism, aside from taxes, is the support of labor unions. And there is no support among labor unions for any kind of cutback in nuclear generation in France. Hollande isn't stupid. He isn't going to anger a constituency that makes up 90% of his politcal base to appease one that makes up maybe 5% (environmental extremists).

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…