Skip to main content

A Vote for Nuclear Energy in Japan (Maybe)

Despite the fact that it’s a good outcome, there is some room for doubt:

But those favoring restarts took heart in the victory Sunday in Kagoshima of Gov. Yuichiro Ito, a staunchly pro-restart two-term incumbent. The nuclear debate took center stage, with Mr. Ito championing the importance of the local Sendai nuclear-power plant to the southwestern Japanese prefecture's economy, and his opponent, Yoshitaka Mukohara, a local publisher and head of a local antinuclear group, calling for its closure.

Mr. Ito took 66% of the vote to Mr. Mukohara's 34%, according to final results from the prefecture.

That’s the outcome.

Here’s the reason for doubt. Gov. Ito’s general popularity – the story said he won 71 percent in his previous election – suggests that good political instincts played a strong part this time. Maybe an exit poll would show the extent to which restarting Sendai made a difference. In the meantime:

But Gov. Ito successfully made the case that the reactors were central to the area's economy. He called for the restart of the Sendai plant—once Tokyo affirms its safety—and rebuffed any suggestion the prefecture should set up its own advisory board on nuclear safety. His campaign focused on his pledge to uphold "security and stability"—a slogan emblazoned on bright yellow banners held up by his campaign members at many street corners in downtown Kagoshima. The slogan didn't specifically refer to nuclear reactors, but the message was clear.

The argument is good, but the story is determined to see this election as a leading indicator of Japanese attitudes towards their nuclear facilities. Maybe: even leaving aside Ito’s popularity, voters tend not to fasten on a single issue to determine their votes (unless some moral failing has tainted one of the candidates) and we can’t know for sure if that’s happened here.

But if it was a single issue race, score one for nuclear energy. So, we’ll take it – with a caveat.

Comments

Joffan said…
But if Mukohara had won - or even come close - you would have heard the cheering and jeering from the anti-nuclear groups from miles away. So it's fair to say that, with such an explicit policy difference between the two choices, that the result did reflect a level of comfort with reactor restart, and it's a much better indicator of opinion than guessing the number of protestors at this or that rally.
Anonymous said…
Excellent point

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…