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.

July 9, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Anonymous said…

Excellent point

July 9, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog