Skip to main content

Japanese Business to Nuclear Energy: Stay

Reuters has released a poll gauging the attitude of Japanese businesses toward nuclear energy. Based on a number of stories I’ve read, I expected the numbers to be extremely dismal.

And while not exactly warming, they’re not nearly as awful as anticipated, either.

About one in five big Japanese firms wants to see the share of nuclear power in the electricity supply reduced to zero by 2030, a Reuters poll showed, amid a growing anti-nuclear clamor after last year’s Fukushima atomic disaster.

But underlining concerns about a rise in energy costs without nuclear power, the rest of the respondents supported a continued role for nuclear energy, with the biggest group opting for a share of 15%.

A little more specifically:

In the Reuters poll, 19% of big firms sought to cut nuclear power’s role to zero, but 39% called for 15% by 2030, as a majority of companies brace for slower economic growth as reliance on nuclear energy declines.

One-quarter said they wanted to see a 20-25% share and the remainder called for even greater percentages, according to the poll of 400 big firms, taken alongside the monthly Reuters Tankan business sentiment survey. A total of 268 responded during the Aug 6-21 survey period.

The share numbers here represent a rather modest reduction, as nuclear energy supplied about 27 percent of Japan’s electricity before the accident at Fukushima Daiichi. This means well more than half the respondents want the share reduced by less than half to barely reduced at all.

Of course, one would really need a series of surveys on this topic to grasp whether these numbers are growing. It’s bald intuition – and the experience of other industrial accidents such as the BP oil spill – to suggest that as time goes by, the impact of an accident becomes less. That’s been true of the Japanese accident in polls taken both here and in Great Britain. It’ll be interesting to see if this follows through in Japan as well.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has said he would like to reduce nuclear energy’s share but is awaiting a medium-term energy plan before describing specifics. One can’t blame Noda for treading carefully.

To cope with increased electricity costs amid a prolonged shutdown of reactors, 69% said they would cut expenditure and 36% would seek cheaper power suppliers, according to the poll, which allowed respondents multiple choices.

Underlining conditions of prolonged deflation, 26% said they would pass the cost on to their customers, while 13% would shift operations out of Japan, according to the poll.

Noda has to balance the wants of a sizable constituency – a government poll shows about 47 percent want to zero out nuclear energy – with their need to retain employment and, from the government’s perspective, contribute to the economy. Carbon emission targets weigh in, too.

So the numbers are not great but not so horrible that they make closing the nuclear facilities a key to political survivability – at least, I don’t think that’s what they would show here.


In this light, an editorial in the Yomiuri Shimbon (a national newspaper) is less surprising.

Securing the safety of nuclear power plants is of course important. However, factors such as economic efficiency and a stable energy supply are also important in deciding the nation's energy policy. As a country poor in natural resources, Japan needs to have various sources of electricity, including nuclear power plants, to ensure a stable power supply.

Thus the government should promote a realistic energy policy of utilizing nuclear power plants from a mid- and long-term standpoint.

Which probably would not have been written a year ago. The paper also tackles public polling.

It is important for politicians to listen to the voices of the people. However, there is a risk that politicians may slip into populism, depending on how much they rely on public opinion.

A member of an expert panel tasked with analyzing the results of the surveys said, "We don't need politics if opinion polls decide everything."

The results of the surveys should be used as one element in discussing the nation's nuclear policy. The government should avoid having the results directly influence its energy policy.

This is a tougher needle to thread. The editorial goes on to say that people don’t realize that closing the nuclear facilities would hurt the economy and raise unemployment. This is true only in a speculative sense – a lot would depend on the length of time the facilities stay open – but politicians don’t have to be “populist” necessarily to accede to the public will even if it will harm them economically. See Germany for exhibit A.

Regardless, all these elements may suggest a consensus forming around nuclear energy continuing with a lesser share. But if this is the consensus, it’s at best a fragile one. We’ll know more after the energy plan is released.


jim said…
You're going to quickly reach a threshold where you can't pick and chose what mix of fossil fuels and nuclear to have and expect an environment anywhere as healthy and clean and nearly pollutionless as all nuclear would be. It's kind of like being a little bit pregnant. You're either regularly putting up with/tolerating a million respiratory aliments vs. several thousand yearly. I don't see anyone putting that human face on the mix percentages. Maybe now is the time -- including Germany.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
SteveK9 said…
The Japanese have royally screwed themselves. They really need nuclear energy (they have little to no indigenous fossil resources), and now, because they did not take proper precautions, they may not be able to use it. It's a little surprising they would be in this situation.
Joris van Dorp said…
So how exactly will Japan achieve the 0% nuclear that has been a subject of this poll?

Look at the following presentation.

It says that the 0% can be achieved by maintaining a 65% share of (imported) fossil fuel in the Japan energy mix.

I wonder how many Japanese would have voted for the 0% nuclear option if they had known that this would entail remaining critically dependent on fossil fuels.

Noteworthy is also that the original Japanese energy strategy (pre-fukushima) called for an increase of nuclear % to 45% and a *reduction* of fossil fuels to 35%.

So what we have here is the Japanese public and some businesses actively voting *for* a doubling of fossil fuel dependence as compared to the pre-fukushima Energy Strategy.

You can call that a resounding victory for Big Fossil. For the Japanese people, it is a horrible disaster of course.
Joris van Dorp said…

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…