Skip to main content

Japan to Exit Nuclear Energy – Maybe – Maybe Not

By

This is from the New York Times:

In an abrupt turnabout, the Japanese government on Wednesday stopped short of formally adopting the goal it announced just last week — to phase out nuclear power by 2040 — after the plan drew intense opposition from business groups and communities whose economies depend on local nuclear power plants.

Color me – surprised? The decision made last week had the political benefit of not impacting most of the officials who supported it and seemed to split the difference between business interests and people wanting to move away from nuclear energy. No one had to think very hard about it because nothing drastic was going to happen for quite awhile.

It turns out a lot of people gave it some thought.

But business groups criticized any move away from nuclear power as impractical and a death knell for Japanese manufacturers, which have already lost much of their competitive edge to cheaper rivals elsewhere in Asia. And communities across Japan that host nuclear facilities feared losing government subsidies, tax revenues and jobs.They also worried that they would become the final dumping ground for spent nuclear fuel stored at their plants.

I’m sure the plants weren’t planning leave fuel rods along the side of the road as they sped out of town, but the overall point seems about right – nuclear energy facilities can be very strong economic engines in their communities and shutting off those engines can have a terrible impact. (I think the 2040 date was meant to soften any such blow, but people clearly aren’t buying it.)

The role of business here was very strong:

A day earlier, the chairmen of Japan’s most prominent business associations, including the influential Keidanren group, called a rare joint news conference to demand that Mr. Noda abandon the 2040 goal. On Wednesday, they praised the cabinet’s decision.

That’s bringing to bear a heck of a lot of pressure. Business often gets a bad rap, but they are employers, too, so trying to rescue themselves means rescuing a lot of workers, too.

There’s a lot more to Hiroko Tabuchi’s story. Do read the whole thing.

---

To be fair, the story referenced above, or rather its counterparts in the Japanese press, has gotten some pushback from the government.

"Don't get me wrong," [Prime Minister Yoshihiko] Noda said Friday. "We did make a cabinet decision" on the nuclear phase-out policy on September 14.

"Japan will seek a no-nuclear society in the 2030s and will realize it.

"With an unwavering attitude, we will implement various policies based on this principle. This is a huge policy change that we have made with a genuine determination."

My guess, and it has to be a guess, as relevant cabinet documents have not been translated yet, is that the government is keeping things very ambiguous to try to keep different constituencies content. If I’m right, it appears not to be working.

In any event, this is still a decision that will not have an impact until many of the politicians involved have left office and the Japanese government will have changed parties a few time – maybe more than a few, given recent history. A lot could still happen.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more