Skip to main content

Japan to Phase Out Nuclear Energy – Over 30 Years – Maybe

The New York Times has the story:

In its first comprehensive energy review since the Fukushima disaster, Japan said on Friday that it would seek to phase out nuclear power by the end of the 2030s — but only after a longer-than-expected transition that would give power companies decades to recoup their investments and brace for a nonnuclear future.

By the end of the 2030s? The Times also notes this:

In announcing the plan, however, Motohisa Furukawa, the minister of state for national policy, seemed to suggest that the measures were loose guidelines open to revision and discussion. For example, he said the government would leave to future discussion whether five reactors that would be younger than 40 years by the end of the 2030s would be forced to close — leaving open the possibility that some reactors will remain running into the 2040s and beyond.

I wondered how Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda was going to thread the needle between bowing to the will of the people and the need to keep the economy from cratering – and I guess this is it.

The Times has decided this will satisfy business owners but not other factions:

“It’s trickery with words and numbers,” said Tetsunari Iida, director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a research group based in Tokyo. “The zero number might be symbolic politically, but in reality, it holds little meaning.”

“How is the government going to push through reactor restarts when there’s still so much opposition? It has no clue what to do next month, never mind by the 2030s,” he said.

I’d guess Iida is a renewables guy, so factor that in.

---

There is a risk of sounding too much like Goldilocks about this news – if Germany is shuttering its plants too quickly and Japan too slowly, what’s just right?

Let me leave aside the obvious answer – don’t shut the plants down – and say, as I’ve said numerous times before, that nuclear energy is not a trap. Countries have to decide their energy profiles for themselves. Investing heavily in any energy source and then leaving it – especially when it is inexpensive and a potent supplier – is going to generate numerous economic and social issues that have to be addressed. The Japanese are explicit in saying that it doesn’t want to crater its power companies:

The 2039 time frame, on the other hand, would allow most of those reactors to live out their 40-year life span, heading off costly losses for their operators. Japanese utilities are also saddled with the huge costs of buying oil and natural gas to meet the nuclear shortfall, a burden that would be alleviated once their reactors are restarted.

So Japan has made a decision that sidesteps many of the obvious issues surrounding such a decision; it has kicked the can way, way down the road. The only conclusion I can really draw is that the story of nuclear energy in Japan is far from over.

---

A word of warning. The Asahi Shimbun (a national Japanese newspaper) and other Japanese outlets offer accounts of a meeting between Japanese officials and U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel Poneman about the long nuclear exit, but I couldn’t find an American source about this. That’s a red flag – not because the Japanese reports are inflammatory or even wrong necessarily, but you want to be careful about stories in translation. (The absence of it in the Times story is another reason for caution.)

There’s also some talk in the stories about the Japanese hording coal and natural gas and causing higher energy prices worldwide. This is highly dubious at worst, idle speculation at best.

In other words, some of the reporting is less than it should be, so keep the truthiness radar on.

Comments

jim said…
What really floors me is the plague of crickets in Japan regarding the very non-theoretical downsides in pollution and health and CO2 effects on the population with a fossil fuel shift. One wonders whether the Japanese public is being intentionally treated like mushrooms in not being as enlightened about this proven peril as they were scared witless with over-the-top Doomsday reporting on the zero-victim Fukushima incident -- NOT "disaster."

James Greenidge
Queens NY

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …