Skip to main content

The Tatemae and Honne of Reopening Nuclear Plants

Bloomberg has up a pretty good story about the state of nuclear energy in Japan today. The country is currently enjoying some economic gains, but the weak yen is proving a mixed blessing. It’s good for exports but terrible for imports - Or to put it more specifically, it’s good for Japan’s industries but bad for importing massive amounts of coal and natural gas to fill in the nuclear gap. Anti-nuclear forces have lost vigor and local officials (which have to approve the restart of any local nuclear facility) are relenting on keeping the plants shut.

The article is nicely done and makes a fairly complex topic easier to understand. Still this paragraph stuck out as oddly wrong headed:

The real challenge is the local governments, which have veto rights. Surprisingly, a recent poll among 135 cities located in nuclear evacuation zones showed that 49 percent of mayors would agree to a restart. The official (what Japanese call “tatemae”) argument is: Nobody likes to live near such a plant, but there they are, as toxic as ever (though certainly less volatile than when switched on), and we don’t know much about disposing of unused nuclear-power plants. So, we might as well turn them back on. The real (“honne”) story is that the plant owner/operators -- the ten local monopolists that run Japan’s energy system -- pay their annual “dues” to the localities, not just in the form of jobs but straight money to communities and incumbent local governments.

Writer Ulrike Schaede does not tell how he decided that these were the tatemae and honne stories, but both are breathtakingly cynical – I’m not sure why the first is even considered a viable argument to offer the public.

Allowing for the trauma of the Fukushima Daiichi accident – and it would be wrong to soft pedal it, even if the end result is the complete closure of all the facilities – I cannot imagine the mayors being so blasé in the first instance or so rapacious in the second.

Let’s take a look at that second part again:

The real (“honne”) story is that the plant owner/operators -- the ten local monopolists that run Japan’s energy system -- pay their annual “dues” to the localities, not just in the form of jobs but straight money to communities and incumbent local governments.

This sounds exceptionally sinister and corrupt. But what is being said here is that the facilities (or their shadowy monopolist overlords) employ local people and contribute to their communities. But don’t these activities constitute good corporate behavior?

Those “incumbent local governments” have kept the plants shut for the last two years, so they do seem to follow the public will even at the cost of a honey deal. And as public opinion starts to move back in the direction of restarting the plants, so does the government change its view. One might wish that officials would do what is best for their citizens rather than follow the variable whims of public opinion, but it’s not diabolical. If it were, virtually every politician everywhere would be in Hell (easy one – go for it!)

Rather than precipitously decommission all the facilities, Japan’s government (or governments – it’s more “volatile” than a running nuclear plant) instead waited to see if the passage of time would smooth over understandably sharp public displeasure. It seems to be happening, as the article points out. Schaede really has done a good job here  - but the shadow thrown over local government does seem badly overstated, unfair and without much basis.


jimwg said…
A high-five to any Japanese official who bucks the anti-nuclear mob at risk to their careers. Are any well-educated types stepping to the plate hawking nuclear there too? Be very interesting to see the kind of reception "Pandora's Promise" would get in Japan! What's maddening here is the thought-poisoning mantra that a good reason to close nuclear plants is because to a one their having an accident is _inevitable_.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
When using nuclear power an accident IS very much inevitable, just like it is for anything else made by man. It's a simple matter of probability and everyone operating the plants recognizes this. When designing or operating a plant you don't talk about eliminating the possiblity of an accident, you talk about reducing the probability of one as determined by an in-depth probabalistic risk analysis. What people need to understand isn't that nuclear plants are 100% safe, it's that the benefits of nuclear plants outweigh the risks.

Planes, trains and cars crash all the time killing tens of thsousands a year but nobody thinks twice about using them. Hurricanes, tornados and earthquakes happen every years and kill thousands but people still build houses where they might occur. Even the medicine we save us isn't perfect, most drugs have negative side effects that kill a few people each year, all surgeries have a risk of death, even non-invasive exams like a CT scan can causes cancer and kill you.

If people are just willing to make the same rational cost-benefit analysis about using nuclear plants that they do about using cars (which are far more deadly) then I'm sure they would find that nuclear plants are an acceptable risk.
jimwg said…
Thing is, when has a gas or oil plant or station been refused a license or the right to run based on the premise that an accident is inevitable? This is the big hypocrisy with anti-nukers. "Inevitable" in their effective word games book means next week to ten years from now for _certain_. "Inevitable" here means no matter how well a plant is run it's just going to have an deadly accident well in your lifetime. It MUST. Not a statistical thousand years from now; it WILL inevitably fail and kill long BEFORE you reach retirement. Yet that mantra still flies to the unthinking fearful even though Indian Point's been around near 40 years! I live near New Jersey where infamous Elizabeth NY is choked and lined with oil and gas and chem and god knows what other plants under its hze, and I wonder just how much of that would be running if it was pressed on groundbreaking day that an accident was "inevitable." They get a royal slide but nuclear doesn't, despite a mortality and damage second to none over 60 years worldwide. So when anti-nukers say an accident at any nuke plant is inevitable, they're not just stretching stats but bald-faced biased.

James Greenidge
Queens NY

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…