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.

Comments

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…
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20120720/20120720_en.pdf

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 …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…