New energy plan not really a "plan"

Editorial: Government's new energy 'plan' off course

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20140412p2a00m0na007000c.html 

The government has obtained Cabinet approval for its Basic Energy Plan, which sets forth the country's medium- and long-term energy measures.

The plan includes no numerical targets for the ratio of each power source, however -- including nuclear power -- and also fails to present a future vision even after weeks of discussions within the ruling coalition parties. It is very difficult, therefore, to say that this energy policy serves as any sort of guideline.

The public's misgivings about energy -- including the danger of nuclear power plants, rising fuel costs, and fears for power blackouts -- remain strong. In order to dispel such concerns, the government must rush to flesh out the basic energy plan.

The updating of the country's energy plan was prompted by the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant disaster, which was triggered by the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake. The plan's renewal had originally been focused on reviewing a previous basic energy plan drawn up in 2010, which had decided that Japan would boost its dependence on nuclear power.

Although the updated energy plan aims to reduce the country's dependence on nuclear power, it ended up showing a positive stance toward reactivating idled nuclear reactors. The policy also presented a plan to maintain a certain level of nuclear power usage in the future, paving the way for the construction of new reactors. Although the country's nuclear fuel cycle projects have effectively hit a snag, the new energy plan upholds the promotion of such projects on the grounds that there are no concrete measures for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

In essence, the new energy plan makes a turnaround from the "zero-nuclear power" policy set out by the then Democratic Party of Japan-led government in 2012. The plan also reaffirms the conventional energy plan, which has been dependent on nuclear power. The essence of the new energy plan hasn't changed at all, even after one-month-and-a-half-long discussions held by the ruling coalition parties.

The major focus of the ruling coalition debates was how the new energy plan would treat renewable energy. The New Komeito party, which is the coalition partner of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, maintained that numerical targets be included in the plan, given its pledge to increase the ratio of renewables to 30 percent in 2030. The government resisted the proposal, however, saying that it's not fair to set numerical targets only for renewable energy.

In the end, both parties reached an agreement to add a footnote including a target from the previous energy plan, which stated that the ratio of renewable energy will be raised to some 20 percent in 2030, and that the country will further aim to introduce more renewables.

Although the plan should present concrete goals and measures, the government failed to present such specifics as it has yet to come up with a picture of the future. If the government keeps glossing over the fact that it is only procrastinating with respect to existing problems, the new energy plan is not worthy of being called a "plan."

During the coalition parties' talks on the beginning part of the energy plan, which states the plan's significance, a sentence expressing remorse over the Fukushima nuclear disaster was once deleted. After some lawmakers made an objection, the sentence was restored almost to its original version.

This incident gives the impression that the "safety myth" about nuclear plants has reemerged within the government and the ruling parties. In fact, however, the safety myth of nuclear power has collapsed -- and they must once again keep this in mind.

We must break away from a dependence on nuclear power as quickly as possible -- a move that will entail social costs.

The government should swiftly flesh out its energy plan while gaining public understanding, and show the path toward a society that does not depend on nuclear power.