Has M. Abe forgotten the tragedy of Fukushima?

December 10, 2013

Editorial: Return to nuclear dependency unacceptable

http://mainichi.jp/english/english/perspectives/news/20131210p2a00m0na020000c.html

Is the Abe administration trying to pretend that the tragedy in Fukushima never happened?

In a national energy plan drafted by the government that would provide the guidelines for the country's mid- to long-term energy policy, the Abe administration has reversed the previous Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) administration's line of abolishing nuclear power, and instead placed a clear emphasis on the use of nuclear power.

The safety myth of nuclear power has been destroyed. There are questions about the economic efficiency of nuclear energy. Furthermore, we have no clue how to deal with the issue of nuclear waste disposal. We must break away from our reliance on nuclear power. We cannot accept the government's switch in policy.

The draft of the Basic Energy Plan was released following deliberations by a Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry panel. The government aims to complete the plan before the end of the year, and obtain Cabinet approval early next year.

A review of the government's energy plan was prompted by the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant. The DPJ administration drafted last year what it called the Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment, which would serve as the basis for the new plan, and announced that it would inject all available policy resources toward the goal of stopping all nuclear reactors by the 2030s. The DPJ also decided that to reach this goal, it would not permit nuclear reactors to run for longer than 40 years, and to ban the construction of new reactors.

Calling nuclear power an "important source of energy," the LDP's latest draft completely overturns the plan laid out by the DPJ administration. While indicating an intention to eventually reduce Japan's dependence on nuclear power, the draft also includes a clause saying that a certain level of nuclear energy will be maintained in the long term. By not including any stipulations on the construction of new nuclear facilities, the draft left room for that possibility. In other words, the administration has completely written off the "zero nuclear" policy.

As the LDP government's reasoning goes, nuclear reactors are crucial in securing a stable supply of power, containing fuel costs and putting a stop to global warming.

The rise in the utilization rate of thermal power plants to make up for the power that used to be produced by the now-halted nuclear power plants across the country, has led to a jump in the cost of fuel -- such as natural gas and oil -- by more than 3 trillion yen a year. This has led to electricity price hikes, affecting corporations and households. The argument that nuclear power is more economical than other forms of power has been a major basis for continuing the promotion of nuclear power generation.

However, with the collapse of nuclear power's safety myth, the wisdom of placing priority on short-term economic efficiency has come into question. Parts of the country stop functioning when a major disaster takes place. Massive sums of money are necessary to compensate victims and to decontaminate. Even the massive Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), operator of the stricken Fukushima plant, found itself unable to pay for all of it, and now taxpayers' money is being injected toward handling the mess. The superiority of nuclear power is predicated on such shaky grounds.

It is true that abolishing all nuclear reactors right away when fuel prices are as high as they are now could deal a blow to the domestic economy. It would therefore be ideal to limit the reactivation of nuclear plants to those facilities that have been shown to meet high safety levels, while maintaining the 40-year limit for reactor operation and prohibiting new construction of reactors in order to achieve independence from nuclear power as swiftly as possible. During that time, fuel procurement costs must be brought down and more efficient thermal power plants must be developed to keep electricity prices down.

Following the onset of the nuclear disaster, there were plans to encourage investment in highly efficient thermal power plants and renewable energy as alternatives to nuclear energy. However, the government does not indicate a goal ratio of energy sources in its preliminary energy plan draft, making it difficult for major utilities and businesses newly entering the energy field to devise investment plans. This could lead to the preservation of a system in which the parties depend on nuclear plants for the stable supply of energy.

Another issue that remains unresolved is that of where to dispose of the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors. The government's draft included a passage stating that it would take the lead toward a solution, which would entail a shift from the tactic heretofore taken of waiting for local municipalities to offer themselves up as sites for the disposal of final nuclear waste, to taking the initiative to choose candidate sites.

It is the current generation's responsibility to engage actively in finding a final disposal site for nuclear waste. However, that does not change the fact that the selection of candidate sites will be difficult. This could be used as grounds to avoid a zero nuclear policy and fend off criticism from the likes of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who likened Japan's lack of final nuclear waste disposal sites to an apartment building with no toilets.

The public will not grant its understanding for the promotion of nuclear reactor restarts if there is little to back up such a move. To solve the problem of final nuclear waste disposal as well, the government must present us with a detailed plan on how it will reduce nuclear reactors.

That the government is proposing the steady promotion of the nuclear fuel cycle in the same manner as pre-disaster times is also problematic. Japan owns 44 tons of reprocessed plutonium -- or the equivalent of 5,000 atomic bombs -- in both Japan and abroad. Continuing with a plutonium-producing nuclear fuel cycle with no way to use it could potentially raise international suspicions.

Considering the safety risks and the technological difficulties of the sodium-cooled fast-breeder reactor Monju, whose prospects for practical viability are unknown, and reprocessing plants, we should step away from the nuclear fuel cycle.

Indeed, when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe returned to power, he clearly stated that he would review the previous administration's nuclear policy. However, he also set forth a goal to establish an economic and social structure that would not have to depend on nuclear power. It was part of the election pledges made by the LDP in the lower house election last December.

The previous administration's policy took over six months of committee deliberations and public discussions to construct. We must not allow it to be dismantled so easily.

Pro-nuclear parties comprised the vast majority of the panel that compiled the LDP's draft, hinting at the possibility that the bottom line was never in question. One could say that the result has exposed the shortcomings of refusing to listen to a broad range of public opinions and leaving deliberations to a government committee. Without a willingness to truly listen to the voices of the people, the government will fail to gain confidence in its policies.