Any big shift from nuclear power will take years. It’s time for Japan’s politicians to show some leadership to ensure the country’s reactors get back online.
Last month, thousands of Japanese took to the streets to demand an end to nuclear power in their country. For more than half a century, Japan had been in the uncomfortable situation of being both the only nation that has suffered an atomic attack, but also one of the countries that are most reliant on atomic energy. The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, though, has made it impossible to ignore this seeming paradox any longer. The Japanese people, known more for their restraint and willingness to endure than for their propensity to express outrage and challenge the status quo, appear to have found their voice.
A newly empowered public voice would surely be a positive in a country whose democratically elected leaders have waffled with impressive ambivalence through Japan’s troubles over the last decade. However, if this public voice portends a new reality for Japan, Japanese political leadership will need to find the sophistication and fortitude to respect the difference between democratic leadership and popular capitulation. Notwithstanding the immediate task of bringing relief to hundreds of thousands of tsunami victims, perhaps the most important and imminent test for Japan’s leadership in this new era must be to defy the people’s demands and work immediately to ensure Japan’s nuclear energy supply.
Japan faces a series of vexing problems that suggest a bleak future for a nation that only 20 years ago seemed unstoppable. Japan’s birth-rate is in decline, its labour force is retiring, its role as Asia’s primary economic power is being nibbled away by rising Asian competitors, and the national debt is soaring. Added to this is the globally familiar paradox of incessant energy demand despite tightening constraints on greenhouse gas emissions. Tragically, while Japan scrambles to address the new problems resulting from the events of March 11, it gets no free pass on these old ones. Japan’s problems are being compounded, and what was a tough challenge for Japan’s leadership on March 10 has become a conundrum that will require national sacrifices, cultural shifts, and leadership that is visionary by any standards, let alone those of the country’s political centre of Nagatacho.
The people’s outrage at the nuclear industry is understandable. However, while this is hardly a time that lends itself to thoughtful reflection, that is precisely what is in order.
Before the earthquake, Japan produced a third of its electricity from nuclear power. The shutdown of six nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi, and a further three at Chubu Electric’s Hamaoka plant at the request of Prime Minister Naoto Kan, removes from the grid over 8GW of electrical capacity, or roughly half of what is required by the city of Tokyo. Taking all of Japan’s nuclear power plants off line would result in almost 50GW of lost electrical capacity, nearly equivalent to that of Australia. True, such a move would further reduce the risk of suffering another nuclear accident on the scale of Fukushima. However, that risk is anyway low (recall that the Tohoku earthquake was the first of its kind in a thousand years), while the price would be considerable: destabilizing Japan’s industrial capacity, reducing Japanese household wealth and lowering the competitiveness of Japanese goods by raising energy prices, devastating nuclear reactor host communities, and wiping trillions of yen worth of assets from Japan’s energy infrastructure. Given Japan’s abundance of national challenges, adding the above tangle of new problems to the mix would be recognized as a mistake when the history books are written.
Photo Credit: Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Andrew DeWit
Fortunately, Mitsui, Softbank, NTT Docomo and other major actors, together with 35 of 47 prefectures, are moving to exploit renewables. Japan has been dominated by the “nuclear village,” which opposed renewables and the smart grid, claiming nuclear power was the cheapest option. It’s clear that nuclear power is in fact far too expensive, and increasingly so. Relying on it also requires maintenance of the monopolized utilities in their present form. Fukushima has made hitherto hidden fiscal and other costs visible, and the smart businesses and political communities are moving to renewables, where prices are falling. Given Japan’s debt and demographic problems, it would surely be unwise to follow the nuclear village’s advice.
Anjana
For all the anti-nuclear voices in Japan, it would seem that there would be more pro-nuclear support.
The companies or Agencies that run these reactors and hold the value of the assets, as well as their host communities where they provide economic stability and growth would together would typically form a stronger voice than the populist voices. I can only imagine that local governors and mayors in Japan will have to respond to not only the anti-nuclear voices of fear, but also to the local voices of those employed by or otherwise benefiting from the energy plants, including tax revenues that are potentially being generated by the running of the plants.
It seems that the anti-nuclear protests will definitely get Japan to think about expanding other sources of power. However, I can only imagine that this would be a back burner item after Japan figures out how to stem its current issues, secure and stabilize its still affected people.
Michael Penn
Ought something in this article note that the author used to work as a lobbyist for Japan’s nuclear program in Washington? Don’t the editors of The Diplomat feel any obligation to let their readers know such a thing?
David Chatham
Well spotted, Michael.
“Prior to joining the Mansfield Foundation, Mr. Shaffer served as a research analyst for the Washington office of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan. In that position, his responsibilities included helping represent Japan’s nuclear program to U.S. policymakers and others and analyzing developments in U.S. policy on energy, nonproliferation, and Japan.”
http://www.mansfieldfdn.org/about_fdn/staff/ryan.htm
It is indeed a pity that The Diplomat did not inform us of the Mr. Shaffer’s allegiances.
Ian
No offense, but there are never calls for those working for anti-nuclear groups to expose their background. I don’t see how working for a pro-nuclear company removes the credibility of the author, but working for an anti-nuclear group somehow doesn’t, and perhaps in some minds strengthens it. You can’t have things both ways. The reality most pro-nuclear advocates were already of that mindset before they started their pro-nuclear careers. They weren’t brainwashed and bribed into their beliefs. I am sure it is the same for anti-nuclear advocates. We get into careers we are passionate for. Or at least we try.
As for Japan, I welcome their expanded use of renewables. I hope they succeed in installing much more renewable capacity. Our future energy use is going to need to rely on renewables and nuclear. Whether it be advanced fission or fusion plants, nuclear is going to have to be our baseload power source with most of the remainder supplied by renewables. Nuclear accidents may be fascinating and terrifying, but even including TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukishima, commercial nuclear has resulted in less affects on human health and the environment than any other power source.
I strongly support efforts to increase renewable capacity, but also efforts to increase nuclear capacity. Fossil fuels kill thousands a year, yet we don’t bat an eye. Fossil fuels need to be phased out for something better. I say we work together to achieve that goal.
David Chatham
See “astroturfing”.
Peter Dyloco
Even if the author used to work as a lobbyist, Japan actually has no viable alternatives to nuclear energy. What would you suggest Japan do/develop to make up for the lost electricity generation?
David Chatham
Peter,
First of all, by not disclosing his past activities the writer loses credibility. It was a grievous omission not to do so on the part of both the publisher and the writer. Second, I would suggest the following as alternatives to uranium based nuclear power generation:
a. geothermal power generation
b. thorium based nuclear power generation
c. cogeneration
d. other renewable sources (eg wind, solar, tidal, etc)
Phani
Free energy is not free. Solar, for inntasce, requires solar cells or more complicated machinery. There is a capital investment involved, even if fuel costs are very low. When nuclear first came out, some people thought it would be too cheap to meter . Generally, solar *still* costs more than nuclear or coal. If you wish to promote alternatives, it might help to provide a link.