Once largely taken for granted, Japan’s electricity supply has remained a hotly disputed issue on a number of fronts since the Fukushima nuclear disaster started in March 2011.
Once largely taken for granted, Japan’s electricity supply has remained a hotly disputed issue on a number of fronts since the Fukushima nuclear disaster started in March 2011.
Proponents of nuclear energy say the environment, consumers and the nation’s economy will all suffer without the restart of nuclear reactors.
Opponents say the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, proves that nuclear energy is just too dangerous to use. They also say Japan has already proved it can get along fine without nuclear energy.
All 48 of the nation’s commercial nuclear power reactors have since been taken offline for safety inspections. The Fukushima disaster also underscored the problems related to the cozy community of bureaucrats, industry executives and academics who have together pushed for an increased use of nuclear power.
Since the disaster, Japan has often had to rely on shoestring operations and unorthodox methods to ensure enough electricity to cover peak demand in summer and winter.
Although major blackouts have been averted, the tighter supply means Japan now depends more on thermal power generation. The utilities’ need to buy more fossil fuel for these plants has driven up electricity rates.
The burning of fossil fuel also ratcheted up the utilities’ carbon dioxide emissions from 300 million tons in fiscal 2010 to 400 million tons in fiscal 2012, an increase commensurate to total CO2 absorption by Japan’s forests.
One positive effect of the disaster has been major progress in energy-saving efforts in the nation.
The peak nationwide power demand in the summer of 2013, when temperatures soared to record highs, was down 9.7 percent, or 17 gigawatts, from 2010. The decrease was equivalent to the output of 15 new nuclear reactors.
A feed-in tariff system was introduced in July 2012 to oblige power utilities to buy electricity generated from renewable energy sources at fixed rates. By November 2013, suppliers with a total output of 6.45 gigawatts had entered operations under the feed-in tariff system.
Debate is now focused on restarting idled nuclear reactors. The administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe plans to have the reactors reactivated once their safety has been approved by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.
The power industry initially cited supply shortage as a primary reason for seeking restarts of their nuclear reactors. After that rationale gradually became less persuasive, the industry placed more emphasis on the negative impact of higher electricity rates on Japan’s economy.
The Asahi Shimbun interviewed two experts for their views on the future of Japan’s power industry and energy policy.
They are Kazuhiro Ueta, a professor of environmental economics at Kyoto University, and Tsutomu Toichi, an adviser with the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan.
Excerpts from the interview follow:
* * *
You cannot discuss the future of power supply without addressing our overall socioeconomic setup. Power utilities have held excessive generator facilities so they can cover peak demand that comes only several days in midsummer.
But we should question whether we should go on with our socioeconomic setup, whereby we operate plants at full capacity and have our workers work long hours even amid scorching heat.
Europe’s vacation system is well-conceived in that sense. Urban residents go to rural villages if they have three weeks off in midsummer. That helps provincial economies, cuts energy use and enriches workers’ lives.
The three years following the 3/11 disaster was a preparatory period for Japan to move toward that kind of mature society. Not only did energy-saving efforts take root in society, but few people now complain about dimmer illumination in public places.
Awareness worthy of a mature society, which says electric power is not without its limits and should therefore be shared, is taking root.
Nuclear reactors should not be brought back online. Not only do questions linger about safety in a broad sense, such as insufficient emergency evacuation plans, but no pathway is yet in sight for deciding what to do with radioactive waste.
Exposure to radiation among nuclear plant workers represents another conundrum, which is not likely to be solved any time soon.
Increased reliance on thermal power has raised electricity rates, but power rates account for only a modest part of expenditures in general manufacturing industries. Any hollowing out of industry should be attributed to other reasons.
Nuclear power plants involve exorbitant “external costs,” such as unrest and conflict in local communities, which remain invisible in the financial statements of power utilities. We should set a clear course for pulling the plug on atomic energy and foster a climate for encouraging growth of new industries, including those related to renewable energy sources.
Retrospectively speaking, no major blackout has occurred, but the situation is not sustainable because power utilities continue to take emergency responses irrespective of cost calculations. We should have some of our nuclear reactors back online after rigorous inspections of their safety.
Electricity rates have risen 20 percent since the 3/11 disaster, but even that figure rests on the premise that nuclear reactors will be restarted. Rates will rise further if reactors remain idled. That could hollow out the economy further and slash available jobs.
Power utilities have not passed on all of their increased costs to electricity rates. They have been eating into their past savings, but that effort is nearing its limit. A symbolic case is that of Chubu Electric Power Co., which was obliged to request rate hikes despite its low dependence on nuclear power. Financial difficulties could compromise fuel procurement and therefore power supply.
The ballooning carbon dioxide emissions represent another major problem. The United States and China are moving to reduce coal-fired thermal power generation, but Japan is moving in the other direction. While the risk of another nuclear accident is not zero, keeping our nuclear reactors idled involves much larger disadvantages.
Nuclear restarts will help spread renewable energy sources. Consumers are footing the bills for spreading renewables in the form of added electricity rates. Nuclear restarts will curb rate hikes, thereby facilitating the allocation of resources to renewable energy.
Radioactive waste presents no reason to end nuclear power generation now. Waste is already there, and it is up to the political circles to decide on a final disposal site.
How much nuclear power we should keep generating on a longer term will depend on the quantity and costs of renewable energy, the extent of energy-saving efforts and the course of reforms in power markets. We only have to think about it while on the run.