Recent data shows Japan posted a record high trade deficit of ¥6.93tn (A$73.16bn) in 2012. Japan is struggling with rising imports as it tries to replace the energy lost when it shut down of most of its nuclear reactors following the March 11, 2011 Fukushima disaster.
A glance at Japan’s energy trade statistics reveals the cost of mineral fuel imports increased from ¥17.4tn in 2010 to ¥21.8tn in 2011 and then to ¥24.1tn in 2012. The increased cost of imported fuels accounted for a lion’s share of Japan trade deficits over the past two years. The cost of power has caused some Japanese companies to relocate production overseas and have otherwise made Japanese-produced goods less competitive.
Between May and July 2012, all of Japan’s 54 nuclear reactors were offline. Two reactors were restarted in Ōi in July to tackle looming electricity shortages in the Kansai region during summer. According to the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, restarting 26 of the nuclear power stations in 2014 would lower electricity fuel cost by ¥1.8tn.
Before the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power accounted for 25-30% of Japan’s electricity supply. For a resource-poor and import dependent country, nuclear power was seen as a cheap option. At the same time it could enhance energy security, as it was considered to be a domestic energy source.
After the Fukushima disaster, Naoto Kan’s and Yoshihiko Noda’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) governments hinted at nuclear phase-out by 2040. They did not commit to such policy through a new Basic Energy Plan, but they seemed to favour such an option, which was also supported by public opinion.
However, in mid-December 2012, Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) won a landslide victory in Japan’s general election, defeating the DPJ. Before the election, Shinzo Abe declared a move away from nuclear power was irresponsible and would damage the already ailing Japanese economy.
Public opinion remains in favour of a nuclear phase-out. But this issue did not affect voting behaviour, which overwhelmingly swung to the pro-nuclear option. Although all parties other than the LDP pledged to do away with nuclear power generation, the election outcome suggests that a large portion of unaffiliated voters who support an end to nuclear power voted for the LDP.
The Japanese public seems to have been frustrated with Kan’s and Noda’s mishandling of the nuclear meltdown and their inability to revive the economy.
After the election, Shinzo Abe declared Japan’s energy policy would be reviewed over the next decade though publication of a new Basic Energy Plan, which is usually published every three years.
Abe’s new government will also decide within three years whether to restart 50 reactors that remain idle after the Fukushima disaster. The government will allow restarting nuclear reactors that have been deemed safe by the newly formed independent regulator, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA).
The NRA is not expected to compile new safety standards until after July 2013, which means any decision on resuming operations could likely only be made after the Upper House election in the summer of 2013.
Minister Motegi also stated that once experts’ opinions were collected, the new government would take “a major political decision” on whether or not to allow construction of nine reactors now at the planning stage.
Abe’s U-turn in nuclear policy comes as no surprise to Japan-watchers. The LDP is widely regarded as a party with close historical links to Japan’s powerful “nuclear village”, electric utilities that are vehemently pro-nuclear and other likewise minded industry groups.
Much of Japan’s big business remains adamantly opposed to a nuclear phase-out, arguing that this would lead to a further increase in electricity prices and manufacturing costs and would ultimately lead to industries shutting down or moving offshore. They argue that Japan’s economy cannot recover without nuclear power.
For Abe, restarting nuclear reactors, and reducing fuel imports costs and consequently the trade deficit, is instrumental in his pursuit of economic resuscitation through Keynesian policies.
While the future prospects for renewable energy have been boosted by the introduction of an improved and generous feed-in-tariff (FIT) in July 2012, many obstacles stand in the path of renewable energy replacing lost nuclear power in the short-to-medium term.
Meanwhile, the public opinion is likely to remain anti-nuclear. It is not surprising given the scale of the Fukushima disaster, and the negligence of TEPCO and the regulators.
But anti-nuclear activists in Japan do not have a strong voice in Tokyo and have very little influence on future energy policy. And the lack of Japanese media attention to the nuclear issue means public opinion is likely to become ambivalent. Both the DPJ and the LDP governments have thus far successfully silenced public debate on the issue.
It is very likely that many of Japan’s idle nuclear reactors will be restarted in the second part of 2013 and 2014. While many in Japan may have become personally opposed to nuclear power, they recognise that restarting the reactors deemed safe by the independent regulator under new and improved safety standards is the only choice for Japan.
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
Interesting conundrum there Vlado, thanks for sharing.
I had just finished reading paper that included economic, environmental and social considerations on this very issue.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000049
Vlado Vivoda
Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University
Thanks Paul! I'm currently close to finishing a book manuscript on this very topic, and this opinion piece just scratches the surface of some of the major issues. Also, thanks for sharing the Energy Policy paper, in fact I've come across it myself this morning. The analyses are great and comprehensive in including economic, environmental and social considerations. The issue with it is that it assumes policy options that were laid out pre-election are are off the table with LDP's return to power. The reason for this is that Energy Policy have lately been fairly slow in their review process (one of my papers has been under review for nine months). As a consequence, papers lose some currency by the time they get published -- and this is not the authors' fault.
Paul Moonie
PhD student, solar energy
Good to hear you're writing a book with more detail, looking forward to hearing more.
Cheers, Paul
Joseph Bernard
Director
"Japan can’t afford to leave nuclear power switched off"
Does this claim factor in the risks? and who exactly is going to determine what "safe" exactly means?
How can we meaningfully examine the concept of "afford" without fully evaluating the risks. fukushima was once deemed safe but now the world is faced with a potential nuclear catastrophe that estimated to be 5000 times worse than Hiroshima. what sense would money make to the people of japan and the health of our planet in such an…
Read moreVlado Vivoda
Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University
Good point Joseph! The newly established Nuclear Regulatory Agency is tasked with collecting expert scientific opinion on safety of each nuclear reactor in Japan. There has been some debate on whether various reactors sit on a fault line, with the electric utilities claiming that they do not sit on a fault line (of course, it is in their interest that reactors get restarted as soon as possible as their financed have been in red since 3/11). The NRA is independent on paper, unlike previous regulators…
Read moreGerard Dean
Managing Director
Mr Bernard
You asked, 'Does this claim factor in the risks?"
According to Wikipedia, there were no, read zero, deaths caused by the collapse of the Fukushima reactor that was caused by a tsunami that killed 20,000.
That number 20,000 is also Wikipedia's estimation of the number of Chinese coal miners who die on the job every year.
So, let's base the decision on the score: China 20,000 - Japan Nil.
I think the nuclear approach is safer for the workers.
Gerard Dean
Tony Xiao
retired teacher
Although a bit off topic, coal mine deaths in China have been declining from a high of nearly 7000 in 2002 down to 1200 in 2011 and 1146 in 2012.
Tony Xiao
retired teacher
Sorry, 1,970 in 2011
Joseph Bernard
Director
Mr Dean
lets not count the number of people that will / have died from radiation sickness trying to stop the reactor from exploding..
Lets not count the people that have now lost their homes because of the exclusion zone that now exists around the site for the next how many human life times.
Lets not count the humans that will suffer from radiation that has leaked from the site since the explosion.
Lets pray that the spent rods can be safely removed from the site and that we do not have a serious explosion as noted in the new scientist article..
There are all sort of business risks out there as i am sure you will agree.. How much of your hard earned dollar would you risk investing in the fukushima plant? .. and what would you guess the value of this multi billion dollar investment is worth today?
Lets face it.. nuclear power is a high risk, high consequence investment.
Delete this account as requested!
logged in via email @iinet.net.au
Hi Joseph - let's count them then:
0
A lot less vague scare mongering on your behalf and some evidence would be appreciated.
That was easy enough. There was some dangerously high dosages received by some emergency, I'll quote this http://fukushima.ans.org/report/health-physics
"As of the most recent monitoring period, no observable health effects have been reported in any of the workers. It should be noted that acute health effects are not expected at these doses to workers, although all are being closely monitored."
Now, you may doubt this source due to their obvious links with the nuclear power industry but some facts would make for a far more convincing refutation.
BTW - I'd never pray for waste to be removed, technology is far more applicable than divine intervention.
Yoron Hamber
Thinking
As for estimating risks from nuclear pollution it becomes a question about how to prove them. Remember the London smog :) took quite a time for the industry and politics to realize and accept the dangers of that type of 'ordinary pollution' and today we got our global warming from it too. Microscopic radioactive particles in dust soil etc, have a very long turnaround before they become harmless. And as it wanders with wind water and groundwater it becomes quite difficult to track. Using statistics on different types of cancer related cases you might get a clue but to prove what caused it?
Joseph Bernard
Director
Hi Stephen,
you are claiming that nobody died?
Next what lets claim that working in extreme levels of radiation is actually good for you.
as for scare mongering.. how about you write to New Scientist and offer them your opinion.. I have read a number of articles on this subject and the claims vary as to the severity and as you will note in the quote below that an explosion that is 5,000 time more than Hiroshima bomb will see the city of Tokyo turned into a ghost town and the fallout…
Read moreDelete this account as requested!
logged in via email @iinet.net.au
I'm not making any claims - you are. I am asking you for some evidence for yours.
Haven't seen any yet.
20 000+ pople died. From the earthquake/tsunami.
Please show deaths directly attributed to radiation leaked from the Fukushima plants. I haven't found a single one.
BTW - news articles in New Scientist are not peer reviewed science or evidence thereof. They're just news stories with reflecting what others have said. Don't try and use that as an argument from authority. Especially when the quote you've mined is a contextless mess.
Joseph Bernard
Director
relax Stephen,
there was no hiroshima, no fukushima and everything is fine.
Henry Verberne
Former IT Professional
Don't get too complacent Stephen. Maybe no deaths now but the longer term effect of that radiation might very well result in greater mortality from cancer or leukemia.
Daniel Boon
logged in via LinkedIn
It appears Gerard Dean is cut from the same cloth as he purports Joseph Bernard is ...
Look ... the reality is Japan has been in decline for some 20 years and with it, most other economies around the world as money - a physical manifestation of energy - cannot be supported due to over-exploitation ...
If it were you or I with debts far greater than our earning potential, we would be bankrupted by the system immediately ... its just a systemic stripping of any assets accumulated by the populace ...
Luke Weston
Physicist / electronic engineer
And can you show me where anybody has actually received radiological doses that would be consistent with seeing that sort of epidemiology in the future?
Luke Weston
Physicist / electronic engineer
"And as it wanders with wind water and groundwater it becomes quite difficult to track."
Of course radioactivity is extremely easy to track. That's why radioactive (and stable isotope) tracers are ubiquitous in all kinds of science, medicine and engineering.
Yoron Hamber
Thinking
Yes, but following it through poorly understood groundwater systems and then proving from what nuclear facility it might, or might not, come should be tricky Luke. When it comes to ocean dispersing I expect the same argument to hold. Maybe you have the solution to that problem though? It would indeed be nice to be able to prove from exactly where radioactive contamination comes, to then demand compensation for the damage cause short and long time..
Yoron Hamber
Thinking
By the way, your reply "And can you show me where anybody has actually received radiological doses that would be consistent with seeing that sort of epidemiology in the future?" is consistent with what I state Luke.
Check up one the 'natural', ahem. background radiation' from around 1940 to now, and see if it has grown :) just don't tell me that this is a natural cycle *Earth goes through',
David Arthur
n/a
"Japan can't afford to leave nuclear power switched off": correct.
By the same token, nor can Japan afford to continue ignoring the safety recommendations it's had available for decades, eg locate emergency power supplies ABOVE tsunami inundation zones. In other words, they have long known that something like Fukushima could happen, yet chose to not take protective measures.
If Japan had the US's "sue-at-the-drop-of-a-hat" culture, TEPCO would have been goaded to the appropriate preventative measures long ago.
Peter Sommerville
Scientist & Technologist
Vlado,
You are brave to state the obvious in this instance. Well done.
Jamie Clemons
logged in via Facebook
It was an unfortunate choice of Japan to invest in Nuclear energy. If they had invested in Geothermal energy they would have had more than enough clean energy without the risk of nuclear or the cost of burning fossil fuels.
Vlado Vivoda
Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University
Geothermal, in addition to solar and wind, has great potential for development, given that Japan has geothermal power sources equivalent to 20 nuclear plants. Despite its abundant geothermal resources ranked third in the world, the geothermal generating capacity in Japan has remained at 540 MW or a mere 0.3 percent of the total electricity generation capacity without any new project since 1999. Adequate technology and experience are available as Japan has supplied 70 per cent of the geothermal plants…
Read moreAlex Cannara
logged in via Facebook
Very wise, since not only is the true cost, including emissions and decommissioning absurd...
www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Japanese_trade_figures_reveal_cost_of_nuclear_shutdown_2501121.html
Nuclear power worldwide, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, has been the safest form of mass power generation ever deployed (use http colon slash slash)...
tinyurl dotcom/42wvr9l
www dotscientificamerican dotcom/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy
And, a perfect complement for local solar and carbon-neutral fuels via advanced nuclear. There are countries, including Japan, that have recognized the value of all nuclear technologies, especially our own US invention of liquid-salt reactors...
tinyurl dotcom/4t5ojde
tinyurl dotcom/7hatm2b
asia dotiop dotorg/cws/article/news/47111
tinyurl dotcom/6vmaljn
vimeo dotcom/39052604
tinyurl dotcom/8ynwcqw
tinyurl dotcom/bpcrmy7...
Alex Cannara
logged in via Facebook
There is also a unique historical defect in the entire Japanese electric system, which partially aggravated the Fukushima disaster...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/why-japans-fragmented-grid-cant-cope/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=040711
Mark Goldes
logged in via Facebook
Japan may not survive an M8 earthquake predicted by two Japanese government agencies.
Fukushima fuel pools may release between 40 to 85 times the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl.
That could not merely cause enough cancers to depopulate Japan, but could end human life in the Northern Hemisphere.
See the Aesop Institute website for what might be done to prevent that happening, if it can be accomplished fast enough to matter.
Luke Weston
Physicist / electronic engineer
"Fukushima fuel pools may release between 40 to 85 times the radioactive fallout from Chernobyl."
Absolute rubbish, and of course it's absolutely evidence-free.
Despite the fact that this Aesop Institute website appears to have the most terrible web designer in the history of human civilisation, I went and had a look and what did I find?
Blacklight Power. Catalyst-induced Hydrino transitions. Car that travels more than 5000 miles on a gallon of water! ChavaEnergy. Zero-point energy. "Fractional quantum states".
We don't need that nasty nuclear power, because we've got all the good old fashioned pseudoscience, conspiracy theories and snake oil the world needs instead!
Yoron Hamber
Thinking
Won't it be extremely expensive either way for Japan. Know that in the US they gave up on cleaning when it came to the soil, meaning that you had radioactive substances left inside it, because it would just cost too much. How may nuclear facilities will they dismantle, and to what cost?
The other way to see it is that this types of costs will haunt all Countries.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
"While many in Japan may have become personally opposed to nuclear power, they recognise that restarting the reactors deemed safe by the independent regulator under new and improved safety standards is the only choice for Japan."
The only choice?
Try this: Restarting existing reactors as a short term measure, while simultaneously implementing additional sustainable sources of energy. What has not been mentioned in this article is that the bulk of Japan's energy needs are supplied by Hydro…
Read moreLuke Weston
Physicist / electronic engineer
Keep in mind that we're talking about a very large amount of energy here, energy that is supplied with a high capacity factor, constantly and reliably, in order to support Japan's population and industrial productivity, both of which are relatively large for the amount of usable land area available. Diffuse energy sources which are highly inefficient in terms of their land use for a given amount of (high capacity factor) energy generated are certainly not practical in Japan on the scale required.
Mark O'Connor
Author
Japan can’t afford to leave nuclear power switched off
--and nor can it or the world afford to use nuclear power in an earthquake and tsunami zone. Tokyo nearly had to be evacuated after the recent Fukushima disasters, and there was potential for a much wider Northern Hemisphere disaster.
Japan's real probelm, as for the last 100 years, is that its vast population far exceeds the number that it has food and energy for. Neither invading Manchuria, WWII, nor going nuclear have solved this problem.
There was breathing space during the years of cheap oil from tankers and of technological/manufacturing superiority after WWII, but Japanese governments failed to realise this was their last chance to reduce their population (a process that can never be swift). Instead they let it balloon out still further.
However the author of the article misses this point --missing the elephant the room! -- while still offering some useful statistics.
Luke Weston
Physicist / electronic engineer
"Tokyo nearly had to be evacuated after the recent Fukushima disasters"
Based on what sort of evidence!? (Actual scientifically credible health physics, peer-reviewed and published, please.)
"and there was potential for a much wider Northern Hemisphere disaster."
What sort of potential? With what sort of evidence and scientific plausibility?
Dirk Wainer
director/programmer
I was watching an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) documentary on Fukashima. They are a conservative government accurate television group. They raised alarm and indicated that the state of the building was on the edge and that this installation was a monumental catastrophe waiting to happen. Criticality= Probability of Failure X Risk. So this needs the world to take immediate action. This documentary had Japanese scientist indicating that Japan has a sickness and that sickness was avoiding what was happening and just mindlessly following their leaders. They were calling for International intervention. An earthquake could make Japan uninhabitable and effect the whole USA. Worth raising the alarm and worth the international community having a second look.
Ivan Quail
maverick
Vlado
I refer you to www.ga.gov.au/energy/projects/geothermal-energy.html
It seems strange to me that Australia which is entirely located on one Tectonic plate and with no volcanoes should have such vast geothermal resources and Japan with 108 volcanoes has relatively speaking so little geothermal resources. Perhaps you can enlighten me.