This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/asia/japan-will-try-to-halt-nuclear-power-by-the-end-of-the-2030s.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Japan Will Try to Halt Nuclear Power by the End of the 2030s Japan Will Try to Halt Nuclear Power by the End of the 2030s
(about 1 hour later)
TOKYO — In its first comprehensive energy review since the Fukushima disaster, Japan said on Friday that it would seek to phase out nuclear power by the end of the 2030s, heralding the end of nuclear energy in Japan — but only after a longer-than-expected transition that would give power companies decades to recoup their investments and brace for a nonnuclear future. TOKYO — In its first comprehensive energy review since the Fukushima disaster, Japan said on Friday that it would seek to phase out nuclear power by the end of the 2030s — but only after a longer-than-expected transition that would give power companies decades to recoup their investments and brace for a nonnuclear future.
The energy strategy, which would call for a 40-year life span for reactors and limit the construction of nuclear plants, reflects a historic shift away from nuclear power since the accident last year.The energy strategy, which would call for a 40-year life span for reactors and limit the construction of nuclear plants, reflects a historic shift away from nuclear power since the accident last year.
In announcing the plan, however, Motohisa Furukawa, the minister of state for national policy, seemed to suggest that the measures were loose guidelines open to revision and discussion. For example, he said the government would leave to future discussion whether five reactors that would be younger than 40 years by the end of the 2030s would be forced to close — leaving open the possibility that some reactors will remain running into the 2040s and beyond.In announcing the plan, however, Motohisa Furukawa, the minister of state for national policy, seemed to suggest that the measures were loose guidelines open to revision and discussion. For example, he said the government would leave to future discussion whether five reactors that would be younger than 40 years by the end of the 2030s would be forced to close — leaving open the possibility that some reactors will remain running into the 2040s and beyond.
Mr. Furukawa also cast doubt on the ability of the central government to enforce the strategy’s terms. He said that while it represented the government’s position on Japan’s energy future, the authorities would bow to decisions on specific policies made by a newly appointed panel of experts overseeing nuclear power. The government also has little legal recourse to force a nuclear plant to close.Mr. Furukawa also cast doubt on the ability of the central government to enforce the strategy’s terms. He said that while it represented the government’s position on Japan’s energy future, the authorities would bow to decisions on specific policies made by a newly appointed panel of experts overseeing nuclear power. The government also has little legal recourse to force a nuclear plant to close.
And he said there was no change to the government’s quest to restart reactors for now, most of which remain idle following the Fukushima accident, despite nationwide rallies protesting those restarts. “We have set the general direction of policy,” Mr. Furukawa said. “But we must also remain flexible, because this is a long-term policy.”And he said there was no change to the government’s quest to restart reactors for now, most of which remain idle following the Fukushima accident, despite nationwide rallies protesting those restarts. “We have set the general direction of policy,” Mr. Furukawa said. “But we must also remain flexible, because this is a long-term policy.”
Critics blasted the strategy as too vague and long-term to have meaning. On top of the vagueness of its terms, the new policy is fraught with uncertainties. The unpopular prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, and his governing Democratic Party are likely to lose the next national election, calling into question whether any long-term policy he sets will stick.
Critics blasted the strategy as too vague and long term to have meaning.
“It’s trickery with words and numbers,” said Tetsunari Iida, director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a research group based in Tokyo. “The zero number might be symbolic politically, but in reality, it holds little meaning.”“It’s trickery with words and numbers,” said Tetsunari Iida, director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a research group based in Tokyo. “The zero number might be symbolic politically, but in reality, it holds little meaning.”
“How is the government going to push through reactor restarts when there’s still so much opposition? It has no clue what to do next month, never mind by the 2030s,” he said.“How is the government going to push through reactor restarts when there’s still so much opposition? It has no clue what to do next month, never mind by the 2030s,” he said.
The vagueness of the terms set out in the strategy, as well as the drawn-out time frame, was seen as an effort to strike a compromise with Japan’s big business lobby, which has vehemently opposed the zero-nuclear goal as one that will wreck the economy with higher energy costs and an unreliable power supply. The vagueness of the plan, as well as the drawn-out time frame, is seen as an effort to strike a compromise with Japan’s big business lobby, which has vehemently opposed the zero-nuclear goal as one that will wreck the economy with higher energy costs and an unreliable power supply.
The terms were unlikely to alleviate those concerns, however, among a lobby that had backed options that would downsize the nuclear program but not eliminate it. The plan is unlikely to alleviate those concerns, however. The lobby has backed options that would shrink the nuclear program but not eliminate it.
Nor was the new strategy likely to appease the burgeoning anti-nuclear movement, which calls for an immediate end to nuclear power in Japan. The government had been discussing energy policy to the year 2030, and there was anger and confusion at anti-nuclear rallies Friday night over why the time frame had been pushed back. Nor is the new strategy likely to appease the burgeoning antinuclear movement, which calls for an immediate end to nuclear power in Japan. The government had been discussing energy policy to the year 2030, and there was anger and confusion at antinuclear rallies Friday night over why the time frame had been pushed back.
“They’re ignoring the terror that many of us feel toward nuclear power,” said Kumi Tomiyasu, an employee at a Tokyo-based printing company who attended a rally in front of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s office Friday. “By sticking with nuclear for so long, the government has put the interests of power companies and big business above those of the Japanese people.” “They’re ignoring the terror that many of us feel toward nuclear power,” said Kumi Tomiyasu, an employee at a Tokyo-based printing company who attended a rally in front of Mr. Noda’s office on Friday. “By sticking with nuclear for so long, the government has put the interests of power companies and big business above those of the Japanese people.”
The Friday announcement ends — for now — weeks of wrangling over the first comprehensive energy rethink since the accident last year at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Multiple meltdowns at the plant caused large-scale radiation leaks, prompted the government to order mass evacuations and rendered swaths of land in the region uninhabitable for decades. The Friday announcement ends — for now — weeks of wrangling over the first comprehensive energy plan revision since the accident last year at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Multiple meltdowns at the plant caused large-scale radiation leaks, prompted the government to order mass evacuations and rendered swaths of land in the region uninhabitable for decades.
Before the accident, Japan depended on its reactors for about 30 percent of its electricity needs. It had planned to raise that share to more than 50 percent by 2030.Before the accident, Japan depended on its reactors for about 30 percent of its electricity needs. It had planned to raise that share to more than 50 percent by 2030.
Mr. Noda’s predecessor, Naoto Kan, ended that policy last year, saying Japan should eventually phase out nuclear power. Mr. Noda, who took office last September, had appeared to back away from that commitment and pushed to restart the reactors.Mr. Noda’s predecessor, Naoto Kan, ended that policy last year, saying Japan should eventually phase out nuclear power. Mr. Noda, who took office last September, had appeared to back away from that commitment and pushed to restart the reactors.
Mr. Noda was forced to reconsider, however, after public hearings on the energy future suggested strong support for ending nuclear power. Mr. Noda was forced to reconsider, however, after public hearings suggested strong support for ending nuclear power.
On top of the vagueness of its terms, the new policy is fraught with uncertainties and postpones some important decisions. The protesters, who stage weekly mass rallies in front of the prime minister’s office, vehemently oppose any moves to restart the 50 remaining reactors, all but two of which remain idle. But the new policy would allow reactors to restart, pending checks by a new nuclear regulatory body.
For one, the unpopular Mr. Noda and his governing Democratic Party are likely to lose the next national election, calling into question whether any long-term policy he sets will stick. Whether the government can actually push through the restarts remains highly uncertain. Opinion polls show that the public remains wary of nuclear safety and the government’s ability to oversee the operators of the nuclear plants.
Moreover, the policy will not end the government’s standoff with the anti-nuclear movement. The protesters, who stage weekly mass rallies in front of the prime minister’s office, vehemently oppose any moves to restart the 50 remaining reactors, all but two of which remain idle. But the new policy would allow reactors to restart, pending checks by a new nuclear regulatory body.
Whether the government can actually push through the restarts remains highly uncertain. Opinion polls show the public remains wary of nuclear safety and the government’s ability to oversee the operators of the nuclear plants.
The government has sought to regain the public’s trust by scrapping its former nuclear regulator and appointing a new one. But that regulator is overseen by a committee headed by Shunichi Tanaka, who helped lead a former government commission tasked with crafting the country’s nuclear policy — raising accusations that the new regulator will be much like the old.The government has sought to regain the public’s trust by scrapping its former nuclear regulator and appointing a new one. But that regulator is overseen by a committee headed by Shunichi Tanaka, who helped lead a former government commission tasked with crafting the country’s nuclear policy — raising accusations that the new regulator will be much like the old.
The plan also postpones any decisions on the country’s troubled fuel cycle project, a contentious undertaking that seeks to reprocess spent uranium-based fuel and make Japan self-sufficient in nuclear energy. The plan also postpones any decisions on the country’s troubled fuel cycle project, a contentious undertaking that seeks to reprocess spent uranium-based fuel and make Japan self-sufficient in nuclear energy. By some measures, Japan has already poured $127.8 billion into a series of facilities to store and reprocess nuclear fuel, as well as into an experimental “fast breeder” reactor able to create ever more of the reprocessed uranium and plutonium on which it will run.Adopting a plan to phase out nuclear power would seemingly make the entire recycling program defunct. But the government faces strong opposition to abandoning the program, particularly from communities that host the fuel recycling facilities and Britain and France, which reprocess spent nuclear fuel on contract from Japanese power companies.
Adopting a plan to phase out nuclear power would seemingly make the entire recycling program defunct. But the government faces strong opposition to abandoning the program, particularly from communities that host the fuel recycling facilities and Britain and France, which reprocess spent nuclear fuel on contract from Japanese power companies. The village of Rokkasho, which hosts a reprocessing facility and has already accepted about 3,000 tons of spent fuel for eventual reprocessing, has reacted angrily to any signs that the reprocessing project would be abandoned. If the government indeed decided to decommission the reprocessing facility, Rokkasho has warned that it will return the spent fuel it now stocks to nuclear power plants across the country — a move that could overwhelm the plants’ storage capacities and make reopening them impossible.
The energy plan underscores the challenges Japan faces in extricating itself from nuclear energy. And Japan’s sole fast-breeder reactor, the Monju reactor in western Japan, has been mostly closed since 1995, after a fire. A vast nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in Rokkasho, in northern Japan, has yet to open 19 years after construction began because of a series of accidents and leaks.
The government is unlikely to agree to any swift shutdown of the 50 remaining reactors. If those reactors were permanently closed this year, power companies would be hit with losses totaling ¥4.4 trillion, or $55.9 billion, rendering at least four of them insolvent, according to calculations this summer by the government’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. The energy plan also underscores the challenges Japan faces in extricating itself from nuclear energy.
The government is unlikely to agree to any swift shutdown of the 50 remaining reactors. If those reactors were permanently closed this year, power companies would be hit with losses totaling $55.9 billion, rendering at least four of them insolvent, according to calculations this summer by the government’s Agency for Natural Resources and Energy.
The 2039 time frame, on the other hand, would allow most of those reactors to live out their 40-year life span, heading off costly losses for their operators. Japanese utilities are also saddled with the huge costs of buying oil and natural gas to meet the nuclear shortfall, a burden that would be alleviated once their reactors are restarted.The 2039 time frame, on the other hand, would allow most of those reactors to live out their 40-year life span, heading off costly losses for their operators. Japanese utilities are also saddled with the huge costs of buying oil and natural gas to meet the nuclear shortfall, a burden that would be alleviated once their reactors are restarted.
The Keidenren, a lobby that represents big businesses in Japan, has also warned of higher energy costs and energy shortages if Japan moves away from nuclear power, whether in the short term or longer.The Keidenren, a lobby that represents big businesses in Japan, has also warned of higher energy costs and energy shortages if Japan moves away from nuclear power, whether in the short term or longer.
With almost no reactors online, Japan struggled through a sweltering summer after parts of the country were asked to reduce electricity use by as much as 15 percent, the second year such requests have been made. Power companies fired up old gas- and oil-powered stations, imported expensive emergency generators and scrambled to secure imported fossil fuels.With almost no reactors online, Japan struggled through a sweltering summer after parts of the country were asked to reduce electricity use by as much as 15 percent, the second year such requests have been made. Power companies fired up old gas- and oil-powered stations, imported expensive emergency generators and scrambled to secure imported fossil fuels.
Despite fears of widespread blackouts, however, none materialized, strengthening the argument of anti-nuclear critics that Japan could do without nuclear energy. Despite fears of widespread blackouts, however, none materialized, strengthening the argument of nuclear critics that Japan could do without nuclear energy.
But the Keidanren and others have insisted that the higher energy cost of coping with no nuclear power is crippling the country’s economy. Tokyo Electric, Japan’s largest utility and the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, has increased rates for both homes and businesses.But the Keidanren and others have insisted that the higher energy cost of coping with no nuclear power is crippling the country’s economy. Tokyo Electric, Japan’s largest utility and the operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, has increased rates for both homes and businesses.
The higher costs will prompt more companies to move their operations overseas, businesses warn. And the costly fossil fuel imports have already weighed heavily on Japan’s terms of trade and made the nation dangerously dependent on Middle Eastern oil, as well as natural gas from its volatile neighbor, Russia. The higher costs will prompt more companies to move their operations overseas, businesses warn. And the costly fossil fuel imports have already weighed heavily on Japan’s terms of trade and made the nation dangerously dependent on Middle Eastern oil, as well as natural gas from its volatile neighbor Russia.
Perhaps trickiest of all, a decision to phase out nuclear power will require tough decisions on Japan’s nuclear fuel recycling program — decisions the policy announced Friday deferred. By some measures, Japan has already poured some ¥10 trillion into a series of facilities to store and reprocess nuclear fuel, as well as into an experimental “fast-breeder” reactor able to create ever more of the reprocessed uranium and plutonium on which it will run.
But Japan’s sole fast breeder reactor, the Monju reactor in western Japan, has been mostly closed since 1995, after a fire. A vast nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in Rokkasho, northern Japan, has yet to open 19 years after construction began because of a series of accidents and leaks.
Japan’s move to phase out nuclear power would seemingly make the nuclear fuel cycle defunct, and instead require ways to permanently dispose of the country’s spent fuel.
But the village of Rokkasho, which hosts the reprocessing facility and has already accepted about 3,000 tons of spent fuel for eventual reprocessing, has reacted angrily to any signs the fuel cycle might be shut down, and the reprocessing project abandoned. If the government indeed decided to decommission the reprocessing facility, Rokkasho has warned that it will return the spent fuel it now stocks to nuclear power plants across the country — a move that could overwhelm the plants’ storage capacities and make reopening them impossible.
The United States, meanwhile, is wary of the weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles Japan has built up. Stopping the nuclear fuel cycle would leave Japan sitting atop 40 tons of plutonium — enough to make 5,000 nuclear warheads.The United States, meanwhile, is wary of the weapons-grade plutonium stockpiles Japan has built up. Stopping the nuclear fuel cycle would leave Japan sitting atop 40 tons of plutonium — enough to make 5,000 nuclear warheads.
Whatever its choices, Japan is set to significantly increase its investment in clean energy sources. In previous government estimates through 2030, eliminating nuclear power would require investment of ¥43.6 trillion in solar, wind and other types of renewable energy and ¥5.2 trillion on power grid technology. Whatever its choices, Japan is set to significantly increase its investment in clean energy sources. In previous government estimates through 2030, eliminating nuclear power would require investment of $548 billion in solar, wind and other types of renewable energy and $66 billion on power grid technology.
As Japan redrafts its energy policy, it also risks enlarging its carbon footprint. In its policy document, the government said Japan would need to lower its target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 5 percentage points over the three decades through 2020, to 20 percent. Under the new goal, Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 would be between 5 percent and 9 percent less than levels in 1990, the documents said. As Japan redrafts its energy policy, it also risks enlarging its carbon footprint. In its policy document, the government said Japan would need to lower its target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 5 percentage points over the three decades through 2020, to 20 percent. Under the new goal, Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 would be 5 percent to 9 percent less than levels in 1990, the documents said.
Environmentalists say that a more aggressive push to develop clean energy can further reduce Japanese emissions. Environmentalists say a more aggressive push to develop clean energy can further reduce Japanese emissions.
“The government must use its new energy strategy as a starting point for a far more ambitious renewable policy, greater energy efficiency measures, and increasingly bold strides toward the sustainable green economy that will secure Japan’s future prosperity,” Greenpeace said in a statement. “A nuclear-free future is not a choice, it’s an inevitability,” it said. “The government must use its new energy strategy as a starting point for a far more ambitious renewable policy, greater energy efficiency measures, and increasingly bold strides toward the sustainable green economy that will secure Japan’s future prosperity,” Greenpeace said in a statement. “A nuclear-free future is not a choice, it’s an inevitability.”