EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The Fukushima accident last year has raised questions about the safety of nuclear reactors around the world. Understandably, opposition to nuclear power has been strongest in Japan since the accident, where the dangers inherent in nuclear power plants have become apparent.
Borislav Shterev
The Fukushima accident last year has raised a new question about the safety of nuclear reactors around the world. Understandably, opposition to nuclear power has been strongest in Japan since the accident, where the dangers inherent in nuclear power plants have been fully exposed. The Japanese government now faces the problem of how to meet public pressure to close all nuclear reactors while also dealing with the inevitable consequences of electricity shortages and the rising cost of generating energy from alternative sources.
On May 5, 2012, Japan shut down the last of its 54 nuclear reactors, leaving it without any operating nuclear power for the first time in more than 50 years. Immediately before the accident, the role of nuclear power plants in the country's economy was growing. As of 2011, they accounted for about 30% of the country's electricity production, and the government's plans were for their share to increase to 41% by 2017 and 50% by 2030, with which Japan hoped to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (See Fig. 1).
Fig. No. 1 Main energy sources in Japan for 2011
Now, however, it seems that the government plan will be abandoned. This could cause serious turmoil in the country. A possible refusal of nuclear energy would immediately lead to a 5% electricity shortage in Tokyo and 16% in the western part of the country. The shortage could be covered by an increase in fuel imports in the short term, but sooner or later the country would have to build new power plants to replace nuclear ones at low emission levels. Such a move would only increase its dependence on imported energy resources, which is already serious (84% imported, to be precise). Japan practically does not possess the appropriate natural resources and, with the exception of hydropower, has no potential for the development of alternative energy sources, and renewable energy would be significantly more expensive for the country, since the government has undertaken to purchase it at preferential prices. This is another reason why the country's future seemed tied to nuclear energy - in addition to building new capacities, the plans also included optimizing the use of uranium and plutonium and their subsequent processing.
The phase-out of reactors last year led to an unprecedented increase in imports of liquefied natural gas and oil. The additional costs for oil alone in the event of a complete shutdown of nuclear power plants are estimated at $100 million per day. Passing them on to consumers will make the service more expensive to an extent that makes 71% of local producers fear for their business, and the Japanese Institute of Energy Economics has estimated that GDP growth could slow to as little as 0.1. It is worrying that due to increased fuel imports, Japan ended 2011 with a trade deficit for the first time in 30 years. To the above, we must add the expected increase in the cost of purchasing carbon emission quotas, since the government's long-term plan to reduce them was directly linked to the development of nuclear energy.
All these considerations ultimately outweighed the prevailing public opinion against nuclear power in the country, and a few days ago the government announced that it would reopen two reactors and review the fate of the remaining 48 in the coming weeks. The decision of the government can be taken as a sign that at this stage there is still no real alternative to nuclear power plants. Japan's attempt to change its energy policy reveals problems that are valid for all countries that have set themselves the goal of switching to renewable and environmentally friendly energy.
