Moreover, there is no established technology for building new reactors. This is a policymaking process that is far from democratic. Soon after the election, he started considering the idea and calling for a conclusion by the end of the year. It is inappropriate of the government to propose and discuss a radical change in a policy that is deeply linked to people’s lives at this council.īefore the July Upper House election, Kishida did not give any clear answer to the question of whether he was mulling over the possibility of building new reactors or expanding existing facilities. In contrast to the expert panel that is discussing the government’s basic energy plans openly, this council falls short on diversity and transparency. The council’s members include business leaders and power industry executives supporting the promotion of nuclear power generation and hold discussions behind closed doors. During the council’s first meeting in July, Kishida ordered a list of policy measures that demand political decisions, and the ministry of trade and industry and other organizations involved compiled the list. Kishida made the announcement in the second meeting of the government’s GX (green transformation) Implementation Council. The way the policy change was proposed and discussed is also open to dispute. There is no convincing case for taking the step. It is questionable how seriously Kishida has considered the lessons from the accident and the formidable challenges facing nuclear power generation as he ordered these new proposals to be considered. This view has apparently been behind the government’s pledge to lessen the nation’s dependence on atomic energy and its policy of ruling out the construction of new reactors or expanding existing plants. Given the bitter past experiences and the raft of tough challenges for nuclear power generation, it is clear that reducing our society’s dependence on nuclear power gradually, if not ending it altogether immediately, is the only reasonable and realistic choice. But its project to develop fast-breeder reactor technology to use plutonium as fuel has fallen through despite massive government spending. Japan has promised to reduce its stockpile of plutonium. Plutonium contained in spent nuclear fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons and must be stored and managed strictly under international rules. There is no site in Japan where such radioactive waste can be disposed of in such a manner that it can be securely isolated for an unimaginably long period of time. High-level nuclear waste remains highly radioactive and extremely hazardous for tens of thousands of years before its radiation levels decline sufficiently. Nuclear power generation is an incomplete system for Japan, which has no final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste. Still, building nuclear plants in Japan, a nation prone to such natural disasters as earthquakes, tsunami and volcanic eruptions, entails much higher risks than in other countries. The safety standards for nuclear plants have been strengthened in response to the disaster. It is completely unclear when the cleanup work including decommissioning the ruined reactors will be complete. The calamity forced residents of areas around the stricken nuclear plant to leave their homes and generated profound anxiety in the entire Japanese society.Įven now, many people are being forced to live as evacuees without receiving sufficient compensation. The accident that began to unfold on March 11, 2011, led to an unprecedented crisis of triple reactor core meltdowns, causing tremendous social and economic damage. HAS JAPAN FORGOTTEN LESSONS FROM FUKUSHIMA? We urge the Kishida administration to preclude a policy option that would prolong and deepen the nation’s dependence on atomic energy. The accelerating global trend toward a carbon-free future and the threat of an energy crisis engendered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine make it necessary for policymakers to consider ways to secure a stable power supply.īut the policy response to the challenge should not be one that disregards the vital lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster. His proposal clearly indicates the government’s intention to return to promoting nuclear power generation and represents the biggest energy policy change since the catastrophic accident at the Fukushima No. Kishida recently said his administration will consider building new reactors and expanding or rebuilding the existing nuclear plants while also weighing an extension of the legal reactor lifespan of 40 years. Kishida should rethink the proposal, which is certain to create serious problems for the nation’s future. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s proposal to start expanding nuclear power generation again is a rash move to make a major energy policy shift under the pretext of overcoming the current “energy crisis.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |