On
April 11, the Japanese cabinet approved the new Basic Energy Plan. The
Plan, originally proposed by Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New
Komeito Party Diet members who are considered to be pro-nuclear power,
is formulated by the government on the basis of the 2002 Basic Energy
Act. The original motivation of the establishment of the act was that
the Diet members who considered that nuclear power plant construction
would become more difficult due to advances in the deregulation of the
power industry could put the brakes on deregulation by deemphasizing it
with respect to the need for a stable supply of energy and
environmental suitability.
Specifically, the Advisory Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, a
consultative body of the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry held
meetings to formulate the Plan and the proposal put forward by the
Advisory Committee became the government’s plan. The Plan was first
formulated in 2003, and revised in 2007 and 2010.
As the Fukushima nuclear accident had occurred in March 2011, however,
it became necessary to revise the Plan since implementation of the
existing pro-nuclear power Plan had become problematical. In October of
that year, the Advisory Committee on Energy and Natural Resources set
up a Fundamental Issues Subcommittee, which began deliberations. After
deliberations in the Committee, a call for public comments, public
hearings and a deliberative poll, in September 2012 the Democratic
Party of Japan (DPJ), the governing party at the time, released its
“Innovative Strategy for Energy and the Environment,” which called for
“putting all available policy resources into achieving zero nuclear
power in the 2030s” (Nuke Info Tokyo 151, The Innovative Strategy for
Energy and Environment and its future).
Dissatisfied with this policy, the chairperson of the Fundamental
Issues Subcommittee, Akio Mimura, invalidated the functioning of the
Committee by abolishing it until the change of government to the
LDP/New Komeito alliance, and altering the location of the formulation
of the Basic Plan by establishing a new Strategic Policy Committee with
fewer members committed to a nuclear phaseout. The “Opinion on the
Basic Energy Plan” finalized by the new subcommittee in December 2012
reversed policy back to support for nuclear power.
Thus it was stated that “the use of nuclear power is to continue as the
important base load power forming the basis of support for a stable
energy supply and demand structure.” The plan also called for “the
promotion of restarts of nuclear power plants whose safety has been
confirmed by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.”
It was perhaps considered that this overly explicit mode of expression
was unwise from a public relations point of view. The approved Basic
Energy Plan, with some consideration for the pro-nuclear power group
within the governing parties, toned down the pro-nuclear rhetoric by
deleting the phrase “the use of nuclear power is to continue,” and
employed standard power industry terminology by stating that nuclear
power was to be “the important base load power contributing to the
stability of the energy supply and demand structure,” Nuclear power
plant restarts were also to “respect the judgment” of the Nuclear
Regulation Authority. Furthermore, the introduction to the Plan
emphasizes “a reduction in dependence on nuclear power as far as is
possible.”
Nevertheless, the Plan does in fact “promote” nuclear power. “A
reduction in dependence” does not mean a complete nuclear phaseout, and
there is no indication about how far the reduction might go. Far from
it, the construction of new nuclear power plants is mooted under the
pretext of “replacing (old) nuclear power plants with safer ones.” It
is reported in the media that these are all clearly stated in the
original proposal for the “Opinion on the Basic Energy Plan” drawn up
by the Advisory Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, later toned
down to read “will clarify the scale (of nuclear power generation) to
be secured.” Even so, this would still allow the construction of new
nuclear power plants. At the same time, aged plants that would cost too
much to refurbish to meet the new safety standards would have to be
decommissioned, necessitating the construction of new plants to secure
the required scale of power
generation.
Looking at the nuclear fuel cycle, the 2010 Basic Energy Plan stated
that “The nuclear fuel cycle for effective use of plutonium, uranium
and so on recovered by reprocessing spent fuel is necessary to further
raise the competitive edge of nuclear power generation, and in the
future will be firmly promoted as a robust state strategy that ‘will
not be altered for the mid-term future.’” In the new Plan, this has
changed to “In order to resolve the issues involved in the disposal of
spent fuel and to alleviate the risks and burdens for future
generations, the role of the fuel cycle will be to reduce the volume of
high-level radioactive waste, reduce its degree of toxicity and
contribute to the effective use of resources. Reprocessing, pluthermal
generation and other efforts will be promoted with sufficient
consideration for previous activities, efforts being made while
continuing to gain the understanding of the related local governments
and the international community.”
Spent fuel has transformed from a source for “raising the competitive
edge” of nuclear power to an “issue” that has to be resolved. The term
“fast breeder reactor” has disappeared and is no longer a development
goal. R&D on a “fast reactor” through international cooperation is
mentioned, but there is no plan for a new reactor to be constructed
inside Japan. Monju has been “positioned as an international research
base for the reduction of the volume of nuclear wastes, the reduction
of toxicity, and the advancement of technologies and so on related to
nuclear non-proliferation.”
As a document, the completed Basic Energy Plan is not realistic. As
with former Plans, it will immediately be consigned to the dustbin of
wishful thinking.
(Baku Nishio, Co-director of CNIC)
Return to
Energy Policy / Nuclear Trends / Nuclear Industry page
Return to NIT 160 contents
