After the 2011 earthquake and the subsequent Fukushima nuclear plant disaster, most nuclear plants in Japan have not been re-started. As a result, the only market for Japan’s nuclear industry is overseas. But if a major company like Itochu cannot find sufficient economic benefit in foreign markets, it is questionable whether Japan’s nuclear industry remains viable.
A shrinking nuclear industry will affect Japan’s foreign and security policy since it removes the three major benefits that Japan’s nuclear plants have historically delivered.
First, nuclear power has given Japan a steady energy source with which it could develop its economy. Nearly all of Japan’s oil energy is generated from imported oil, and this is true historically as well: in 1973, more than 75 per cent of Japan’s energy consumption was generated from oil. After the 1973 and 1979 oil price shocks, Japan substantially buttressed its energy supply by increasing oil stockpiles, diversifying sources of fossil fuel resources and finding new energy resources such as renewable energy and methane. Increasing the share of electric power generated by nuclear plants was an important element of these changes. Just before the 2011 earthquake, nearly 30 per cent of electric power in Japan was generated by nuclear plants. That number dropped to nearly 0 per cent after the earthquake.
Second, Japan’s nuclear industry has saved Japan the cost of protecting its primary maritime trade routes. More than 80 per cent of Japan’s imported oil comes from the Middle East. This number has not changed after the 2011 earthquakes. It is worth bearing in mind that one of the main reasons Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbor was a shortage of oil caused by economic sanctions against Japan. Indeed, during World War II, the United States blockaded Japan by attacking Japan’s primary trade routes. If there is no other energy source (like nuclear plants), Japan would need a huge maritime force to safeguard its primary trade routes in order to guarantee its energy supply.
Third, despite the Japanese government’s official line, many countries in the world believe that Japan has the capability to develop nuclear weapons given its nuclear industry. Indeed, Japan’s nuclear potential has proven a very important factor in Japan–US relations. During China’s nuclear tests in 1964, both Japan and India requested that the United States extend its nuclear umbrella deterrence policy to cover them. While Japan’s case was heard, India pleaded in vain. As a result, Japan could afford to cease its joint nuclear development negotiation with West Germany, whereas India was compelled to continue its own nuclear development plans. The United States viewed Japan’s possession of nuclear weapons as more of a concern than India’s. The possibility of Japan’s developing nuclear weapons has thus given Japan an implicit nuclear deterrence and has strengthened its relations with the United States.
This possibility may also promote cooperation from China on the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program. North Korea’s nuclear weapons would likely not target Beijing, but if North Korea possessed nuclear weapons, then there would be a heightened possibility that South Korea, Taiwan or Japan would develop nuclear weapons. This means that Japan’s capacity (or lack thereof) to develop nuclear weapons is an important factor in China’s cooperation with the United States to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear program.
The shrinking Japanese nuclear industry is important not only for Japan but also for the security of the United States, China and other countries. So how do we deal with it? Even if Japan re-opens the domestic market, it will not be easy for the industry to expand further. Japan needs to find new markets in foreign countries.
Japan–US–India–Australia civil nuclear cooperation presents one option. India needs many more nuclear plants, but they lack the technology to build them. The United States is seeking to enter the nuclear market in India, but US nuclear corporations need to import Japan’s parts to build nuclear plants. Australia has uranium resources and already ships uranium to India. All four of these countries have an interest in developing India’s nuclear power sector. This cooperation has the possibility to be an important part of a ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’.
Dr Satoru Nagao is Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is an expert on US–Japan–India security cooperation.
None of the arguments presented here are a persuasive in terms of a domestic nuclear power or in terms of exports.
Nuclear reactors are an inherently unsafe way to boil water in any situation, more so in areas prone to seismic and political upheavals.
In a fossil fuel plant, most of the hardware is devoted to supplying fuel to the fire and keeping it going. Catastrophic failure typically results in the fire going out. The worst case scenario is a steam explosion that damages things over a radius of hundreds of meters.
In a nuclear plant, most of the hardware is devoted to containing the “fire” and keeping it from going out of control. Even minor failures of hardware, software, or human decision making can have knock on effects that lead to a catastrophic failure that spreads contamination over an enormous area, even to other continents.
The clean up costs of even the worst fossil fuel accidents are in measured in millions of dollars. Even relatively “minor” nuclear accidents can generate cleanup costs measured in billions of dollars.
Dismantling a fossil fuel plant is trivial. Dismantling even a small nuclear plant is a complex, prolonged, and extremely expensive proposition even when the plant has been shut down normally. Doing this with one (or three) plants that have suffered catastrophic failures is a multi-decade task with an open ended price tag.
In this context it is worth noting that the Hudson Institute was founded by Herman Kahn one of the models for the title character of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. This article seems to reflect that historical heritage.
It’s frustrating how people can spout such ridiculous and demonstrably false nonsense.
For starters, in nuclear plants the fission reaction (the “fire”) immediately stops the moment anything goes wrong (it did in Fukushima). The “fire” never runs away, out of control. The problem is removal of decay heat from fission products. (If you want to call decay heat the “fire”, then fine..)
Then there is the statement that fossil plants can only have “steam explosions”, whereas nuclear plants can have what, a nuclear explosion? No they can’t. Chernobyl was a steam explosion. A hydrogen (chemical) explosion occurred at Fukushima.
But more important is the demonstrably false, 180 degrees wrong statement that nuclear is the most dangerous power source. Statistics show the exact opposite to be true.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Fukushima was the only significant release of pollution in non-Soviet nuclear power’s entire ~60 year history, and it caused no deaths and is projected to have no measurable public health impacts, ever. Hypothetical estimates of the (too small to measure) total eventual deaths range from zero to ~100. By contrast, worldwide fossil power generation causes ~1000 deaths EVERY DAY, along with global warming. That equates to ~10 million deaths over the ~60 years nuclear has been around (vs. at most ~100 from non-Soviet nuclear). Fossil generation inflicted over 100,000 times as many deaths, in addition to being a primary cause of global warming.
A nuclear accident “spreads contamination over continents”?? Fossil generation spreads contamination (pollution), over continents, every day, under normal operation. The cost of nuclear plant decommissioning is fully covered by a fraction of a cent/kW-hr charge that is already included in the price of nuclear electricity. The cost of cleaning up accidents like Fukushima (occurring once every several decades) only adds ~0.1 cents/kW-hr to the overall cost of worldwide nuclear electricity. The direct subsidies that renewables get, and the costs of pollution from fossil generation (which is NOT included in its price) are orders of magnitude higher.
Fossil plant decommissioning only costs less because it is held to much lower (or non-existent) standards. As for cleanup costs, scrubbing the entire earth’s soil and water to remove all the toxic elements (mercury, arsenic, etc..) that have been deposited by fossil power generation (mainly coal) would be incalculable (quadrillions of dollars??). But no worry, mankind has arbitrarily decided not to care about that….
As for “moral” questions, such as those of the Hudson Institute, according to climate change leaders like James Hansen, the use of nuclear power has saved almost 2 million lives, and it would have saved many millions more if not for political opposition to nuclear power (much of which was perhaps spearheaded and funded by the fossil industry). Nuclear opponents have much to answer for; oceans of blood on their hands.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/nuclear-power-may-have-saved-1-8-million-lives-otherwise-lost-to-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/
Very interesting productive arguments even from a Japanese perspective.
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons have nothing to do with each other. Please stop conflating the two.
If Fukushima upgrades will double the (already too high) cost of a new nuclear plant, then they are not even remotely worth the cost, and shouldn’t be implemented. Never has so much money been spent on so little benefit to public health and safety.
Having an event that causes, at most, ~100 total eventual deaths occur every several decades is unacceptable? In a world where fossil power generation is allowed to cause ~1000 deaths EVERY DAY, in addition to global warming? Why the double standard? Why is fossil generation allowed to continuously, massively pollute, whereas nuclear must spend extraordinary amounts of money to ensure that it never pollutes?
Fukushima showed that the consequences of even worst-case meltdowns are far *smaller* than what had always been assumed. It showed that nuclear plant accidents are essentially incapable of causing significant, large-scale, tangible harm to the public (loss of life..). We had always assumed that a nuclear plant accident would be “the end of the world”, with huge numbers of deaths. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima showed this to be false. Far from being the end of the world, severe nuclear accidents have caused few if any deaths (Chernobyl did clearly cause a few, ~60). That is, less than the number of deaths caused EVERY DAY by pollution from fossil power generation. Thus, the rational response to Fukushima would be to, if anything, *reduce* nuclear regulations and requirements (thus *reducing* the cost of nuclear plants).
But rationality is too much to ask for. After all, the Japanese public is demanding that nuclear not be used, even if coal is used instead, “for the sake of their health and safety.” The truth being that coal is thousands of times as dangerous.
The author of this piece completely ignores the dangers inherent in the use of nuclear power. As Mr. Kinmonth noted the catastrophic consequences of an accident like that at Fukushima or Chernobyl are wide spread, long term, and very expensive.
The author fails to note one other very serious problem with nuclear power: the safe ongoing storage of the spent fuel is very costly. So far spent fuel in most plants around the world is stored in pools of water that are on site with the plant. Very few countries have developed other safer storage techniques. Even storing the spent fuel in cement casks near the power plant itself is challenging and costly.
Nuclear power plants have been sold to the public as clean and safe. When viewed in their totality, they are neither. How many more ‘accidents’ will it take before our leaders realize that the technology is flawed and dangerous?
It took a decade for Japan to take a decision on India civil nuclear agreement, how will anything move from Japan if they move on turtle speed? Besides after waiting endlessly, India has already settled the plan to build 10 heavy water based plant with their own tech. Only two countries India is going to trust are Russia and France!
What about the billions of dollars in annual cost of treating various respiratory diseases that kills millions? And the thousands of species go into extinction every year by global warming? What is more efficient, fossil or nuclear energy?