Saikado hantai: Energy options for Japan after Fukushima

Since the disastrous radiation leaks at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, public opinion has turned strongly against nuclear energy. A recently released government poll showed that 47% of respondents preferred the option of scrapping nuclear energy entirely by 2030, while only 15% and 13% preferred nuclear energy contributions to total generation capacity of 15% and 20-25%, respectively. (Currently nuclear energy accounts for 18% of electricity production.) The government was reportedly optimistic that the public would prefer a 15% nuclear energy balance; this has proven to be a massive underestimate of public antipathy towards the technology. Protests outside the Prime Minister's office with the rallying cry of “Saikado hantai!” (“oppose the restart”, in reference to nuclear reactors) have grown to 100,000 or more, and an independent anti-nuclear candidate in the Yamaguchi gubernatorial election garnered broad support in what was widely held to be a conservative stronghold.

Although the anti-nuclear candidate was defeated in Yamaguchi, the new governor has announced he will suspend (but not scrap) construction of the new nuclear plant. Moreover, the Prime Minister recently met with anti-nuclear protesters after previously snubbing them. In a more ambitious signal of policy response to the public pressure, the Japanese government has pledged to phase out nuclear power and replace it with a portfolio including 40% renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power by the mid 2030s. The government is working hard to sell this plan (the Economy Minister has insisted that there's no downside to the Japanese economy from the switch) but is this really realistic?

What's clear is that a portfolio heavy on fossil fuels is totally infeasible in the long run. Since the disaster at Fukushima, almost all nuclear power generation in the country has been suspended and fossil fuels have been imported to fill the gap in energy supply. This is very expensive – the sharp increases in fossil fuel imports have contributed to a record trade deficit in the first half of 2012 and in the long run the operating cost of switching primarily to natural gas is estimated at $1.2 trillion over the next twenty years, compared to $225 billion to continue with nuclear energy. While poll respondents may claim that they are willing to bear higher costs in exchange for safer means of energy generation, continually importing fuel would be wholly financially unsustainable. (Incidentally, it would also be environmentally unsustainable. In the time that nuclear power plants have largely been shut down, the ten major regional power utilities have emitted record levels of carbon dioxide.)

What are Japan's prospects for renewable sources? Potential for generation from wind and bioenergy sources are relatively limited, but Japan has substantial potential for hydroelectric, geothermal, and solar energy:

• Japan's total potential for hydroelectrical production is estimated at 136 TWh/year, of which slightly more than half is already installed capacity.

• Geothermal energy potential is is somewhat more optimistic; total potential geothermal generation capability is estimated at 216 TWh/year, of which very little is currently exploited.

• The government has ambitious plans to expand solar energy from around 18 TWh/year to an impressive (and possibly unrealistic) 465 TWh/year by 2030.

In comparison, Japan's nuclear energy capacity before the shutdown was on the order of 388 TWh/year. Therefore, it is probably feasible to eventually fill the gap in generation capacity left by decommissioning nuclear plants. (Fulfilling the 30% renewables pledge may be very difficult, unless technological advance significantly reduces the cost of geothermal or solar generation.) Such a transition will require high levels of government spending (which may be difficult to finance, given the difficulty the Japanese government has faced in raising sales taxes recently) and there will be a transition period of at least a decade in which the country will continue to be faced with a choice between expensive oil and gas-based generation and deeply-unpopular nuclear generation. However, with a public unwilling to tolerate the risk of further nuclear disaster and the cost of fossil fuel generation persistently high, this may likely be the least bad option.

(Photo: Japanese Trade Minister Kaieda at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant. 9 April 2011. By Jill Starr for Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency via Kyodo News. Licensed under Creative Commons.)