Mistrust of Japan's Nuclear Power Program

In the wake of the earthquake in Niigata, Japan's nuclear power program is once again in the spotlight for its failures. After initial reports of a fire and a small leak at the Kashiwazaki power plant, we find out later that things were actually worse: Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) had the facts but waited 12 hours before letting the public know, the fire burned for several hours, radioactive waste spilled from collection pools, and some radiation was released into the ocean and into the atmosphere. Oh, and the reactor appears to have been built on a fault line. But we're told not to worry.

This is precisely the problem. It's hard not to worry given the nuclear power industry's recent track record:

1. A sodium leak and fire at the Monju reactor in December 1995 has left the reactor shut down to date. The government is planning to restart the reactor in 2008.

2. In 2003, 17 TEPCO plants were forced to shut down after falsifying safety records.

3. An uncontrolled reaction at Tokaimura in May 2004 killed two workers and caused radiation levels in the area to jump to more than 10 thousand times normal levels.

4. In August 2004, an accident at the Mihama reactor killed five workers.

The public has lost confidence and has simply had enough. The mayor of Kashiwazaki has ordered the plant shut down indefinitely.

This is an interesting development as Japan has virtually no natural energy resources of its own and must reply on imports for nearly all of its energy. Nuclear power happens to be a pillar of Japan's energy policy, and it relies heavily on nuclear power to meet its goals set in the Kyoto Protocol. According to Japan's New National Energy Strategy [PDF in English], nuclear power is to account for 40% of Japan's energy by 2010 and will likely increase by 2030.

The loss of Japan's largest nuclear facility is bound to have repercussions, as well. According to a Reuters report:

The quake-hit facility has a capacity of 8.2 million kilowatts, making up almost half of TEPCO's nuclear generation.

From the Associated Press:

Fears of an electricity shortage in the nation's capital swelled when the plant was shuttered. Operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., Japan's largest utility, was scrambling to ramp up conventional power output.

[...]

TEPCO has warned that the closure of the key nuclear reactor could trigger a power shortage in the summer months. The Tokyo-based company has asked six other power companies in Japan to consider providing emergency electricity to prepare for a surge in demand as people turn up their air conditioners in the summer heat.

So how does the government go about convincing the public that nuclear power is safe? As part of the PR effort, you may recall seeing The town ultimately sided with the candidate against hosting a storage site.

According to some of the literature on the NUMO website, the benefits from constructing and hosting a storage site are[PDF in English]:

Production inducement effect: 1.7 trillion yen

Employment creation effect: approximately 130,000 workers

Fixed property tax revenue: 160 billion yen

Subsidies include:

Literature survey period: 0.21 billion yen/year/site

Preliminary investigation period: 2 billion yen/year/site　(upper limit: 7 billion yen/year/site); amount not fixed for　detailed investigation period

Other reports and pamphlets can be found here.

The money looks enticing, but clearly, as in the case of Toyo, the citizens value their safety above all else. After all, who wants to live near a nuclear waste dump? From the time the waste is stored, people will have to have their water, soil, and air constantly monitored for radioactivity. And in consenting to host a storage site, you would be conceding that the place you live is essentially foul ground for the next thousand years.

The government is in tricky spot. Nuclear power is a clean and reliable source of power (even if its waste is toxic) that can meet a large portion of Japan's energy needs, but the public doesn't trust it. Until there is sufficient transparency in the industry and better education about nuclear energy, it will be a long time before the public feels comfortable with nuclear power.