Editorial: Why are the lessons of the Fukushima disaster not used in the draft energy plan?

The lessons Japan learned the hard way from the Fukushima nuclear power plant meltdown in 2011 formed the foundation of the country’s energy policy. So why is the Japanese government now reversing a decade-long policy? We can’t help but question this sudden about-face.

The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has published a draft strategic energy plan. He deleted the sentence that “Japan… will reduce its dependence on nuclear energy as much as possible”, which the government had until now maintained based on its regret over the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

The draft plan classifies nuclear energy as part of carbon-free energy sources alongside renewable energies, and defines a policy aimed at “maximum use” of nuclear energy by promoting the replacement of nuclear power plants and the development of innovative new generation reactors.

The Strategic Energy Plan constitutes a guideline for the country’s energy strategy in the medium and long term and is updated approximately every three years. During its review in 2014, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government incorporated a sentence pledging to reduce Japan’s dependence on nuclear power, with the administration saying it would “review the energy strategy from scratch.” . This phrase has since been maintained through to the current energy plan, helping to prevent Japan from easily returning to nuclear power generation.

In any case, the Ministry of Industry is trying to achieve a policy turnaround only through discussions among a limited number of experts.

Amid rising electricity demand due to the construction of new semiconductor factories and additional data centers in the country, the draft plan emphasizes that Japan must not lose an opportunity for growth.

However, the decommissioning of the reactor at the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has hit a snag, and many residents are still forced to remain evacuated due to high doses of radiation in the disaster areas. The logic of giving top priority to the economy will not win public understanding.

It is also questionable whether the draft proposal will balance decarbonization efforts with a stable electricity supply.

Under the energy mix objective for the 2040 financial year set by the draft plan, nuclear energy will represent around 20%, the same level as in the current energy plan. In fiscal 2023, the actual ratio stood at 8.5%. Amid deep-seated concern about the safety of nuclear power plants, obstacles to obtaining consent from local communities, a prerequisite for restarting nuclear reactors, are increasing.

Regarding the replacement of nuclear power plants, the draft plan revised the conventional policy of limiting it to the premises of decommissioned plants and allows replacement on the ground of any nuclear power plant managed by the same utility company. That said, the power industry is reluctant to replace the reactors because it requires massive investments of more than 1 trillion yen (about $6.37 billion) per reactor.

As the Ministry of Industry prepares to introduce a system to recover construction costs by adding them to electricity bills, consumers will have to bear heavier charges. The question of disposal of spent nuclear fuel after electricity generation also remains unresolved.

It is essential to spark a national debate on the risk of Japan continuing to use nuclear energy in the earthquake-prone country.