Fukushima Fears Notwithstanding, Japan Still Depends on Nuclear Power

Before the Fukushima meltdown, about a third of Japan’s power generation came from nuclear. By 2020, the figure had dropped to less than 5%. Tokyo has set a new target for nuclear to provide up to 22% of its electricity supply by 2030.

The limits of intermittent renewable energies and lack of available land to massively expand hydroelectric, solar and wind power were also cited for nuclear’s planned resurgence. Even so, the government last year raised the target for renewables in electricity generation to 36-38% by 2030, a doubling from 2019.

Global Shift’ to Nuclear?
Hess from the World Nuclear Association told DW that Japan’s decision was part of a “global shift” back toward atomic power, citing recent decisions by Poland, the Czech Republic, Britain, Sweden and France. He noted how bipartisan support is also growing for nuclear in the US.

A whole group of newcomer countries are making progress towards building their first reactors, including Egypt, Uzbekistan and the Philippines,” he said. “If anything, Japan has been slow to react. So the momentum is perhaps helping to convince them that nuclear energy is being broadly embraced globally as a long-term carbon climate and energy security solution.”

Hess also thinks that more than a decade after Fukushima, and with Japan reaffirming its commitment, Germany’s nuclear phaseout seems “extremely out of place.” 

Germany, however, is not the only country still phasing out nuclear — despite Berlin ordering a short-term extension in the life of three remaining nuclear plants this winter due to the energy crisis. Spain and Switzerland have also announced plans to stop nuclear power generation over the next decade. Other nations like Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Portugal and Serbia remain opposed to nuclear power.

The European Union recently determined that nuclear could be labeled as green energy, to help unlock potentially billions of euros in funding from environmentally minded investors.

Safety Increased, Better risk Assessment
Japan — and the nuclear industry — have learned many hard lessons from Fukushima, particularly in relation to extreme flooding events and the loss of emergency power. Although a seawall was built around the plant, it was not high enough to contain the 13-14 meter (14-15 yard) tsunami waves. Diesel backup generators in the basement, which were meant to cool the reactors in an emergency, flooded. 

It’s obvious in retrospect that the design was significantly flawed. The plants built in the 1970s weren’t sufficiently designed with an earthquake zone in mind,” said Smith. He said that the new generation of nuclear plants, including those by French energy giant EDF, are described as “passively safe” meaning that they “couldn’t have a meltdown like the one that happened at Fukushima.”

Smith also noted that the worst fears over radiation from the accident were unfounded, as victims “got lower doses than people get from natural radiation.” He said it would be statistically unlikely to see increased cancers from the disaster.

Lawyers for the victims who have filed lawsuits for compensation say the incidence of diagnosed or suspected thyroid cancer is 77 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than the usual 1-2 per million. The Japanese government disputes this.

Nuclear disasters do leave huge areas of land out of bounds for hundreds if not thousands of years, and at Fukushima, more than 150,000 people had to be evacuated, nearly a fifth of them permanently. 

That’s true even of Chernobyl,” Smith said. “Although the health impacts of Chernobyl were much worse than Fukushima, the social and economic impacts are worse than the direct health impact.”

Nik Martin is freelance journalist. Insa Wrede is economic editor at DW. This article, edited by Uwe Hessler, is  published courtesy of Deutsche Welle (DW).