A nuclear renaissance might be happening in the most unlikely of places. Slightly more than a decade on from the Fukushima disaster in the northern Japanese region that became globally synonymous with the dangers of nuclear power, Tokyo seems ready to embrace atomic energy once more.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said on Wednesday that the government plans to reactivate several nuclear reactors, including Tokyo Electric Power Co’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, the largest nuclear power facility in the world. He is also looking to reverse a decade of policy and mulling the building of new nuclear plants. The country is also considering extending the lifespan of existing reactors beyond their designated 60 years.
This has been coming. After scares earlier this year, Japan is facing another winter where electricity demand is expected to be right up against supply. The reality is dawning that it cannot oppose Russian energy, climate change and nuclear power all at once.
Illustration: Yusha
The about-face is striking nonetheless. Just last year, the energy ministry’s basic plan called for “reducing dependency on nuclear as much as possible.”
While Kishida has previously embraced restarting existing units, building new ones presents entirely different challenges. For a premier whose popularity is already plummeting, Kishida might not find it easy to convince the public to stop worrying and love nuclear power again.
Japan was previously a staunch, if initially unlikely, proponent of nuclear power, viewing it as the solution to reducing its dependency on foreign energy. In the space of just 20 years, nuclear became the country’s primary source of electricity generation, helping to fuel the post-oil-crisis stage of its economic miracle. By the turn of the millennium, it provided more than a third of the nation’s power.
The 1999 criticality accident (a limited self-sustained nuclear chain reaction) at the Tokaimura plant and the 2007 earthquake that shook Kashiwazaki-Kariwa beyond its design specifications muted enthusiasm for nuclear power.
Then came the tsunami and meltdown at Fukushima Dai-ichi in 2011. Naoto Kan, the left-leaning prime minister at the time, ordered the abrupt shutdown of the distant Hamaoka nuclear plant. Tens of thousands marched against nuclear power in Tokyo in the biggest protests the country had seen for decades. The likes of Softbank Group Corp founder Masayoshi Son lined up to join the anti-nuclear movement.
In a little over a year, all of Japan’s nuclear plants were offline. Nuclear’s share of the energy mix collapsed to zero, and the use of liquefied natural gas and coal surged — thermal power made up nearly 90 percent of generation in 2014. Today, just six of the nation’s 33 operable reactors are running.
Behind Kishida’s change of heart lies a mix of public opinion and geopolitics. Russia’s war in Ukraine has thrown into doubt the future of the Sakhalin-2 natural gas venture, critical to Japan’s supply of liquid natural gas. Amid the resulting rising cost of electricity, fears of blackouts and concern over climate change, voters have started to shift. Earlier this year, a majority polled by the Nikkei newspaper said they supported nuclear restarts for the first time since Fukushima.
Opposition might be weakening, but there has been little to oppose. Until this week, Japan’s ruling party expressed scant willingness to do more than restart the nation’s stalled fleet. Japan has not built a new reactor since before Fukushima. Three are, in theory, under construction, with another six in the planning stages, but work seems stalled, with operators giving no timeline for when any of them might come online.
That stands in contrast not just to the building frenzy of the past, but to the surge of building elsewhere in Asia. India plans to triple its nuclear lineup over the next 10 years, and in China, officials aim to build at least 150 reactors in the next 15 years. South Korea is also set to build four more reactors by 2030.
Japan cannot match that frenetic pace, but it is likely determined not to repeat the folly of Germany, where politicians are attempting to back out of a nuclear exit ahead of an energy crunch this winter. With no neighbor it can borrow energy from, Japan’s options are limited.
In Japan and South Korea, nuclear is often the most cost-effective way of powering a new electricity generator. Thanks to unusually high local costs for wind and solar, atomic energy is the cheapest option on the table — and extending the operating life of existing nuclear plants, not to mention those that were suspended following the Fukushima disaster, is cheaper still.
However, the challenges are immense. Both national and local support are required. Public opinion might back restarting reactors that have gone through an arduous approval process, but extending the lifespan of current ones requires an entirely separate debate.
Is the public ready to trust Tokyo Electric Power Co with operating a nuclear plant so close to a fault line? Getting support for new reactors is the biggest challenge of all, with finding communities to host one already a challenge even before Fukushima.
Kishida should be applauded for taking on these challenges. As the most prominent politician from Hiroshima, the first city to suffer attack with an atomic bomb, he is an unlikely face for the nuclear movement.
However, just as with his support for increased defense spending, his background gives him cover for an idea that other politicians would find a hard sell. Now the difficult part begins.
Gearoid Reidy is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Japan and the Korean Peninsula. He previously led a Bloomberg news team in North Asia and was the Tokyo deputy bureau chief. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing