As the central government begins to make an about-face on its approach to nuclear power, it faces a slew of hurdles and unanswered questions that could prevent it from successfully making that pivot.

Critics and experts have been quick to point out the potential problems with Japan heading down that road again, from hidden costs to public safety and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste.

Public opinion remains sharply divided over the return to nuclear energy after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, triggered by the magnitude-9.0 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.

The disaster left tens of thousands of people displaced, many of them permanently.

Ruiko Muto, a co-chair of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Plaintiffs and a resident of Fukushima Prefecture, blasted the government for making a U-turn.

“Why has the government not learned from the damage we suffered in the nuclear accident and formulate its energy policy based on that?” she said. “There are just too many things that have not been resolved 11 years on."

The government this week announced a sweeping reversal of its cautious nuclear energy policies set in the aftermath of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. It raises the prospect of Japan developing and building next-generation reactors and extending the operations of existing units beyond the legally sanctioned 60 years.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced the policy change at an Aug. 24 meeting of his green transformation council, which was formed last month to examine ways to achieve decarbonization by 2050.

Kishida’s announcement comes after his Liberal Democratic Party avoided having the divisive nuclear energy issue come to the fore in the Upper House election last month.

But even some within the ruling party are calling for caution over the construction of new reactors, given that plant operators are still struggling to obtain consent to restart reactors from local authorities even after they were cleared by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.

One of the biggest challenges concerning nuclear power generation is where to dispose of the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants.

The government is still holding onto its longstanding nuclear fuel recycling policy that would use plutonium retrieved from spent fuel to generate electricity, an effort to help reduce the overall amount of nuclear waste.

But the reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, has yet to be completed nearly three decades after the project was started due to a host of troubles there.

The overall price tag of the project is expected to top a whopping 14 trillion yen ($102 billion).

The government has also yet to find a final disposal site for the highly radioactive waste created by the reprocessing plant.

Two municipalities in Hokkaido showed interest in hosting such sites when the government solicited applications.

Yet it is unclear whether they could follow through, given the fierce opposition put up by local residents against the idea of storing toxic waste in their backyard.

Doubts have also increased over the economic benefits of nuclear energy, though the government and electricity utilities have long pitched nuclear energy as “the cheapest energy source.”

A report on the estimated costs of power generation released in August 2021 by the industry ministry showed that by 2030, nuclear energy would be more expensive than solar energy generated for business use.

The Fukushima nuclear accident has also made the construction of a nuclear reactor considerably more costly, as regulators now demand more safeguards, according to Kenichi Oshima, a professor of environmental economy at Ryukoku University.

Before the accident, it typically cost about 400 billion yen to build a reactor. The price tag has since shot up to more than 1 trillion yen in the United States and European countries, he noted.

And next-generation reactors are expected to be even more costly than conventional reactors.

“I am skeptical about whether electric power companies would come forward to start (developing next-generation reactors) even if the government pushes for it,” he said. “Such a project would be feasible only when the government provides subsidies, which are taxpayers’ money.”

Oshima projected the combined costs of compensation to victims, decontamination of affected areas and decommissioning of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant will total at least 21.5 trillion yen.

“But there is no way to tell if the decommissioning of the plant will ever be achieved,” he said. “Continued reliance on nuclear energy poses enormous risks, given that Japan is an earthquake-prone country.”

Another policy reversal the prime minister directed the council to weigh is whether to extend the lifespan of aging reactors that are currently running.

Reactors are generally expected to be retired after 40 years in service under the more stringent regulations put into force in 2013.

But under some exceptions, they can be operated an additional 20 years beyond that.

Operators of nuclear plants are calling on the NRA to not count the time when their reactors were shut down due to the NRA’s inspections.

Some reactors have remained idle for more than 10 years because of the inspections.

But Toyoshi Fuketa, chairman of the NRA, said the watchdog could not apply the proposed extension rule uniformly because individual reactors are all in differing conditions.

The NRA noted cable coatings and concrete will still deteriorate while the reactors are unhooked, even if they were not deteriorating from heat and radiation during that time.

(This article was compiled from reports by Shiki Iwasawa, Keishi Nishimura, Shinichi Sekine and Takuro Yamano.)