Photo/Illutration Prime Minister Fumio Kishida speaks at a government meeting on energy policy at the prime minister’s office in July. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

To brush aside the many problems of nuclear power generation and focus solely on factors favorable to its expansion is tantamount to holding a discussion with a foregone conclusion.

So can we proceed with a major policy shift in such a scripted manner?

Definitely not. The government’s minimum responsibility is to examine the challenges and countermeasures thoroughly and from multiple perspectives.

Based on lessons learned from the disaster at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant 11 years ago, the government has said the nation will “reduce dependence on nuclear power generation as much as possible.”

In August, however, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida instructed his government to consider speeding up the restart of reactors, extending their operational life spans and building new types of reactors.

The groundwork for this “reinstatement of nuclear power” is being laid, so to speak, by the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

The committee plans to reach its conclusion by the end of this year.

Committee members are overwhelmingly in favor of promoting nuclear power.

Their argument revolves primarily around the perceived benefits such as stabilizing the nation’s power supply and aiding decarbonization by emitting no greenhouse gases.

The committee has already started studying increased support through policy measures.

However, the reality is that nuclear power has been saddled with decades-long problems such as disposal of radioactive waste, stalled nuclear fuel recycling and declining economic viability, in addition to countermeasures against accidents.

But the committee’s discussion on these issues remains superficial and woefully lacking in substance.

Why do committee members think so narrowly?

The committee’s topics of discussion and membership are decided by METI. Many of the members are nuclear researchers, academics with deep ties to the electric power industry and business executives.

Only a few members are in a position to express doubts about nuclear power.

Such being the case, it is extremely doubtful that the committee is capable of conducting any thorough examination and discussion.

It appears that the committee will end up just doing its job as a formality and endorsing whatever recommendations are put forth by the ministry that is promoting nuclear power.

During a committee session, a member cautious about pushing nuclear power said, “We need communication with every sector of the public and an open debate, not one with a foregone conclusion.”

The government must take this opinion seriously and create an environment conducive to in-depth discussion.

We also must point out that four months is far too short a time for deciding the nation’s new nuclear energy policy.

Energy issues are undergoing turbulent times and becoming more complex.

Defining the position of nuclear power is a huge decision that will determine the ways electricity is used well into the future.

Without limiting the discussion to stabilization of the power supply and effects on decarbonization, it is crucial to scrutinize the issue from every angle by studying the problems, costs and risks involved and comparing with alternatives.

This also calls for transparency in the discussion process by assembling well-balanced groups of experts from different fields, including the industry ministry committee.

The nation’s nuclear power policy was once prescribed by the so-called “nuclear village,” a group of pro-nuclear members of the business, bureaucratic and academic communities, engendering the “myth” of nuclear safety and leading to the Fukushima disaster of 2011.

We need to take a good, hard look at what can result from closed-door discussions where dissenting opinions are excluded.

--The Asahi Shimbun, Oct. 19

Related News