Introduction
Concerns with avoiding the adverse consequences of Global Warming and the effects of Climate Change has increased significantly over the past decades (Deutch et al.). The leading economies such as the United States are still reluctant to adopt comprehensive climate change policies despite pledging to do so. Nor has there been an agreement with the emerging rapidly-growing economies such as India, South Korea, China, Indonesia, and Mexico on the mechanisms to adopt Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) emission constraints (US Energy Information Administration [EIA]). With Global emissions of GHGs projected to continue to increase, there is the added urgency to not only achieve greater energy efficiency but to pursue all the necessary available measures to develop and deploy carbon-free sources of energy (United Nations Environmental Project [UNEP]). However, of all the available options for achieving electricity production with minimal carbon footprints such as the renewable energy technologies (like wind, biomass, geothermal, solar, and hydro) and fossil fuel use accompanied by carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, nuclear power has received considerable attention. This paper argues by focusing on Japan that the application of nuclear energy to solve the global energy issue though probable will always be arguable.
Prospectus
Nuclear power has, therefore, stood out as the major single most energy consideration as the energy crisis looms large in many countries and alternative sources of energy are looking less promising. Two major reasons help account for this. First, the amount of GHGs emitted from nuclear power plants is much lesser than the GHGs emitted from the combustion of unconventional energy sources like petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Consequently, the health risks are much smaller with nuclear power than those of oil and coal are. Secondly, the externalities (particularly the environmental impacts) of nuclear consumption per unit of energy delivered is lower than that of other sources of energy (UNEP). However, there is the heightened fear and catastrophic risks of potential nuclear plant failure, environmental impacts of nuclear wastes and the health effects of radioactive materials (Weisenthal). The world is sensitive to these risks and as such, there has been significant public opposition to nuclear power. While the topic of nuclear energy continues to be elusive, divisive, and debatable in most countries throughout the world, it is imperative to put the matter in context.
In the context of energy and power generation, nuclear power is undoubtedly able to provide cleaner and adequate supply of energy than any other source can in the current state of technology. For example, despite Japan suffering the devastating effects of nuclear weapons in wartime – with tremendous damage and loss to property and over 100,000 death toll – Tokyo embraced the peaceful use of nuclear technology to provide the nation with a significant portion of energy (World Nuclear Association [WNA]). However, following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster and the occurrence of the earthquake and tsunami that rocked the country, and which led to partial meltdowns and explosion at the plant, public sentiments about nuclear shifted remarkably (WNA). Extensive public protests called for the abandonment of nuclear power and till today, the balance between the populist sentiments against nuclear energy and the continuation of the reliable, cleaner, and affordable nuclear electricity is yet to be struck.
Basic Facts about Nuclear Power Plants in the World
As of the year 2015, about 30 countries were operating an estimated 438 nuclear reactors purposefully for electricity generation and by the same year; about 67 new plants were under construction in additional 15 countries (Nuclear Energy Institute [NEI]). These numbers were an increase when compared to the 2003 statistics that indicates that by then there were about only 44 plants under construction spread across 12 countries around the world, principally China, Russia, Koreas, and India (Deutch et. al). In 2012, nuclear power plants provided 10.9% of the world’s electricity and in 2014, 13 more additional countries were relying almost entirely on nuclear energy to supply at the bare minimum one-quarter of their total electricity demand (NEI) (Table 1). In North America for instance, particularly the US, nuclear power generation has not only been excellent, but there has also been a progressive series of development in the sector. The country as at 2003 operated 104 Nuclear Plants whose total energy production in kWh has steadily increased over the past decade. During this time, the US Nuclear fleet averaged a capacity factor since the early 2000s of about 90% (Deutch et al.).
Information as retrieved from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) system database as cited in (NEI)
The chart (1) below further highlights the state of the world’s nuclear generation with other sources of energy.
Chart 1: The world’s nuclear generation with other power sources
Image as retrieved from (World Nuclear Association)
The Benefits of Nuclear Plants in the production of energy
Since the mid of the 20th-century people have been using the power of nuclear fission because it was a promising solution to several problems of the post-industrial world. Subsequently, nuclear power plants were constructed, and a nuclear-driven future envisioned. However, over the years following a series of nuclear disasters first with the 1979 Three Mile Island incident, then the 1986 Chernobyl tragedy, and the recent Fukushima event, the initial nuclear excitement has been losing momentum over the years (Srinivasan and Gopi Rethinaraj). Today, that excitement has turned into the opposite direction arising first from the complexity of nuclear technology and second from the fear of possible consequences to the environment and the living components of the earth. While these concerns have been generating and will continue to spur resistance, much too often it is easy to outlook the benefits that nuclear technology has contributed to our everyday life (Srinivasan and Gopi Rethinaraj). First, nuclear plants as indicated previously accounts for about 15% of the total global power station electricity and thus is a primary source of electrical energy. Even though estimations differ, there are currently about 400 nuclear power plants (NPPs) all over the world whose 15% share of the world power output plays significant roles in fueling the today’s international economy and running the global industries (Nuclear Energy Agency [NEA]).
Secondly and as pointed out previously the emissions from NPPS per terawatt of energy produced is lower than other sources of energy such as HEP, coal, fossil fuels, and natural gas. The NPPs are emissions-free, and a great percentage (about 95%) of the spent fuel can be reprocessed and adequately contained at reasonable costs producing little waste in the process. Thirdly, due to their low rates of emissions, nuclear NPPs are a ‘Clean Air” technology contributing less significantly to the contamination of the atmosphere. However, nuclear technologies put significant contaminants on the ground which can pollute underground water supply systems and cause all sorts of environmental damage and health havoc. Unless the safety issue and public fear of NPPs are solved, the nuclear power is one of the least acceptable primary sources of energy a country can adopt given that there are other clean energy solution options out there such as the wind and solar.
Nuclear Energy in Japan
Before the 2011 earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the nuclear disaster, that followed, Japan was generating 30% of its electrical power from the nuclear fuel and planned to increase that share in the coming years (EIA). The damage to the Japan’s energy infrastructure resulted in an immediate shutdown of about 10 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear electric generating capacity from the national grid (Srinivasan and Gopi Rethinaraj). The NPPs not directly damaged by the quake or their integrity compromised were gradually shut down in the coming years due to scheduled mandatory maintenance and lack of government approvals to resume operations. Because of this, two nuclear reactors – the Kansai Electric’s Ohi Reactors Three and Four after being opened for only a year were then shut down again in 2013, suspending all of Japan’s atomic power generation for a second time in more than 40 years (EIA). The NPPs were the least expensive sources of electricity and the suspension made the country replace this significant loss of nuclear energy with power generation from imported natural gas, oil, coal, and low-sulfur crude oil (see Table 2 for a cost comparison of Electricity Generation Alternatives).
While Table 2 below shows that, the Overnight costs are higher than the other sources of power, it paramount to note that the cost of energy production per fuel consumption (Fuel Cost) of nuclear is lower than the rest. These figures mean that the energy produced under the nuclear system is cheaper compared to the rest. Besides reducing the capital and construction costs as well as lowering the risk premium, charges that are reflected in the Overnight Costs because they apply disproportionately to other energy sources can reduce the cost of nuclear to competitive levels as the others (NEA).
Information as retrieved from (Deutch et al.)
Thus, the Japan switch to more expensive fossil energies caused higher electricity prices for consumers, led to increased government debt levels, and revenue losses for electric utilities. All this happened because Japan is less endowed with little sources of energy that have only managed to meet less than 9% of the country’s aggregate energy use since 2012 compared with 20% they did before the removal of the NPPs following the Fukushima Plant accident (EIA). Today, Japan is the third largest oil consumer and net importer in the world behind the USA and the People’s Republic of China. Moreover, the country ranks as the world’s biggest importer of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and the second largest importer of coal behind China (WNA; (EIA). In light of these circumstances, the country today imports over 90% of its primary energy needs just as it did in the 1970s as the country recovered from World War II (Table 3).
Information as retrieved from (Medlock III and Hartkey)
Economic Significance of Japan’s Nuclear Plants
When the human and environmental hazards of nuclear are weighed against the economic benefits of NPP power generation, it is evident that there is a considerable variation between them two. As pointed out previously, and has visible from the Fukushima NPP disasters and such catastrophes that have occurred in the past, it is indeed that nuclear plants can cause serious health and environmental contamination (Srinivasan and Gopi Rethinaraj). Radioactive wastes can cause land, soil, and water pollution resulting to diseases and irreparable impairment of ecological worth (Weisenthal). However, shutting down the nuclear plants is not the best of the economic moves the country could make. The sentiments raised in the previous section best explains this conclusion. Scientists and policy makers can solve the problem of safety concerns and risk fears associated with NPPs. Additionally, nuclear power is a cleaner source of primary energy and with its use, the earth has better chances of addressing environmental issues related to global warming and climate change. Therefore, because Japan is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and one of the major users of nuclear power, the best solution for the country’s energy predicaments and concerns for global cleanliness, the best solution is not shutting down the NPPs. Instead, the Nation should find ways of making nuclear power safe.
Economic significance of Japan’s nuclear plants
The economic importance of nuclear power plants to Japan lies in the role the nuclear energy plays in socio-economic, transport, and industrial base of the country. In fact, owing to the country’s limited supply of energy sources, Japan is founded upon the nuclear power. In the 1970s when the country opted out of nuclear, the ripple effects almost paralyzed the country’s economy. In the context of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), nuclear power was expected to play pivotal roles in powering the economic future of Japan. The expectations placed the contribution of nuclear to the national power grid at 60% of the primary energy by 2100 (WNA). However, following the 2011 incident, Tokyo sought to reduce the role of nuclear power drastically. This move appeared to have a significant policy factor that the next government in 2014 adopted the 4th Basic Strategic Energy Plan with a two-decade perspective and declaring that nuclear power is the key base-load source of energy necessary for Japan’s achievement of a stable future (WNA). Consequently, studies by the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth estimates that if Japan achieves its 60% nuclear power target by 2030, the energy cost would then be cut by 2.4 Trillion Japanese Yen (JPY) (USD 20.0 Billion) per year (WNA). These figures will have significant positive impacts on the economy of the country saving vast sums of the national budget to other development projects.
Therefore, to achieve such objectives, Japan must establish a comprehensive system of energy that is both robust and flexible enough to absorb price shocks and changes that are common in the international energy market (Medlock III and Hartkey). Direct economic investment in the sector under the guidance and leadership of the government (METI) can improve the safety mechanisms of NPPs which also doubles up the primary concern for the reservations against nuclear. Not only will a safer nuclear energy contribute to combating global warming but will also improve the country’s energy efficiency and provide consumers with alternative better energy options that they had in the post-Fukushima years (Srinivasan and Gopi Rethinaraj). Moreover, because nuclear power is the largest source of power for Japan’s industrial base and quasi-domestic uses, shutting it down is in doubt socio-economically costly.
Economic costs of the Japan Nuclear shutdown
So far the discussion in the previous sections has established that the leading reason why Japan would shut down its 54 operable reactors is primarily due to safety measures (EIA). Shutting down NPPs has significant economic costs that transcend the direct impact it has on national energy budgetary allocations. Recent studies in the USA indicates that closing an NPP has substantial energy replacement costs and, if acknowledged, significant environmental consequences (Perry). For example, when the Twin-Unit San Onofre Nuclear Plant locates in Southern Carolina was shut down in 2012, the cost of electricity rose by $350 million during the year following San Onofre’s closure (Perry). Additionally, when an NPP is closed, hundreds of people directly or indirectly associated with the plant lose their jobs and economic input these people contributed to the local and national economy is lost.
Therefore, it would be premature just as it is shortsighted for Japan to turn away from the Nuclear-generated electricity. This observation is because, among all the sources of emission-free power production, nuclear power is unparalleled and has no equal. For instance, other potential renewable sources of energy like wind and solar are only available when the wind is blowing, and the sun is shining respectively. When the weather is not cooperating, these sources of energy require backup from other sources like coal and natural gas plants that contribute to global warming. In this perspective, the economic costs of shutting nuclear power generation are all inclusive and transcends into other spin-off effects with a direct bearing on the economy. Table 4 summarizes the economic costs of NPP decommissioning in Japan.
Information as synthesized from (Deutch, Forsberg, Kadak, Kazimi, Moniz, and Parsons; Medlock III and Hartkey; WNA; Starr)
It is apparent that the economy of Japan is heavily dependent on nuclear energy. With the shutting down of NPPs, the country’s reliance on imported fuel has proved more costly that the operational costs of NPPs. Economically, the closing of NPPs makes Japan stand to lose 227Billion USD in trade deficits and 33 trillion Yen ($276 Billion) of National Wealth (WNA). These figures also mean that if Japan decides against not shutting the NPPs, the economy saves the sums stipulated of the national capital of the same amounts (Deutch, Forsberg, Kadak, Kazimi, Moniz, and Parsons). While there are alternative sources of energy to Nuclear power, none can surpass the value and ability of Nuclear power in addressing the global concerns of climate change and providing the adequate supply of energy for industrial and domestic use. Take, for instance, energy sources like coal and crude oil whose negative impacts as primary sources of energy on the environment and people far outweighs their potential benefits when compared to nuclear energy. Not only are these carbon-based sources of energy destructive to the environment but their health effects outstrips those of using nuclear. For examples, gaseous emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels contribute to global warming, air pollution, and environmental acidity when the hydrosphere absorbs them. Other residues such as coal specks of dust, oil flares, and petroleum wastes are detrimental to the living organisms including human beings. Because the primary concern in the use of Nuclear power is, the fear of plant failure and the health safety, as a result, there is the need to ensure that such incidences are reduced to bare minimum and adequate response and containment mechanisms are put in place. If appropriate measures are taken to prevent mass fatality in cases of nuclear slip ups, adverse impacts of other sources of energy are more disastrous than the effects of nuclear power.
Conclusion
The objective of this paper was to show that if the problem of safety concerns of nuclear power plants are solved, no other available source or energy can surpass nuclear as the primary source of energy. Other than being an efficient source of energy, nuclear power is also a clean source of power. In order to prove this point, the paper has explained the economic consequences of Japan shutting down her nuclear power plants. Firstly, the article discusses the nuclear energy outlook of the world. Secondly, the discussion looks at the benefits of nuclear energy over other sources of energy. Thirdly, the paper presents the nuclear power situation in Japan, the economic consequences of shutting down NPPs, and the justification of Japan adopting nuclear over other energy sources. Lastly, the study findings show that the use of fossil fuels over nuclear power as the primary source of energy presents not only human and economic hurdles but also environmental challenges as well. Therefore, the paper concludes by highlighting the importance of nuclear power which goes beyond industrial imperativeness but encompasses the quasi-domestic consumption of nuclear energy.
Works Cited
Deutch, John M., Charles W. Forsberg, Andrew C. Kadak, Mujid S. Kazimi, Ernest J. Moniz, and John E. Parsons. Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 2009. Print. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf>.
Medlock III, Kenneth B., and Peter Hartkey. The Role of Nuclear Power in Enhancing Japan's Energy Security. Tokyo, Japan: Tokyo Electric Power Company Inc., 2004. The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy Of Rice University. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/hepg/Papers/Medlock.nuc.power.Japan.security.0304.pdf>.
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). "Nuclear Energy Agency Press Kits - Economics of Nuclear Power." Nuclear Energy Agency. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 6 July 2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). "World Statistics: Nuclear Energy Around the World." Nuclear Energy Institute - Advancing Clean, Reliable Energy. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics>.
Perry, Mark J. "What happens when a nuclear power plant is shut down?" The Detroit News, 11 Apr. 2016. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <file:///C:/Users/Home%20Machine/Desktop/Nuclear/What%20happens%20when%20a%20nuclear%20power%20plant%20is%20shut%20down%20%20-%20AEI.htm>.
Srinivasan, T.N., and T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj. "Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power." Energy Policy 52 (2013): 726-736. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2018/pdfs/japan/fuk.pdf>.
Starr, Steven. "Costs and Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster." Environmental Health Policy Institute. Physicians For Social Responsibility (PSR), 2015. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <file:///C:/Users/Home%20Machine/Desktop/Nuclear/Costs%20and%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Fukushima%20Daiichi%20Disaster%20_%20PSR.htm>.
United Nations Environmental Project (UNEP). "The Decommissioning of Nuclear Reactors and Related Environmental Consequences." UNEP Sioux Falls. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://na.unep.net/geas/getuneppagewitharticleidscript.php?article_id=70>.
US Energy Information Administration (EIA). "Japan Restarts First Nuclear Reactor Under New Safety Rules - Today in Energy." U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22472>.
Weisenthal, Joe. "Milk from Fukushima Found with Radiation, Power Lines Plugged in to Nuke Plant." The Business Insider 19 Mar. 2011: n. pag. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-nuclear-plant-2011-3>.
World Nuclear Association (WNA). "Nuclear Power in Japan | Japanese Nuclear Energy." World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association. N.p., 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx>.
World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear Power in the World Today." World Nuclear Association. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx>.
