Japanese Cabinet panel: Phase out nuclear power

Destroyed unit 3 reactor building of Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s tsunami-crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in February / AP

(AP) TOKYO — A Japanese Cabinet panel called Friday for the phasing out of nuclear power over the next three decades in a major shift for Japan as it overhauls energy policy following the Fukushima meltdowns.

Adopting the proposals would be a break with Japan's decades-long advocacy of nuclear power.

The new energy policy faces opposition from powerful business interests. but phasing out nuclear power is popular with the public.

It calls for greater reliance on renewable energy, more conservation and sustainable use of fossil fuels and would see Japan joining Germany in turning its back on nuclear energy.

The new policy requires endorsement by the entire Cabinet. Japanese news reports say the Cabinet has already agreed to the changes.

Japan began reviewing its energy policy following last year's disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, which was set off by a massive earthquake and tsunami. Before the accident, the resource-poor country relied on nuclear power for one-third of its energy and had planned to raise that to 50 percent by 2030.

"Based on facing the reality of this grave accident and by learning lessons from the accident, the government has decided to review the national energy strategy from scratch," said the policy document. "One of the key pillars of the new strategy is to achieve a society that does not depend on nuclear energy as soon as possible," it said.

Complete Coverage: Disaster in Japan

Growing anti-nuclear sentiment and mass protests made it difficult for the government and plant operators to restart reactors idled for inspections, and by early May, all 50 Japanese reactors had gone offline. Imports of oil and gas for electricity generation have surged as a result and Japan's trade balance has swung into deficit.

Officials acknowledge many questions remain unanswered, among them how to pay for the costly expansion of renewable energy and how to minimize the environmental impact of a return to heavier use of natural gas and other fossil fuels.

The phase-out of nuclear power by the 2030s is to be achieved mainly by retiring aging reactors and not replacing them.

The proposed new policy calls for adhering to a 40-year life span for each reactor and for building no more new reactors. It leaves open the possibility of restarting reactors before they are eventually phased out, but only if they have passed strict safety tests and won approval by a newly formed regulatory commission.

"We will launch all possible policy measures to achieve a nuclear-free society by the 2030s," it said. "Until the total phase-out we will only use nuclear reactors that are confirmed safe."

The new policy delays a decision on spent fuel processing and radioactive waste disposal, leaving open the questions of how Japan will handle its spent nuclear fuel and avoid accumulating stockpiles of plutonium.

"The road to a nuclear-free society is not easy," it says, forecasting economic growth at a modest rate of 0.8 percent annually under a nuclear-free scenario.

Following Japan's 2011 Fukushima disaster, Germany decided to speed up phasing out its nuclear power plants, shutting them down within a decade and betting on renewable energies instead. Nuclear power had accounted for a little more than 20 percent of Germany's needs, but has since fallen well below that level.

Energy experts note that relying more on renewable energy is easier for European countries that can draw on surplus power from neighboring countries when volatile wind and solar power fall short. As an island nation, Japan lacks that option.

Still, the new policy calls for Japan to increase use of renewable energy by eight-fold over the 2010 level by 2030.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda allowed two reactors to restart in July to avoid power shortages during the hot summer months. At the time, Noda stressed that the restarts were crucial for Japan's economy and energy needs.

His government faces strong resistance to changes in the nuclear policy from business leaders worried by surging energy costs and from utility operators. Towns hosting the 50 reactors — usually poor, remote fishing villages hungry for subsidies — also have complained of a loss of income and jobs.

The head of Tokyo Electric Power Co., the Japanese utility that owns the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant, has said handling last year's meltdowns ate up money the utility might have used to switch to alternative energy.

To encourage investment in and use of green energy, the government has eased restrictions on land use for solar and wind power and relaxed regulations on small hydropower plants and on drilling for geothermal energy in national parks. It also has approved tariffs for producers meant to spur investment by guaranteeing higher returns for renewable than for conventional energy.

But daunting obstacles remain, including a power grid ill-suited to accommodating volatile solar and wind energy and steep upfront costs for building solar or geothermal plants.

[sjc_1]

They could mine methane hydrates from the sea for combined cycle power plants and synthetic fuels. They could go with fast reactors to use up the plutonium and the spent fuel rods. Sodium cooled reactors are safer.

[Traveller1977]

Unfortunately Japan has little spare land area, so large scale on shore wind farms and solar farms are probably out.

With all renewables, the problem is what do you do when the wind isn't blowing or the sun shining. Until they solve the storage problem, they are dead in the water.

Wish them all the best, but fear it will fail dismally with the lights going out.

[nonpolitico]

As someone who has watched the Green Agenda attack Civil Nuclear, I think that the Japanese are reacting inappropriately.
Look at the facts.
A Sub sea earthquake, so severe that it dropped the sea floor some metres, changed the rotation of the earth, ever so minutely, and generated a tsunami wave over 100 feet high, what were the Japanese supposed to do?
The wave did not overtop the reactor defence wall, the WALL DROPPED along with the coastline.So the reactor protection was adequate in normal use, it was unfortunately for Japan an Abnormal event which made a massive impact. Unforseen and unable to be defended against.
Perhaps the green lobby could reflect on that small fact!

An event such as occurred is not likely to recur in the next 300 years, so why would Japan throw away the only reliable energy source which allows them to be self sufficient in energy?
I know that the "Green agitators" think that civil nuclear power is an atomic weapon, but tree huggers are only conspicuous for what they do not know!
Unfortunately politicians, susceptible to "environmentalist" pressure have allowed the green influence too much credence and access to taxpayers money on a wild goose chase.
An "Environmental event" took place off Japan! The Greens should be happy. it proves that the earth can bite humanity in the ass. Unfortunately neither motor cars nor CO2 were involved.
Japan should rebuild its nuclear reactors and forget windmills and wave power.
Such an event is unlikely to occur again in our lifetimes, but preventing Japan from being able to generate power for their islands cannot be the sensible way forward.
In my opinion it is a knee jerk response urged on it by yhose who have swallowed the environmental message hook line and sinker.
The worlds economic mess has in part been caused by "responsible" politicians urging us all down a blind alley of CO2, wndmills and electric cars, and we have invested unwisely.
The Japan earthquake underlines just how unwisely!

[venusvegasvada]

I would think that with all of Japan's technology and innovation they would be prime developers of ocean based power extraction systems. If they look at what they have, few countries have access to that much ocean. There's geothermal, wind and sun too. I'll bet if they really rolled their sleeves up, they could pull it off. If anyone could, I'd say that they have an excellent shot at it.

[Heston2012]

I would rather pay more for my energy needs then to use a system that has the potential
To eradiate my home and the surrounding environment for centuries to come!!!
There are ways to accomplish this that may have an up front costs but long term
Benefits.