Japan Skittish, U.S. Persistent on Nuclear Front

Ken Silverstein | Jul 26, 2011

 

The Japanese government is having second thoughts about adding to its nuclear fleet. But the United States is moving in the opposite direction and trying to ramp up here.

The conflicting situations are understandable: Japan’s struggles are an experience from which this country says it will learn, and make the necessary improvements to nuclear power. Indeed, the Japanese prime minister is making the most forceful statements since the Fukushima nuclear accident, saying that the Asian nation must wean itself from such a resource while some U.S. lawmakers and nuclear regulators are working to give the power source a leg up.

“We should seek a society that does not rely on nuclear energy,” says Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, in a televised press conference. "We should gradually and systematically reduce reliance on nuclear power and eventually aim at a society where people can live without nuclear power plants,” he adds, without giving any timetables for such goals.

Currently, nuclear power supplies 30 percent of Japan’s electricity needs. Before the accident in March 2011, the country had set a goal providing half of its electric power in 20 years. Things have changed: 35 nuclear reactors have been idled until government regulators can ensure that they could survive the type of double-whammy that those at Fukushima endured: a huge earthquake coupled with a mammoth tsunami.

In that case, the reactors survived the earthquake but then lost their back-up generation once the tidal waves came ashore. Without such power, the spent fuel rods could not cool down, allowing for the possibility of radioactivity leaks. To avoid a similar situation, the Japanese government has ordered all of the country’s 54 reactors to be stress tested. All told, just 19 of the total 54 reactors are operating now, leaving Japan with an energy crisis of its own.

"As I've experienced the March 11 accident, I came to realize the risk of nuclear energy is too intense," Kan said during the news conference. "It involves technology that cannot be controlled by our conventional concept of safety."

The German government is sympathetic to what the Japanese have gone through and have made plans to scrap its nuclear program. Ditto for Switzerland. Italian voters, meanwhile, have said they want a moratorium on nuclear construction there. But support for nuclear energy remains strong in France, which gets about 80 percent of its energy from such a source, as well as in Great Britain.

In the United States, nuclear executives are emphasizing that the nation’s generation fleet is getting old and that it will need to be replaced. And because nuclear plants are clean and reliable, they must remain in the mix.

Government Moves

Any delays in nuclear construction will be a function of the economic downturn and its effect on energy demand -- not the events tied to Japan, they say. Industry says that the way to move ahead is to get government assistance to build the first few modern nuclear facilities by 2020. That would demonstrate that those plants are safe. Beyond that, such strategy would also help to create a steady supply stream for parts and fuel.

The federal loan guarantees are the essential ingredient, industry maintains. That’s because Wall Street is hesitant to invest in projects that may get mired in a regulatory or legal mess. President Obama had proposed increasing such loans from about $18 billion to $54 billion, or enough to get three or four underway.

Once a nuclear plant is built it is both reliable and cheap. And over 40-50 years, such units are more cost effective than competing generators -- the key reason that government should take the long view and help finance the first few plants, industry says.
 
“Hoover Dam was not built by Wall Street,” says Jacques Besnainou, chief executive of Areva North America, in an earlier interview with this writer.  “This is why we have a government. It does not mean because it is harder, we should not do it. Once a nuclear plant is built, I can guarantee the cost of power, unlike a natural gas plant.”

In light of the Japanese nuclear accident, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released a study and recommends that the 104 reactors here get scrutinized every 10 years for seismic and flooding risks. And that includes routine inspections to ensure that the vulnerabilities of each and every plant are fully understood. Plants would furthermore be required to have licensed, back-up emergency equipment to ensure that the cooling pools containing fuel rods would continue to operate in the event of a power failure.

And beyond the regulatory commission’s activities, there is President Obama’s effort to increase the loan guarantees given to nuclear developers as well as his initiative to list nuclear power under clean power alternatives. Meantime, the U.S. Senate has introduced bills that would assist the developers of small nuclear reactors of 300 megawatts – compared to the base-load size of 1,000 megawatts – in demonstrating their products.

The U.S. Senate is furthermore working on legislation to provide the funding to build two interim storage sites to house spent nuclear fuel. And, finally, Congress is trying to hammer out a bill that would give funding to fourth generation nuclear reactors, which advocates say reduces the odds of radioactive leaks to almost zero. 

While Japan’s misfortunes are causing it to rethink its domestic energy strategy, this country is pausing to learn from that experience. Nevertheless, U.S. industry leaders are working in tandem with some national lawmakers and regulators to ensure that the nuclear program here does not get sidetracked, or become moribund.

EnergyBiz Insider has been named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.

Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein
 
energybizinsider@energycentral.com.