« [SSJ: 7223] Re: A couple of reasons why the electricity has kept flowing despite the nuclear shutdowns | Main | [SSJ: 7225] Re: Why Noda is pushing for a tax increase »

February 28, 2012

[SSJ: 7224] Re: A couple of reasons why the electricity has kept flowing despite the nuclear shutdowns

From: Paul Midford
Date: 2012/02/28

Jun Okumura writes:
"You crank up the fossil fuel turbines for that[summer backup]--it takes nuclear plants three weeks, says Paul Scalise, and who's to doubt him?--and if the locals can stand nuclear power plants in the summer and winter, they should be able to stand it year round."

Yes indeed, it is far more efficient to run fossil fuel stations as the backup and nuclear as the year-round source. The problem is Japan's utilities are not operating in an efficiency optimizing environment, but in an environment of extreme political constraints, and it is in this later environment that turning on nuclear power plants only for the summer might make operating sense since the alternative could be having no nuclear power at all.

As for the locals, if they think nuclear power is unsafe their preference is to not run the reactors at all. Presumably their next preference is to run them as little as possible, according to the logic that the fewer days the plants are on the less endangered they are. My point is that if it's a decision between going back to something like business as usual and no operation at all, then no operation at all is more likely to prevail than if several communities are asked to gaman for a few months to prevent a power crisis this summer.

Jun Okumura rightly points to economic factors that would encourage politicians and local governments to restart nuclear power plants. But that begs the question as to why the loss of these economic interests hasn't caused the plants to restart already? What's going to happen over the course of the year that has not happened already? Mistrust and genuine concern about safety, in other words risk aversion, seem to be trumping expected economic gains. We should remember that this is nothing new. One or two of the reactors from the Kashiwagi plant still have not restarted since the 2007 Niigata quake, and the damage to the plant was truly trivial by comparison to what happened at Fukushima.

National public opinion matters because it discourages Noda, the DPJ and the opposition from acting to restart reactors. Given that large numbers of Japanese have been personally or economically affected by the Fukushima accident, politicians can assume that nuclear policy will be on the minds of voters when they next go to the polls. If the referendum movement suceeds in Kansai and Kanto, then it will likely have a direct impact on policy.

All of that said, I myself am surprised that none of the reactors have restarted and that neither METI nor the press are predicting any will anytime soon. A bet is tempting, but I have to admit that I really don't understand well enough how we got to this place to begin with. If I were to bet Jun Okumura lunch, it would be something like the following: Assuming no new war in the Middle East, by the end of this calendar year less than 10 reactors will have restarted with operational authorization of less than 100 days (i.e.
losing the bet would mean 10 or more reactors restarting with authorization for 100 days or more). I would add that 10 or more reactors restarting with authorization of more than 100 days would represent something approaching a return to pre 3-11 normal.

Best,

Paul Midford

Approved by ssjmod at 11:16 AM