Paul Midford wrote:

> I think what we have seen proves
that long-term effective regulation

> of the nuclear power industry is not feasible.
Nuclear power by its

> nature is too concentrated in terms of size, sunk
capital,
expertise,

> etc., and hence a very corrupting influence on the
political system

> and hence the regulators.

>

RK:

Is that equally true in other countries? Is Japan's malfeasance an artifact of the technology or of Japan's political-business-bureaucratic iron triangle? My impression is that upgrades have been made elsewhere as technology improves and as events, like the 1999 flooding in France or the 9/11 attacks in the US, show the need. My sense--correct me if I'm wrong--is that the nuclear village in Japan has been exceptionally corrupt. (In the US, this level of corruption is seen in the Wall Street-Washington nexus).

PM:

> Also, Rick's question implies a
static answer: a one-time fix and

> the problem is solved. In fact, safety regulation is
constant

> process.

>

RK:

Of course.

PM:

> Actually, it is legally binding in
the sense that the recently

> enacted law on nuclear safety specifies a 40 year
life span for

> commercial reactors, and I believe they eliminated
the escape
clause

> that would have allowed for exceptions.

>
RK:

The DPJ tried to make the law put on a strict limit of
40 years, but the LDP refused and the DPJ, as usual, surrendered. 40 years was just a guideline and discretion over extension was put in the hands of the to-be-created Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In July, METI's Nuclear and Industry Safety Commission
(NISA) did, in fact, grant such an extension to the Mihama reactor in Fukui prefecture, saying that the ultimate fate would lie in the hands of the NRC. After Noda's incredibly bumbling handling of the whole issue, including his backdown, the cabinet has confirmed that, while 40 years is an ambition, decisions lie in the hands of the NRC.

PM:

> In principle, under Noda's zero
nukes by the 2030s policy the answer

> could be somewhere up to about 25% over the next
decade, in which

> case these impacts would be minimal. That would give
plenty of time

> for decomissioning nuclear power plants and replacing
them with

> renewable energy.

>

RK:

I've seen no evidence that renewables can be geared up at a feasible cost to provide 25% of Japan's electricity in just ten years or even 20 years. A 2010 report of the National Academy of Sciences said that, in the US, non-hydro renewables could conceivably reach 10% of the nation's electricity generation by 2020, if there are sufficient cost reductions that match and exceed cost reductions in other sources, e.g. natural gas. This could conceivably rise to 20% by 2035. Going to 50% or more would require new scientific advances.
The report also notes that past prediction of the penetration of renewables have over-estimated their share. (Executive Summary, Electricity from Renewable
Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments, 2010 from, National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences). I don't see why this would be different in Japan. So, I'd like to hear why you think that is the case.

Greg Johnson wrote:

> The CEO of G.E. says natural gas
and wind will be cheaper than

> nuclear.

>

RK:

Yes, from the standpoint of the company. Which is one reason why American firms are not building nukes. But the companies don't pay the cost of the tens of thousands of people who die every year in the US from pollution caused largely by fossil fuels, nor the health expenses of those who go to hospitals but don't die, not the lost days of work and school. But the economy as a whole pays. The companies only pay when governments force them to adopt anti-pollution devices that provide more benefits for the economy that their costs.

GJ:

> Now proponents of nuclear power
are commenting on the higher costs of

> not using it, whereas just a couple of months ago,
the issue was a

> power shortage that turned out to be fiction.

>

RK:

Was it a fiction? The number of heat strokes that sent people to the hospital, and the dozens of deaths from heat stroke, shows one way that blackouts were prevented. If some of the old oil and gas generators brought out of mothballs to replace nuclear had failed, the shortages would have been more manifest. So, resuming the two reactors at Oi could be seen as a kind of insurance or cushion, but it was handled so badly that it increased distrust. Then there are the firms that are building plants overseas instead of in Japan.Now consider that GDP and industrial production remain below peak levels and consider what happens when they reach and then exceed the peak of early 2008.

I told some friends in METI that, if they claimed the Apocalypse from the failure to restart the two plants, and then there was no Apocalypse, people would say:
see, we don't need nuclear power. They told me that they had never looked at it that way. The failure of bureaucrats to understand people still stuns me after all these years.

GJ:

> Setting aside CO2, does natural
gas produce pollution more harmful to

> health than that of nuclear?

>

RK:

Absolutely, from everything I've read based on nuclear accidents so far. The only nuclear accident estimated to result in mass deaths is Chernobyl, which the World Health Organization said would cause 9,000 premature deaths over 40 years, far less than those who die from fossil fuel-caused pollution every single year in the US (60,000 per year according to studies from the 1990s; less now due to anti-pollution upgrades), and I suspect in Japan as well. I've been unable to find figures on this for Japan; if anyone has them, I'd appreciate the help.

Lancet journal (for which you can register for free) has a 2007 article on "Electricity generation and health" at http://tinyurl.com/d6sfach. Looking at Europe, they measured the number of deaths and serious illnesses per terawatt of electricity generation (mostly heart and lung problems for fossil fuels and cancer for nuclear).

For deaths, the numbers are:

coal: 24.5
oil: 18.4
gas: 2.8
nuclear: 0.052.

So, natural gas is, by far, the best of the fossil fuels but far worse than nuclear.

For serious/chronic illnesses, the numbers are:

coal: 225
oil: 161
gas: 30
nuclear: 0.22.

Once again, natural gas is, by far, the best of the fossil fuels but far worse than nuclear.

Then there is the issue of global warming, which seems to be proceeding more quickly than scientists had expected.

Of course, all of these numbers would be meaningless if Fukushima had not been contained and the worst-case scenario had proceeded. But that, as many specialists argue, was preventable from a technological point of view. It was the refusal of the regulators and TEPCO to take care of known, foreseen problems with known fixes that led to the real possibility of a far, far worse catastrophe affecting areas with tens of millions of people, rather than the 200,000 living within the 30 kilometer evacuation range around Fukushima.

After the 2007 earthquakes that caused damage at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa complex in Niigata (where TEPCO had also falsified safety inspection records as at Fukushima), the governor of Niigata would not let any reactors resume until they were inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and found to be safe. But I don't see any way to get the government of Japan (or any other country) to admit to its people that it cannot protect them and must let a supranational agency do it for them.

Richard Katz
The Oriental Economist Report