Alexandru Luta wrote:

Regarding Paul Midford's claim from Sep 19

"I think what we have seen
proves that long-term effective regulation of the nuclear power industry is not feasible [due to the inherent characteristics of the technology]. "
AL replied:

Well, not necessarily. I would like to bring Finland into the discussion....

RK:

And some Japanese would like to bring the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission into the discussion.

Some critics contend that the new Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) is not really as independent as it is supposed to be. Of the 480 members of the NRA Secretariat, 460 are reportedly transfers from METI's Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency (NISA) or the Nuclear Safety Commission. NISA was complicit in helping the utilities evade known upgrade needs, cover up falsified safety reports and, during the crisis, was useless to advise Kan because its staff knew nothing about nuclear power. They were regular METI officials, trained in economic policy, but technologically challenged when it came to nuclear issues.
Kenkichi Hirose, former head of NISA, told a Diet panel investigating the March 2011 incident that, while experts at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are qualified to operate reactors, that NISA officials were kept busy with paperwork. Shuya Nomura, a professor at the Chuo Law School who was a member of the Diet panel cited above, told the Yomiuri that the NRA secretariat needs to be a body that people will want to work for.
He cited the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as an example of a place considered prestigious by American nuclear experts. Former Kan aide Tasaka added that it is necessary to have outsiders scrutinize the NRA, including an expert from overseas, such as a former member of the US NRC. However, doing this may require changing the law to allow foreigners to take such a position. The Diet should also form a committee to check the NRA and its secretariat, Tasaka said.
So, Alexandru says that proper regulation is possible, at least in some countries. So far, however, no one on the Forum has volunteered the opinion that this is politically possible, let alone likely, in Japan, or has suggested a way to make it more likely. My ray of hope is that the sample size of SSJ responses is still small.

AL:

The [40-year] limit on the life spans is legally binding, but it is distinct from the recent statement by the Cabinet.
RK:

Not so. In January, the Noda administration submitted a bill to the Diet that would have limited the life of all nuclear plants to 40 years, but caved to the LDP's demand to allow a 20-year extension if authorities ruled that the plant was still safe. The law came into effect in June. In July, NISA used the escape clause to grant an extension to 40-year-old reactor at Mihima operated by Kansai Electric. The head of the new NRA, Shunji Tanaka, a former vice chair of the Atomic Energy Commission--who says that "The most important thing is to recover confidence in the nuclear safety administration"--told a press conference that he would enforce the 40-year limit, saying that, "It would be extremely difficult [for a nuclear reactor] to get an extension." But, if he changes his mind, there is nothing in the law to prevent him from doing so. The first test is whether to rescind NISA's decision on Mihima.

I thank Andrew DeWit for his info on Germany and renewables and will look into it.

Richard Katz
The Oriental Economist Report