By WSJ Staff
By Mitsuru Obe and Phred Dvorak
Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said Thursday the government’s “close” to a decision on whether to restart two nuclear reactors in western Japan — the first pair in line to switch back on after last year’s terrible accident in Fukushima.
- Associated Press
- A Nov. 2011 photo of Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Nos. 3, rear, and 4 units of the Oi nuclear power station, located at Oi, in the western Japanese prefecture of Fukui.
So what’s the controversial decision going to be and where does it stand? JRT expects it’ll be a “yes,” but the pressures against restarting are so great that the order to bring them back online could be delayed for months — possibly after peak electricity demand in the summer. Here’s our attempt to cut through the obscure, politically charged process.
First the background. All Japan’s 50 operational nuclear reactors are now offline — most of them stopped for routine maintenance and left off while utilities conducted extra safety checks in light of last year’s meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi. Recent opinion polls have shown the restart of Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Oi reactors — the ones chosen by the government as the test case — to be highly unpopular, with more than 50% of Japanese now opposed.
Nevertheless, the government last month cleared two Oi reactors as safe to restart. And Friday, the government warned that without Oi’s electricity, the area of western Japan served by Kansai Electric would be asked to keep power consumption between July and September to no more than 85% of peak usage during the hot summer of 2010.
Before restarting, the government has said it will consult local communities and then make a final Cabinet-level decision.
The problem is, the Japanese government failed to define what communities it’s going to consult, and what level of support it’ll need from them. At the very least, officials have said they’ll want support from the town of Oi and the prefecture of Fukui, which host the reactors.
This support appears to be largely in the bag. On Monday, the Oi town assembly officially decided that the reactors needed to be restarted, and the mayor has said he’ll make his decision by the end of the month. The Fukui prefectural assembly convened its own expert panel, which recently concluded that the Oi reactors were safe to restart. Fukui’s governor is also backing the government’s evaluation, although he’s raised concerns over Japan’s nuclear regulator, which has been in a state of confusion since April. The regulator was supposed to have been reformed into a new agency last month, but political infighting has slowed the process.
But the governors of neighboring Kyoto and Shiga prefectures are opposing the restart of Oi’s reactors, saying that the government shouldn’t rush to bring them back online before it’s finished investigating the cause of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and completed a long-term energy plan. The Japanese government said it’s planning to set up a joint council comprising Fukui, Shiga and Kyoto prefectures to monitor the Oi plant.
In Osaka, popular mayor Toru Hashimoto is demanding Kansai Electric seek approval from all local authorities within 100 kilometers of its nuclear plants before deciding to operate its reactors.
But none of those politicians are guaranteed a voice in the decision.
Pundits say Mr. Noda and the three other Cabinet members in charge of the final decision are likely to press ahead with restarts anyway, since Japan’s big utilities will lose a lot of money if they don’t. “If nuclear plants are not restarted, they will turn become liabilities, instead of assets,” Yoshito Sengoku, a senior member of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, said recently. “Even for accounting reasons, it’s difficult to exit from nuclear power.”
Still, energy-watchers say the unexpected could still happen — particularly since the political risks to a restart are so high. “There could be an accident the day after the restart. Any politician who authorized the restart would be forced into resignation,” said Tomoko Murakami, nuclear expert at the pro-business Institute of Energy Economics. “No one wants to take such risks, especially with general elections looming next year.”
Ms. Murakami recalls an incident at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant in 2009. The plant was about to be restarted from a two-year halt after an earthquake caused extensive damage to the plant. Then, a small fire broke out at one of the units, prompting a chorus of lambasting of the government for hastily allowing a restart.
Ms. Murakami also pointed out that the new regulatory agency charged with supervising the nuclear industry hasn’t yet started. Investigation panels are expected to uncover more problems with the Fukushima Daiichi. “There may not be a restart — not just for months, but for years,” she said.
以上は、WSJの記事からの転載である。野田、細野、枝野、藤村の４氏が原発の再稼働にどんなにやっきになろうが、５月８日付けの毎日新聞で発表された全国世論調査の結果を見ればわかるように、大飯原発の再稼働についての反対は６３％にも及び、賛成の３１％を大きく上回っている。稼働する原発がなくなり、今夏電気の使用が制限されても「我慢できる」と答えた人は７４％に達しており、政府が４月にまとめた原発の再稼働をめぐる安全性に関する新たな判断基準を「信用しない」と答えた人が７７％にも上っており、民意は再稼働に異議を唱えているのである。
ところが、２２日付けの毎日のウエブニュース（以下掲載）によれば、原発への信頼の失墜に伴い、エネルギー基本計画の抜本的見直しを目標に設置されたはずの基本問題委員会が、２１日、２５名の委員間で意見を集約しきれず、４案を併記することで終わったという。その４案の中には「原発比率の数値目標は定めず、現行維持」の意見も含まれているという。見直しをするために設置されたはずの委員会が、原発災害の収束、原因究明さえ何もできていない今、原発比率の現行維持などという意見を提示するとは一体何たることなのか。
総合資源エネルギー調査会の基本問題委員会は、経産相の諮問機関で、委員長は新日鉄の三村会長だという。大量の電力を消費する鉄鋼会社の代表をこの委員会の委員長に据えた時点から、エネルギー基本計画の真の見直しを提示する場に、なりようがないことはこの委員会が発足する前から、明々白々であったがーー。
国のエネルギー政策の指針について検討する諮問機関のメンバーに、とりわけ諮問機関の委員長に利益相反が見え見えの企業の代表者を据える人事のあり方には、全くもって、疑問を呈さざるをえない。
http://mainichi.jp/select/news/20120522k0000m020129000c.htm
電源構成:集約できず４案を報告へ…原発「目標」なしも
毎日新聞 2012年05月22日 02時32分
将来の電源構成について議論している経済産業相の諮問機関「総合資源エネルギー調査会」の基本問題委員会は２１日、３０年の原発比率（１０年度は２６％）について「早期にゼロ」「緩やかに削減（１５％）」「一定比率を維持（２０〜２５％）」「数値目標を設けない」の４案を選択肢とする方向で最終調整に入った。各案を支持する委員の意見が対立して集約できず、原発ゼロから維持まで複数案が残る形となる。【丸山進】
月内に最終案をまとめて政府の「エネルギー・環境会議」に報告し、夏までに策定するエネルギー基本計画に反映させる。
基本問題委員会は、福島第１原発事故で原発への信頼が損なわれたことから、エネルギー基本計画を抜本的に見直すため昨年１０月に設置された。主に原子力のあり方を含め、電源構成の将来像を議論し、学識経験者や環境ＮＰＯ、消費者団体など２５人で構成する。委員長は三村明夫・新日本製鉄会長。３０年時点の電源構成について、原子力、再生可能エネルギー、火力の構成比のあり方を議論。原発比率を０％、１５％、
2０％、２５％、３５％、数値目標なし−−とする６案から絞り込みを進めてきた。
