Fourteen years ago on March 11, a series of earthquakes and tsunami triggered a meltdown in Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company.
This catastrophic event displaced hundreds of thousands of people, rendered vast swathes of land unlivable to this day, and contaminated the Pacific Ocean with the regular release of tonnes of “treated” polluted water. It should have firmly settled the debate on whether nuclear power represents Japan’s – and indeed, the world’s – energy future. With around US$7 billion being spent annually on damages and clean-up efforts expected to last until 2050, generations without a memory of the Fukushima disaster will continue to pay its price.
Yet, remarkably, the Japanese government is now reversing its course on nuclear energy. In a contentious 7th Strategic Energy Plan finalised last month, the government called for “maximising the use of nuclear energy” and dropped a previous reference to “reducing reliance on nuclear energy.”
It also targeted to increase the share of nuclear power in the energy mix to 20 per cent. Before the Fukushima disaster, Japan relied on nuclear for around one-third of its energy requirements. In its aftermath, many nuclear plants went offline and nuclear power now only consists of less than one-tenths of its energy mix. The policy reversal, however, would mean the reopening and construction of new nuclear plants.
This isn’t just a betrayal of Fukushima disaster victims, including the almost 4,000 deaths due to illnesses or stress-induced suicide. Nor of communities around other plants who fear the health, environmental and livelihood impacts of contamination. Japan’s unwelcome attempt at nuclear revival is also a betrayal of the people’s aspirations for climate justice and clean energy.
With the climate changing rapidly, the global energy landscape has to change with it as well. Renewable energy, such as solar and wind, provides the best alternative to burning fossil fuels–not nuclear. More than 190 countries, including Japan, committed at the 2023 UN climate conference to triple renewable energy by 2030. Unfortunately, Japan also joined the US and a small minority of nations in committing to triple nuclear energy by 2050. These nations, notably with powerful nuclear industry lobbies, claim that nuclear energy plays a “key role” in achieving net-zero emissions.
But the nuclear industry cannot style itself as climate champions. Nuclear power is emissions-heavy. Every step in the process generates substantial carbon emissions – from energy-intensive uranium mining and processing to plant construction, eventual decommissioning, and waste management. In particular, dangerous radioactive waste – which takes around one million years to become safe – must be securely managed and stored for hundreds of thousands of years. Nuclear power’s carbon footprint thus expands immeasurably over its entire lifecycle. Compare this to renewables. While making solar panels does create some emissions, these emissions are still 96 to 98 per cent lower than coal power, and already span a solar panel’s 25 to 30-year average lifecycle.
The Japanese government attempts to sweep under the rug the true social and environmental costs of nuclear power by harping on its immediate benefits: a supposedly stable and cheap source of electricity that is crucial to meet rising electricity demand. Yet, independent studies show that renewable energy is a cheaper option than nuclear power. Solar energy prices, in particular, have dropped by 93 per cent since 2010, making it the cheapest new energy option. And while the initial investment for wind farms can be high, the operational costs are low, and the average lifetime cost to produce electricity for wind power has decreased significantly.
Constructing new nuclear plants is also costly and requires more budget than initially calculated as they can take around 15 to 20 years to start operating. By contrast, major solar and wind projects can only take around one to four years to build.
As for energy stability – Fukushima serves as a prime example of how nuclear power is vulnerable to shutdowns whenever disasters or accidents occur. Japan’s earthquake-prone geography makes nuclear dependence especially unviable. Decentralised solar, wind, and small-scale hydro networks can provide more stable and safe sources of energy from a variety of sources. These offer not just inherent resilience, but energy independence that is crucial for an economic powerhouse like Japan. It need not be a choice between importing fossil fuels or courting another nuclear disaster–renewables offer a way forward.
While nuclear industries and the government wax enthusiastic about nuclear power, the public doesn’t share the same sentiment. Almost half of Japanese respondents in a 2023 survey believe that nuclear energy should gradually or immediately be abolished, with only six per cent agreeing that it should be increased. We should channel public investment toward community-owned renewable energy rather than attempt a nuclear revival. This will avoid reawakening historical traumas while creating a more democratic and sustainable energy system.
Masayoshi Iyoda is a campaigner for 350.org Japan, a global non-profit campaigning for an end to the fossil fuels-based era
