This essay critically examines the dangers of shaping national energy policy based solely on idealistic expectations of renewable energy. Through cost analysis, technological limitations, and regional security concerns, it argues that abandoning nuclear power risks undermining Japan’s energy security and national survival.

（発信日：2016-03-16）

The Danger of Arguing Solely on the Basis of “Expectations”

Let us return to the Monologue Record.

“Even now, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry insists that nuclear power is cheap. That only applies to the moment electricity is generated by burning nuclear fuel. How much tax money is required to build and operate nuclear power plants? Unless subsidies are provided—promises to build community centers, swimming pools, and various other incentives—local governments will never approve construction. Even decommissioning requires massive public funds for researcher training and waste disposal facilities. In the event of an accident, compensation cannot be covered by electric power companies alone. None of that is included in the cost.”

This is false.

The Ministry’s power-generation cost estimates already include compensation costs far exceeding those of subsidies or grants. Even with these included, nuclear power remains the cheapest at 10.1 yen per kilowatt-hour.

(Solar [mega]: 24.2 yen, Wind [onshore]: 21.6 yen, Geothermal: 16.9 yen, LNG thermal: 13.7 yen, Biomass: 12.6 yen, Coal thermal: 12.3 yen, Hydropower: 11.0 yen)

“From April 2016, electricity retailing will be liberalized. Wind, solar, geothermal, small hydropower, gas, biomass—if electricity cheaper than nuclear becomes available, nuclear power will not survive under liberalization. Consumers and business managers will naturally choose cheaper electricity. Pro-nuclear advocates have already begun to say that nuclear power cannot survive unless the government provides further support. Nuclear power is an industry that cannot continue without tax subsidies.”

They speak lightly of “if electricity cheaper than nuclear becomes available,” but the reality is far harsher.

In the United Kingdom, reports have emerged of people suffering headaches and health issues due to low-frequency noise generated by wind turbines. In Hokkaido, white-tailed eagles—a nationally designated natural treasure—have been killed after colliding with turbine blades at one of the region’s largest wind farms. Bird strikes have become a recurring problem.

Geothermal power has been commercialized, but it requires drilling steam wells costing approximately 500 million yen each at a pace of one every two years. This severely burdens the management of small-scale power plants.

After only two years, silica accumulates inside well pipes like tree rings, narrowing steam pathways. Corrosive gases such as sulfur dioxide damage condensers, while insufficient vacuum pressure reduces turbine efficiency. Operating costs are extremely high.

In the United States, the shale gas revolution succeeded in extracting natural gas by fracturing rock formations with high-pressure water. However, accidents have occurred where natural gas erupted from farmers’ wells, causing fires. The release of large quantities of methane into the atmosphere demands serious environmental assessment.

Small-scale hydropower lacks sufficient potential. Biomass, which accounts for 6% of Germany’s energy mix, likely has the greatest potential among renewables. Using pruned branches as fuel also helps preserve satoyama landscapes through human maintenance.

It is true that various technological developments are anticipated, and promoting renewable energy is necessary.

However, abandoning nuclear technology—refined to this level—based on excessive expectations would mean relinquishing one of the nation’s core energy pillars. From the standpoint of energy security, this could place the nation’s very survival at risk.

Media organizations such as Asahi and the so-called cultural figures aligned with them have already acted precisely in accordance with the wishes of South Korea and China, systematically weakening Japan’s national power—staking the nation’s survival itself.

What follows is from an essay published on January 5, 2016, titled:
“As readers know, South Korea and China have formally decided to massively expand new nuclear power plants—the specific numbers are as follows.”

[Seoul Kyodo] Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power, a subsidiary of Korea Electric Power Corporation, announced by the 24th that it has selected two new candidate sites—Samcheok in Gangwon Province and Yeongdeok in North Gyeongsang Province—both facing the Sea of Japan, for nuclear power plant construction. Up to four reactors will be built at each site, totaling eight reactors. South Korea plans to construct 19 reactors by 2030, including these eight. Of the 21 reactors currently in operation, 15 are already concentrated along the Sea of Japan coast, and all newly planned reactors will also be located there.

Deciding national energy policy based solely on “expectations” that resemble castles in the air is extremely dangerous.

To be continued.