Japan is still struggling with Fukushima’s legacy a decade later

Author: Editorial Board, ANU

On Thursday, Japan is celebrating the tenth anniversary of the triple disaster of the Great East Japan Earthquake that struck eastern Japan on September 11th. An earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter scale that struck the Thoku region in northeastern Japan caused a tsunami with waves up to 40 meters above sea level, eroding entire buildings. The tsunami caused nuclear collapses in three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the worst nuclear disaster after Chernobyl. While Japan learned a number of hard lessons from the disaster, its legacy still haunts the country today.

The disaster killed nearly 20,000 people, more than 2,500 remained missing, more than 6,000 gravely injured, and an estimated $ 235 billion in property and infrastructure damage, not counting the full costs of the Fukushima Daiichi clean-up. Nearly half a million people were evacuated, including 110,000 under a forced eviction order from towns in a 20-kilometer radius around Fukushima Daiichi.

The number of evacuees remains at over 42,000, down from 332,000 in December 2011, with nearly half of them staying in temporary shelters and half living with friends or relatives. About 30,000 are from Fukushima Prefecture. However, a comparison of national government statistics against local government statistics from townships in Fukushima indicates that the number is in fact more than doubled at over 67,000.

To encourage evacuees to return, the government has invested an estimated $ 27 billion in decontamination efforts to clean roads, walls, roofs, gutters, drainage pipes and other surfaces and watersheds. This includes removing millions of square meters of radioactive topsoil and vegetation, a project plagued by the problem of where to store them in the long term. But regardless of the lifting of restrictions in evacuation areas, a recent survey showed that two-thirds of the evacuees do not intend to return due to fear of radiation.

Independent investigations show what the manmade nuclear disaster was. Neglect in regulation of standards, caused by the Galapagos Syndrome, which saw excessive confidence in Japanese systems ignoring international best practices, and the standby power generators allowed to cool the emergency reactor in lowland sites vulnerable to tsunami damage.

The close relationships between METI and companies with vested interests in preserving and expanding the nuclear industry gave rise to a general feeling that the nuclear “village” could not be trusted. Opinion polls show that public support for nuclear energy has dropped to just 12.3 percent, while 60.6 percent want it to be eliminated or closed altogether.

Safety regulations have been improved. The old Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, which was headquartered under METI and considered compliant in its drive to expand nuclear energy, has been reinvented as the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) and sits under the Ministry of Environment. Its sharper regulatory teeth mean that of the 54 reactors operating before the disaster, 24 are slated to be decommissioned. Nine reactors have been approved and restarted under the most stringent conditions; Four is currently running.

The post-disaster protest movement continues to demand that Japan abandon nuclear energy and provide justice for the victims. While the pro-nuclear Abe government has sought to use the Olympics as an opportunity to drive renewal and review recovery, victims complain about the gigantic Olympic budget while not receiving adequate compensation.

The pursuit of justice has led to a series of lawsuits against the government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which operates the Fukushima Daiichi plant. These lawsuits are seen as a way of not letting the government forget the victims, but the rulings have caused frustration. Most cases found the government and TEPCO responsible, but the victims received only small amounts of compensation. In the criminal case, the Tokyo District Court acquitted the defendants, three of TEPCO’s top officials.

Against this background, the debate about the future of nuclear energy and energy policy planning in Japan is now underway.

As Tatsujiro Suzuki noted in our first major article this week, the Suga government’s green growth strategy, which aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, envisages the use of “small modular reactors” and “nuclear power to produce hydrogen”. Suzuki argues, “But before Japan can think realistically about the future of nuclear energy,” it must first address three unresolved legacies. Specifically, the shutdown of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, which is expected to reach 2051 and cost 80 trillion yen (750 billion US dollars); Establishing a reliable plan for managing nuclear waste and disposal of spent fuel; And restore public confidence by facilitating transparency and public participation in energy policy-making.

At the same time, as Florentine Copenhagen explains in our second major article this week, it would be better for the Japanese government to adjust its nuclear targets to more realistic levels and become more ambitious with regards to renewables. Under current planning, the government still aims to generate “20-22 percent of electricity through nuclear energy by 2030”.

To meet NRA standards, this goal will require building new reactors, in line with calls from Denjiren (Association of Electric Power Companies) and Keidanren (Japan Business Association), but it is sure to face public opposition. Given that Japan’s renewable energy sector grew to 19 percent in 2019, “very close to reaching the 22-24 percent projected for 2030 a decade ago,” an 8-10 percent share for nuclear energy and 40-50 Per cent says Koppenborg that renewables would be the best option.

The Japanese people have shown tremendous strength in the face of adversity and cooperation through kizuna (bonds of social solidarity between people) in dealing with the catastrophic disaster that occurred on 3/11. They want their voices to be heard as the government develops its future energy plans.

The EAF editorial board is located at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Asia Pacific College, Australian National University.

.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos