Final Draft

Furumori 1

Thesis statement

Therefore, in order not to depend on thermal generation and nuclear energy, the Japanese government should stop building more nuclear plants, support saving energy more strongly and promote renewable energy.

Outline

I Introduction

a) Background Information

b) Thesis Statement

II The problems of thermal power

a) Economic problem

b) The environmental problem

III The problems of nuclear power

a) Nuclear wastes

b) Security problem

c) Small conclusion on nuclear power

IV The importance of saving energy

a) The meaning of saving energy for Japan

b) The example of Denmark

V Renewable energy

a) The definition of renewable energy

b) The examples of renewable energy in EU

VI Conclusion

FURUMORI, Maiko
Theme Writhing
Owen James
February 21st 2007

The energy problems in Japan

The energy supply is a severe issue in Japan because Japanese self-sufficiency ratio for energy is only 4%. Japanese energy supply has been depended on oil. In 1970s, oil covered more than 70% of total energy supply (Agency for Natural Resources and Energy) After two oil crises damaged the Japanese economics greatly in 1970s, the Japanese government is required not to rely on fossil fuels in order to avoid the shocks of the changes of oil’s price. Second problem thermal generation has is the environment matter. The global warming has been increasing its importance recent years and Kyoto protocol demands Japan to decrease the considerable amount of CO2 emissions which is considered to be a cause of the global warming. Both in terms of security of supply and climate change mitigation, nuclear power has a central role in Japanese policy. The Japanese government’s target is to increase nuclear generation by 30% (equivalent to 10-13 new nuclear plants) between 2000 and 2010. (IEA) However, nuclear generation has some concerning problems which are mainly radical wastes and safety problems. The problem is that the amount of energy supply is stable or even increasing in Japan and the Japanese government is not so active in saving energy and sticks to nuclear power. Therefore, in order not to depend on thermal generation and nuclear energy, the Japanese government should stop building more nuclear plants, support saving energy more strongly and promote renewable energy.

The problems of thermal generation are well-understood today, so they are seemed to be needless to say. However two of them should be easily mentioned in order to exaggerate why Japan should not depend on thermal generation any more. One is economical matter. Japan has been hit by oil crises twice in 1970s and the Japanese economics greatly damaged. The government decided to be independent of energy. As a result, the ratio occupied by thermal energy is decreasing, but still the influence of changes of oil’s price has great meaning to Japan. As a result of regression analysis the author conducted in the class of statistics, the price of oil has been affect on Japanese economics negatively. Second is the environmental issue. The global warming is one of the most serious issue for international society. Various attempts have been challenged and Kyoto protocol is one of the biggest one. According to Kyoto protocol, Japan is required to decrease its CO2 emission 6% between 2008 and 2012. Unfortunately this target is seemed not to be achieved. If the global warming is advanced, the earth will be the place where human beings cannot live on any longer. Therefore, thermal generation is no more the best energy and Japan should reduce the propotion of thermal generation as soon as possible.

Nuclear power, the Japanese government has been energetically promoting as a solution of security of supply and the global warming, also has serious problems. First, the most serious problem is nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is produced in the operation of nuclear reactors. It can damage human tissue, and a very high dose can cause loss of appetite, illness and even death. (Hodgson 71) It should be cleared that nuclear waste do not escape into the atmosphere or enter the food chain. The problem is, therefore, how to ensure that nuclear waste does not harm human. It takes for so long, thousands of year or more, that nuclear waste changes harmless. For that reason, nuclear waste is encased in stainless steel cylinders, surrounded by concrete and buried deep underground in a stable rock formation.(Hodgson 71) However, Japan does not have appropriate places which are safe to bury nuclear waste because of the frequent earthquakes or volcanoes. Phillip Richardson who is a geologist and commissioned to research on management of radical waste in various countries by the American government and the Germany government, pointed out that in Japan it was impossible to choose stratum which is solid enough to preserve radical waste because of the frequency of the earthquakes. (Asahi newspaper) As long as management of radical waste is left to be unsolved, building more nuclear plants the Japanese government is planning should not be allowed.

Second reason that the Japanese government should give up building more nuclear plants is security of nuclear plants. In 1995 the operation of the prototype FBR (Monju) was suspended following a sodium leakage. In addition, in 1999, at the Tokai Mura fuel facility two workers died resulting from an accident and other workers and many residents nearby were exposed to radiation. The accident of Monju was caused by a very simple mistake. A thermometer inside a pipe carrying sodium coolant was broken. Another accident was also drawn by terribly poor management. These two serious accidents show that security system of nuclear plants in Japan is not necessarily well-organized enough. Once an accident takes place, the damage is enormous, which has been proved by the Chernobyl disaster. The fact that the possibility of accidents cannot be eliminated should not be ignored.

As long as nuclear energy includes these two serious disadvantages, the Japanese government should not build more nuclear plants and gain the risks. Building more plants means that radical waste which can not be disposed and risk the living things including human being is increasing. Building more plants without developing the security system indicates that another terrible disaster would happen. Therefore the Japanese government should not to promote nuclear energy any longer.

Owing the isolated location and limited domestic energy resources, energy supply is so serious problem in Japan. However, the scale of the energy demanded in Japan has been expanding year by year even after the Kyoto protocol. Building more plants can take just makeshift tactic. The more energy is demanded, the more plants need to be constructed. In Japan it is not easy to build new nuclear plants because of its small country and disagreement of resident. Consequently, saving energy should be focused more. Saving energy may be considered to be “patient” or give up developing economics, but it is misunderstanding. Two third of the energy generated in Japan is not consumed wastefully. It means that it is possible to use energy more efficiently. For example, if you switch off outlets when you do not use them, you can save the energy and use energy efficiently. If the amount of energy demand returns the level of 1990’s, Japan does not have to increase the number of plant of nuclear generation and other energy generation. (Koide) Some efforts to achieve to save energy are, of course, encouraged by the government. Cool Biz campaign began advocating in 2005 by the government is the most popular attempt. Nevertheless, the scale of its attempts is by far smaller than countries where the environmental problems are paid more attention. Denmark is one of the very active countries to save energy. Oil crises hit the economic in Denmark as well as Japan, and the government of Denmark tried constructing more nuclear plants in order to ensure energy security, which is just the same to what the Japanese government does. However, this plan was rejected by the citizens and the government had to change its policy. Both total primary energy supply and total final consumption (TPES) have been stable in Denmark over the last 30 years. TPES is only 4.6% higher than in 1973, even though the average of TPES growth for all OECD countries including Japan over the same period is 97.5%. (IEA) Though Denmark has been succeeded in saving energy, its GDP grew over the same period by 67%. Both of Japan and Denmark are shortage of energy resources, but the means the government chose to avoid depending on fossil fuels are so different. Denmark rejected nuclear energy and push forward saving energy. Denmark can be a model of Japanese future energy system.

The other noticeable answer to reduce the thermal generation instead of nuclear power is renewable energy. Renewable energy is defined asenergy coming from sources that can be and are regenerated. (IEA) Renewable energy includes solar power, wind power, water power, geothermal power, biofuel and so on. According to Danyel, renewable energies have the potential to cover 80% or more of all energy needs by the end of twentieth first century. (71) This new energy is in the spotlight in EU. In Denmark renewable energy such as biomass or wind power, supplied almost 21% of total electricity consumption in 2003. In Finland, wood-based energy which is one of renewable energy covered almost 20% of total energy supply in 2003. (Danyel 103) Some may criticize the success of renewable energy in these EU countries on the differences of the size of energy needs between these countries and Japan. Nevertheless, when Japan succeeds in reducing the amount of energy demand, the ratio renewable energy cover of the total energy supply is going to be increasing. Therefore, the Japanese government should aid the development renewable energy.

It is cleat that Japan does not have energy resources. It cannot be denied that nuclear generation the government has been promoting is unavoidable choice and greatly contributes to Japanese energy supply. However, it is time to stop using energy freely and reduce the amount of energy demand. By saving energy, Japan does not have to build more nuclear plans and renewable energy will cover the
energy supply to some extent. Therefore, the Japanese government should stop promoting nuclear energy, encourage saving energy more actively and support renewable energy strongly.




Works Cited

Asahi Newspaper. “Burring nuclear waste is not certainly safe pointed by an English geologist.”4.Apr. 1995

Hodgson, Peter E. Nuclear power, energy and the environment Imperial College Press. London, 1999
IEA. Energy Policy of IEA Countries DENMARK 2006 Review　 OECD/IEA　France 2006

IEA. Energy Policy of IEA Countries JAPAN 2003 Review OECD/IEA France 2003

IEA Energy Policy of IEA Countries NORWAY 2005 Review　OECD/IEA France 2005

IEA RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY IN IEA COUNTRIES VollumeII: Country Report OECD/IEA France 1998

IEA SAVING ELECTRICITY IN A HURRY OECD/IEA France 2005

IEA Energy Policy of IEA Countries SWEDEN 2004 Revies OECD/IEA France 2004

Japan. Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. “The Energy and Resources Today. ” 10.Feb.

2007. <http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/english/index.htm>

Koide, Hiroaki. Genshiryoku to kyozon dekiruka. Kamogawa Publisher. Kyoto, 1997

Reiche, Danyel. Handbook of renewable energies in the European Union Frankfurt am Main. New York, 2005