Fukushima's
financial fallout
As
reports surrounding Japan's nuclear disaster get steadily worse, the
country is on the verge of a financial meltdown
9
September, 2013
In
March 2011, a tsunami hit Japan, killing almost 19,000 people and
crippling the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
The
shutting down of the plant removed thousands of megawatts from the
country's power grid - but that was just the beginning of the
problems caused by Fukushima's meltdown.
Continuing
fears about food safety are destroying the livelihoods of farmers and
fishermen who have worked the Fukushima lands and coastline for
generations, while concerns over nuclear power in general is creating
a financial black hole for Japan's government.
Before
the disaster, which led to the country bringing 50 of its nuclear
reactors offline due to safety concerns and mounting public pressure,
the nuclear industry was providing 30 percent of Japan's electricity.
It
was expected that this level would increase to at least 40 percent by
2017, reducing import costs and decreasing the reliance of Japan's
power grid on traditional fossil fuels.
According
to Paul Scalise, a research fellow at the University of Tokyo, it was
the good will of the Japanese people and its industries that
prevented rolling blackouts hitting the country in the summer months
of both 2011 and 2012.
"The
word that was used here at the time was 'Setsuden' - essentially it
means 'saving electricity'," he said.
"The
message that went out was that it was people's patriotic duty to
conserve electricity, and it worked - there is evidence that people
responded.
"Without
Setsuden, Japan would have seen rolling blackouts during the summer
months, when A/C usage is at its highest."
Farmers
wage war on Fukushima radiation
As
part of the Setsuden initiative, industries such as steel works and
ceramics factories, which had taken themselves off the national grid
in the 1980s and 1890s, fed their surplus power back to the grid to
try to offset the shortages.
While
that undoubtedly helped, Japan's electricity companies have become
increasingly reliant on importing expensive fossil fuels such as
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG).
According
to figures from the Ministry of Finance, imports of LNG in 2012 were
11 percent higher than those before the 2011 tsunami.
When
combined with a regional cost increase because of rising demand,
spending on LNG in 2012 was $27bn higher than in the year before the
Fukushima disaster, and gas now accounts for more than eight percent
of Japan's imports.
Fuel
costs for the nine Japanese electric power companies which own and
operate nuclear power plants also increased by 94 percent from their
pre-Fukushima levels of $36.2 billion in 2010 to $70.9 billion in
2012's fiscal year.
Dr
Scalise told Al Jazeera that this solution was not one that could be
used in the long-term.
"It's
not sustainable at all," he said. "The renewable energies
industry is likely to grow quickly over the next few years, but that
is easy when you’re starting from such a low base.
"The
issue is that Japan doesn't have, for example, the deserts of the US,
where you can put the solar and wind farms without protests from
residents.
"Without
nuclear power, the only option is LNG, coal or oil. At the moment,
nearly 90 percent of electricity is coming from fossil fuels."
According
to Dr Scalise, there are three possible options available to the
Japanese government at this point, one of which would be to let the
current situation continue and not re-open the nuclear reactors.
"This
would just let the electricity companies' financial bleeding
continue," said Dr Scalise. "And sooner or later they would
have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
"Obviously
that option is not politically appealing."
The
second solution involves the the government setting up a mass holding
company for the nuclear assets in order to prevent the power
companies from failing, although the complicated financial nature of
this makes it unlikely.
The
third, and in Dr Scalise's opinion, the most likely, involves getting
the banks involved with the power companies to issue short-term
low-interest loans until they are able to start re-activating nuclear
operations and research on a small scale.
Public
perception
It
is public nervousness at the idea of unsafe plants that is delaying
the re-starting of many of Japan's nuclear reactors.
A
study by the World Nuclear Association shows that the longer the
crisis drags on, the more people want to see a move away from a
reliance on nuclear power.
By
March 2013, 20 percent of people questioned wanted nuclear power to
be abolished.
It
is that public perception of fear and danger that has also led to the
near-demise of the fishing and farming industry in and around
Fukushima.
Fishing
in the area has been banned due to some bottom feeding fish being
found with radiation levels higher than the Japanese government's new
"acceptable level" of 100 becquerels per kilogramme.
Shunsuke
Managi, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Economics
at Tohoku University, said that the infrastructure damage to
fisheries after the tsunami totalled $10bn, but that there was also a
loss of earnings caused by the continuing issues with safety and
decontamination in the area.
"The
fish further out [are] actually fine," he told Al Jazeera.
"Closer to Fukushima the levels of radiation in the fish are
higher than government standards - but those have been increased
recently.
"In
actual fact, fishermen in the area suffered a $2.6bn loss of revenue
in 2011, and a further $1bn in 2012.
"In
the prefectures beyond Fukushima there are no problems at all and
fishing is continuing as normal."
Just
days ago, however, as Fukushima again hit the headlines due to an
increase in recorded levels of radiation, South Korea announced it
was banning the import of all fish from Japan.
Japan
had annual fish exports worth around $92m to South Korea, accounting
for about 13 percent of its total fishing industry exports.
"It
is damage caused by rumours," Professor Managi said.
"The
group, for example, planning to export squid to Korea said their loss
would be several hundred-thousand dollars.
"They
are located in the north of Japan and are in no way related to
Fukushima.
"This
kind of rumour is understandable. The people of Korea are afraid
because of the Japanese government's and Tepco's poor responses to
the problem."
The
farming industry, too, has taken a financial knock - as the
competency of Tepco, Fukushima's operating company, and one of the
largest energy corporations in Asia, was called into question.
Director
of the Kyushu Institute of Technology in Japan, and volunteer for
independent radiation monitoring group Safecast, Azby Brown told Al
Jazeera that there was a lot of anger among farmers who had been
removed from their homes:
"There
are three groups: Those who have been evacuated with no real hope of
returning, those who are hoping to return soon, and those that were
not evacuated.
"It
is a real blow, in some cases these farms were famous because the
same family had been living their for centuries.
"There
is a lot of anger among the farmers, those in the exclusionary zone
need compensation. Realistically a lot of us feel the government
cannot afford that.
"There
has been compensation as far as relocation costs and things like that
go, but looking to the long-term, there has been very little
information about what is intended."
Brown
said that some townships had said they were expecting people to soon
be allowed to move back to the area - thus delaying the discussion of
long term compensation.
Nuclear
expert Imad Khadduri discusses the Fukushima meltdown
In
the meantime, farmers are suffering - even those with land in areas
no longer registering unsafe levels of radiation.
Farmers
with land in the "Orange Zone", just beyond the worst
areas, have sent samples of different crops to independent labs, and
the majority have come back without levels surpassing those
considered to be safe.
"Of
about 10 million bags of rice tested, about 75 or 80 came back with
higher levels than those allowed," said Brown.
"For
the farmers, it is a human rights issue, they want to be allowed back
on to their land, they know the risks and the environment they are
in, and they want to be allowed to return."
Lack
of trust
Even
if they were allowed to return, it would be unlikely that the crops
they produce would sell.
"They
are suffering from the Fukushima name," said Brown.
"It
is an understandable human reaction, if there is a choice of food
then why would you choose one with this reputation.
"In
reality, the standards set by Japan are the most strict in the
world."
A
plethora of mistakes in the handling of the Fukushima disaster have,
however, made people distrustful of the government and whether food
safety is being correctly monitored.
Even
the most recent plans, and sizable investment from the government, to
stop the radiation leaks have been met with scepticism.
Dr
MV Ramana, a physicist specialising in issues of nuclear safety with
the Programme on Science and Global Security at Princeton University
said that he did not believe the scheme would succeed.
"This
was reinforced when I heard about the primary component of the
response: the frozen soil wall," he said.
"Not
only is this strategy untested on the scale that is being
contemplated, but this wall would be vulnerable to loss of power and
possibly earthquakes." The 2011 tsunami which led eventually to
the nuclear meltdown was caused by a 9,0 magnitude quake around 70km
from the coast. More than 900 aftershocks have since been recorded in
the area.
It
is this lack of faith that is contributing to people's distrust of
food coming from Fukushima, despite independent readings that support
the government's findings that the majority of produce is safe.
"The
Japanese public has every reason to distrust nuclear officials in
that country," Dr Ramana said.
"Regaining
that trust is going to take not just a lot of time - but a complete
overhaul of the 'nuclear village', which hasn't happened and is
unlikely to happen anytime soon."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.