By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world’s largest, is preparing for the restart of a reactor, defying local public opinion. Despite being offline since the Fukushima disaster, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) aims to reintroduce nuclear energy to boost electricity supply and meet emissions targets. However, the plan is met with strong opposition from nearby residents, who raise concerns about safety, evacuation plans, and the potential for another Fukushima-style incident. Residents also express distrust of Tepco and the government, citing issues like ineffective evacuation plans, seismic risks, and the nuclear industry’s influence. As Japan attempts to revive its nuclear energy sector, the restart of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa represents a significant challenge amid ongoing scrutiny and local resistance.
Read the original article here
Fifteen years after the devastating Fukushima disaster, the world’s attention is once again focused on Japan, as the nation prepares to restart the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant, the largest of its kind globally. It’s almost unbelievable that it’s been a decade and a half since the events that shook Japan and the world. The memories of the 2011 tsunami and the subsequent nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant are still vivid, a stark reminder of the power of nature and the potential risks of nuclear energy. The tsunami alone claimed the lives of an estimated 20,000 people along Japan’s northeast coast, a staggering loss.
Since the Fukushima accident, which was the world’s worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant has remained offline. However, as Japan grapples with reaching its emissions targets and ensuring its energy security, the government has placed a renewed emphasis on nuclear power. This has led to the controversial decision to restart reactor No. 6 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, potentially boosting the electricity supply to the Tokyo area by around 2%. The decision, however, is far from universally welcomed.
The potential restart comes despite considerable local opposition. A recent poll indicated that a majority of residents living within a 30km radius of the plant – the area that would face evacuation in the event of another incident – don’t believe the conditions for safe operation have been met. Tepco, the utility company, has pledged to invest in the region and claims to have learned from the mistakes of Fukushima, but the skepticism remains.
Adding to the unease is the recent revelation that another utility company in central Japan fabricated seismic risk data during a regulatory review. These sorts of incidents don’t exactly instill confidence. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site itself is located in an area with known seismic faults, which experienced damage during a 2007 earthquake. With these inherent dangers, the local population’s worries are understandable.
The decision to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is a gamble, especially given the history. Prior to the Fukushima disaster, nuclear power supplied about 30% of Japan’s energy needs, with 54 reactors in operation. Now, just 14 of 33 operable reactors are in service. The path back to nuclear energy is proving to be a challenging one, fraught with public concerns and regulatory hurdles.
The sheer scale of the tsunami disaster often gets lost in the discussion about the nuclear fallout, but it’s critical to remember the human cost. I have a vivid memory of watching news coverage of the tsunami unfolding in real-time, the ocean engulfing everything in its path. The footage was just so shocking. The Tohoku Earthquake, a 9.0-magnitude event, caused a half-trillion dollars in damage. The impact of the tsunami was felt far and wide.
I went to Ishinomaki with a church group as a volunteer after the tsunami, and it was a truly life-altering experience. The scale of the destruction was just incomprehensible. Around 4,000 people died in that town alone, and the presence of such devastation is hard to put into words.
The nuclear accident itself, while devastating, resulted in a relatively small number of deaths directly attributable to radiation exposure compared to the tsunami’s death toll. It’s easy to lose perspective when we talk about numbers, but the impact of that event was immense. The fact is, the warnings underestimated the power of the tsunami, which made a tragic situation even worse.
The fact is, that the tsunami that hit was 30 to 40 meters, like a 10-story building. This caused many to underestimate the risk. Even people who took the warnings seriously were still screwed. The majority of deaths were people aged 50 and over with mobility challenges.
Ultimately, we have to look at the big picture and recognize the energy dilemma. Nuclear power has undeniable risks, but so does climate change. When you look at the numbers, you start to see a picture. Coal power plants, for example, are linked to far more cancer cases every single month than all nuclear plant related cancer cases and premature deaths throughout history, combined. That’s a staggering comparison.
Even when you look at the worst nuclear accident in history and extrapolate the likely cancers, it’s still far less harmful per GW than coal. Nuclear isn’t a risk when it is operated correctly. The unfortunate reality is that more people die every day from fossil fuels than from nuclear accidents over the last century. The Fukushima accident should have been handled far better. This happened because of the company’s irresponsibility and a series of operational errors.
Speaking of covering up mistakes, there was also a failure to build a high enough sea wall at Fukushima and the failure to move critical infrastructure. It’s tragic that human error played such a crucial role in escalating the disaster.
It’s been 15 years, and a generation has come of age since this happened. The world has changed in the years since Fukushima. With so much at stake, both the government and TEPCO have a major responsibility to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.