104 P. MIDFORD
nuclear reactors to supplement reactors retired due to age. The second
option would see Japan generate approximately 15% of its energy from a
reduced number of nuclear power plants, with no new builds, 30% from
renewables, and the rest from fossil fuels. The third option would see
Japan eliminate nuclear power, with renewables generating 35% of the
country’s electricity, and fossil fuels the rest (Oppenheim 2013, p. 95). 5
Over several months, these options were debated nationally through
several “town hall” meetings that solicited public input. Public input overwhelmingly favored the zero nuclear option, a conclusion supported by
media polls. An Asahi poll taken in July 2012 showed that a plurality of
42% supported the zero option, 29% supported the 15% nuclear option,
and 15% supported the 20–25% nuclear option. Another question in the
same poll found that a total of 83% had great (29%) or moderate expectations (54%) about the potential of renewable energy such as wind and
solar, versus 14% who had little (12%) or no (2%) expectations (Asahi
Shimbun 2012a, b).
Following this debate, the Council presented its report to the Noda
cabinet. The report set the goal of “realization of a society not dependent on nuclear power in earliest possible future,” which was defined as
the end of the 2030s (Pollitt et al. 2014, pp. 243–244). Zero reliance on
nuclear power would mean replacing the approximately 29% of electricity
provided by nuclear power before 3-11. In the meantime, some nuclear
power plants were to be “restarted as an important energy source,” which
would generate up to 15% of electricity. Nuclear power was to be phased
out as nuclear power plants reached their newly mandated legal limit
of 40 years of operation, and that no new nuclear construction would
be authorized. The report called for replacing nuclear power by the
2030s through “realization of a green energy revolution.” 6 This entailed
primarily developing the renewable energy sources of solar and wind
power, with geothermal, biomass, and small-scale hydro serving as backup
base-load sources. To realize this goal, the report called for “reform
of the electricity power systems,” through eliminating “monopolies and
promote competition in the market, and separate electricity generation
from transmission and distribution” (Energy and Environmental Council
of the Government of Japan 2012, pp. 2, 4).
Although the cabinet did not formally adopt this plan, it pledged to
use it when adopting future energy policies. This statement was similar to
a prime minister’s or Chief Cabinet Secretary’s “danwa” or statement, in
that it carried significant authority despite not being a formally adopted
cabinet position (Kantei 2012).
nuclear reactors to supplement reactors retired due to age. The second
option would see Japan generate approximately 15% of its energy from a
reduced number of nuclear power plants, with no new builds, 30% from
renewables, and the rest from fossil fuels. The third option would see
Japan eliminate nuclear power, with renewables generating 35% of the
country’s electricity, and fossil fuels the rest (Oppenheim 2013, p. 95). 5
Over several months, these options were debated nationally through
several “town hall” meetings that solicited public input. Public input overwhelmingly favored the zero nuclear option, a conclusion supported by
media polls. An Asahi poll taken in July 2012 showed that a plurality of
42% supported the zero option, 29% supported the 15% nuclear option,
and 15% supported the 20–25% nuclear option. Another question in the
same poll found that a total of 83% had great (29%) or moderate expectations (54%) about the potential of renewable energy such as wind and
solar, versus 14% who had little (12%) or no (2%) expectations (Asahi
Shimbun 2012a, b).
Following this debate, the Council presented its report to the Noda
cabinet. The report set the goal of “realization of a society not dependent on nuclear power in earliest possible future,” which was defined as
the end of the 2030s (Pollitt et al. 2014, pp. 243–244). Zero reliance on
nuclear power would mean replacing the approximately 29% of electricity
provided by nuclear power before 3-11. In the meantime, some nuclear
power plants were to be “restarted as an important energy source,” which
would generate up to 15% of electricity. Nuclear power was to be phased
out as nuclear power plants reached their newly mandated legal limit
of 40 years of operation, and that no new nuclear construction would
be authorized. The report called for replacing nuclear power by the
2030s through “realization of a green energy revolution.” 6 This entailed
primarily developing the renewable energy sources of solar and wind
power, with geothermal, biomass, and small-scale hydro serving as backup
base-load sources. To realize this goal, the report called for “reform
of the electricity power systems,” through eliminating “monopolies and
promote competition in the market, and separate electricity generation
from transmission and distribution” (Energy and Environmental Council
of the Government of Japan 2012, pp. 2, 4).
Although the cabinet did not formally adopt this plan, it pledged to
use it when adopting future energy policies. This statement was similar to
a prime minister’s or Chief Cabinet Secretary’s “danwa” or statement, in
that it carried significant authority despite not being a formally adopted
cabinet position (Kantei 2012).