Japanese government dangles financial carrot to persuade reluctant communities to take nuclear wastess
But there is no prospect for the establishment of such a recycling system which would allow for disposing only of the
waste from reprocessing and recycling.
Eventually, Japan, like most other countries with nuclear power plants, will be forced to map out plans for “direct disposal,” or disposing of spent fuel from nuclear reactors in underground repositories.
Hokkaido Governor Suzuki has taken a dim view of the financial incentive offered to encourage local governments to apply for the first stage of the selection process, criticizing the proposed subsidies as “a wad of cash used as a powerful carrot.”
EDITORIAL: Much at stake in picking a final nuclear waste disposal site, http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13749856 21 Sept 20, Two local communities in Hokkaido are considering pitching themselves as candidates for the site for final disposal of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.Last month, the mayor of Suttsu in the northernmost main island said the municipal government is thinking to apply for the first stage of the three-stage process of selecting the site for the nation’s final repository for nuclear waste. During this period, past records about natural disasters and geological conditions for the candidate area are examined. Town authorities are holding meetings with local residents to explain its intentions. In Kamoenai, a village also in Hokkaido, the local chamber of commerce and industry submitted a petition to the local assembly to consider an application for the process. The issue was discussed at an assembly committee. However, the assembly decided to postpone making a decision after further discussion. Both communities are located close to the Tomari nuclear power plant operated by Hokkaido Electric Power Co. and struggling with common rural problems such as a dwindling population and industrial and economic stagnation. The law decrees that when the first stage of the selection process starts, the municipality that is picked will receive up to 2 billion yen ($19.1 million) in state subsidies for two years. But the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO), which are in charge of the selection process, have promised it will not move to the second stage if the prefectural governor or local mayor voices an objection. Hokkaido Governor Naomichi Suzuki has already expressed his opposition. A huge amount of spent nuclear fuel has been produced by nuclear plants in Japan, and it needs to be stored and disposed of somewhere in this country. This policy challenge requires a solid consensus among a broad range of people, including residents of cities who have been beneficiaries of electricity generated at nuclear plants. The two Hokkaido municipalities’ moves to consider applying for the first stage of the selection process should be taken as an opportunity for national debate on the issue. The first step should be to establish a system for local communities to discuss the issue thoroughly from a broad perspective. It is crucial to prevent bitter, acrimonious divisions in local communities between supporters and opponents. The central government and other parties involved need to provide whatever information is needed from a fair and neutral position to help create an environment for healthy, in-depth debate. There is also a crucial need to fix the problems with the current plan to build a final repository for radioactive waste. Under the plan, which is based on the assumption that a nuclear fuel recycling system will eventually be established, the repository will be used to store waste to be left after spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed to recover and recycle plutonium and uranium. But there is no prospect for the establishment of such a recycling system which would allow for disposing only of the waste from reprocessing and recycling. Eventually, Japan, like most other countries with nuclear power plants, will be forced to map out plans for “direct disposal,” or disposing of spent fuel from nuclear reactors in underground repositories. The central government has not changed its policy of maintaining nuclear power generation as a major power source. If nuclear reactors keep operating, they will continue producing spent fuel. The government will find it difficult to win local support for the planned repository unless it makes clear what kind of and how much radioactive material will be stored at the site. Many local governments are facing a fiscal crunch partly because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hokkaido Governor Suzuki has taken a dim view of the financial incentive offered to encourage local governments to apply for the first stage of the selection process, criticizing the proposed subsidies as “a wad of cash used as a powerful carrot.” It takes tens of thousands of years for the radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel to decline to sufficiently safe levels. Trying to stem local opposition by dangling temporary subsidies could create a serious problem for the future in the communities. It is vital to ensure that the repository plan will secure a long-term policy commitment to the development of the local communities and ensure benefits for the entire areas. September 22, 2020 |
|
5 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- March 2023 (223)
- February 2023 (379)
- January 2023 (388)
- December 2022 (277)
- November 2022 (335)
- October 2022 (363)
- September 2022 (259)
- August 2022 (367)
- July 2022 (368)
- June 2022 (277)
- May 2022 (375)
- April 2022 (377)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
Good article. Teeswater, Ontario, Canada is in the running for high level nuclear waste from whole Canada. Mayor and council are groomed perfectly by the NWMO. All kinds of money is given in the community, keep that fat carrot dangling in front of their mouths. Divides up the community. Money has for sure a lot of power by our elected officials. These temporary subsidies are only good for a short time if you look at the pollution this waste can do over the hundred thousands of years before it takes down the radiation levels. Short time gain and long time pain.
Thank you, Rita.
I couldn’t agree more. The nuclear industry has this system down pat. It’s happening in Australia, too. They look for an economically depressed community . That’s easy here, with prolonged droughts. They are very pleased to find one that lacks the essential facilities, e.g medical services, – facilities that should be helped by the government, anyway. But of course, the government is in cahoots with them. They then offer bribes – no wonder the communities cave in – it all looks so good.
We started a grassroots group and have good support. We are close to town with 2 schools and a dairy processing plant. It’s a good agricultural region. I think it is not a really poor area. They promise new roads and bridges. It is presented to us to improve a lot of infrastructure in the municipality. It looks now that only roads and bridges going to the nuke dump get covered. Dangling carrot again! And don’t forget the jobs. In our area is not the qualification for a lot of positions who come available. What do we gain by this dump? All high level nuclear waste from whole Canada. Pre Covid 19 we had really low employment. We are only 30km from the biggest fresh water source in the world and the river runs through it to the lakes. If something goes wrong, water for 40 million is in danger.
Good. I see the difference Canada does have nuclear power (?Ontario, Quenec, New Brinswick). So Canada does indeed have a nuclear waste problem. Still, it doesn’t need to be disposed of close to such a great freshwater source. Definitely not. Nor in an agricultural area. Definitely not. In Australia, the situation is really different. They did deliberately pick an economically depressed area, for a supposedly small nuclear waste dump, and of course, with appealing bribes. So that will go ahead. But the underlying plan is for an international hub for importing nuclear wastes. I’m not making this up. They’ve been trying this for many years.
Yes,I was reading that Australia wants other countries high level nuclear waste. The countries who use the dgr have to pay rent for a long time. They make a business out of this, really concerning, we requested, only nuclear waste from Canada to go in the nuke dump. But the officials can change that in one stroke of a pen. Don’t trust them at all.