The Fukushima shock and Japan’s          nuclear future            Jacques E. C. HymansAssociate Professor of Internationa...
March 11, 2011:             Earthquaketsunaminuclear disasterhttp://leader-leader.com/blog/2011/12/02/what-happened-at-f...
Japanese nuclear policies at the time of the quake and one year later  Policy area          Policy as of March 11, 2011   ...
Japan’s nuclear policymaking arenaMajor veto players           Minor veto players        Other players    Electrical utili...
1st Affiliations of Advisory Committee MembersCategory        METI ANRE   AEC                          METI NISASubnationa...
“Anti-nuclear” and “pro-nuclear” members of        government advisory committeesGovernment   Composition in Composition a...
“Airtime” of anti-nuclear members on the AEC            Policy Planning Council                            Pre-3/11   Post...
Three levels of nuclear policy• National policy: not very much change?• Corporate policy: more change?• Prefectural policy...
Corporate policy: Will METI run TEPCO?  Wide range of potential policy implicationsEdano-TEPCO fight over voting rights:• ...
Prefectural policy: What is ‘local’?    Potential geometrical expansion in veto playershttp://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311di...
Any questions? Any answers?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Public Lecture PPT (4.11.2012)The fukushima shock and japan’s nuclear future

1,754 views

Published on

The fukushima shock and japan’s nuclear future
Speaker: Jacques Hymans

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,754
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Public Lecture PPT (4.11.2012)The fukushima shock and japan’s nuclear future

  1. 1. The Fukushima shock and Japan’s nuclear future Jacques E. C. HymansAssociate Professor of International Relations University of Southern California hymans@usc.edu
  2. 2. March 11, 2011: Earthquaketsunaminuclear disasterhttp://leader-leader.com/blog/2011/12/02/what-happened-at-fukushima/
  3. 3. Japanese nuclear policies at the time of the quake and one year later Policy area Policy as of March 11, 2011 Policy as of March 11, 2012 Nuclear exports Major multi-agency nuclear Unchanged export promotion effort Nuclear fuel cycle Rapid entry into service of Reprocessing policy (Rokkasho) Rokkasho (reprocessing) and unchanged; Monju (fast breeder Monju FY 2012 budget cut by reactor), domestic enrichment 25%; of uranium (also at Rokkasho) Enrichment restarted Mar. 9, 2012 Nuclear power Increase nuclear power from “Decrease” reliance on nuclear 30% to 50% of domestic power (unclear if “decrease” is electricity production by 2030 counted from 30% or 50%) Nuclear safety 30-year licenses for new 40-year licenses for new NPPs NPPs plus unlimited 10-year with one possible 20-year extensions; extension; No earthquake/tsunami Mandatory earthquake/tsunami emergency “stress tests”; emergency “stress tests”; METI and NSC responsible Ministry of Environment takes for nuclear safety regulation over nuclear safety regulation
  4. 4. Japan’s nuclear policymaking arenaMajor veto players Minor veto players Other players Electrical utilities AEC IAEA METI Heavy manufacturers JAEA PM/Cabinet Prefectural governors MEXTPlus, since 3/11: Ministry NSC of Environment? Public/media/activists Universities USA
  5. 5. 1st Affiliations of Advisory Committee MembersCategory METI ANRE AEC METI NISASubnational 0 2 (7%) 0gov’tsIndustry 4 (16%) 5 (18%) 0Finance 1 (4%) 2 (7%) 0Think tanks 6 (24%) 3 (11%) 1 (9%)Universities 9 (36%) 7 (25%) 10 (91%)Consumer NGOs 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 0Environment 3 (12%) 2 (7%) 0NGOsOther 0 5 AEC commissioners (18%)* 0 1 journalist (4%)Total members 25 28 11
  6. 6. “Anti-nuclear” and “pro-nuclear” members of government advisory committeesGovernment Composition in Composition as Composition asagency 2005-2006 of 3/11/11 of 3/11/12AEC Anti: 1 (3%) Anti: 3 (12%) Anti: 4 (13%) Pro: 32 (97%) Pro: 23 (88%) Pro: 26 (87%)METI ANRE Anti: 0 (0%) n/a Anti: 8- 9 (32- 36%) Pro: 35 (100%) Pro: 16-17 (64- 68%)METI NISA n/a Anti: 0 (0%) Anti: 2 (18%) Pro: 29 (100%) Pro: 9 (82%)
  7. 7. “Airtime” of anti-nuclear members on the AEC Policy Planning Council Pre-3/11 Post-3/11Anti-nuclear % of total 10.5 19.2airtimeAnti-nuclear % of council 15.3 32.1member airtime
  8. 8. Three levels of nuclear policy• National policy: not very much change?• Corporate policy: more change?• Prefectural policy: most change?
  9. 9. Corporate policy: Will METI run TEPCO? Wide range of potential policy implicationsEdano-TEPCO fight over voting rights:• 1/3 of voting shares: veto power over proposed board members• 1/2 of voting shares: select board members• 2/3 of voting shares: directly hire and fire management, set corporate strategy
  10. 10. Prefectural policy: What is ‘local’? Potential geometrical expansion in veto playershttp://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ2011101314327
  11. 11. Any questions? Any answers?

×