As of March 25 (Japan time), the 53rd nuclear reactor has been halted for a checkup. That reactor was in the TEPCO territory. The 54th and last remaining operational reactor is in Hokkaido, in the Hokkaido Electric Power Co. (HEPCO) territory, and it is due to be halted on May 5th (Japan time) for a checkup. So as of early May, no nuclear reactors will be running to provide power in Japan. The hot summer usually starts in mid-July, and Japan must go through another summer with an inadequate power supply. Remember that TEPCO suffered the most last summer because of the loss of the power generated by the four reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

To recap, the reason for stopping the nuclear reactors is not out of fear that they aren’t safe but because utilities companies do not want to restart them, even though they were deemed to be fine after their checkups. The former administration required a stress test to make sure the existing nuclear reactors can withstand more severe earthquakes and tsunamis before they can be restarted. The details of the stress test have not been publicly available, but bits and pieces of information from the media reveal the following.

The first level of the stress test is to simulate even more severe earthquakes and tsunami, to see whether the current infrastructure holds. That is the first level. It is only simulation. The second level is to enumerate all the possible ways for the nuclear reactors to get into trouble and provide remedies for them.

These conditions are rather silly because:

1. The halted nuclear reactors are not safer than the running reactors, because reactor cores require constant cooling. Until this problem of supplying power for cooling when there are major quakes or tsunamis is solved, nuclear reactors will not be safe.

2. It was OK not to test operational reactors, while the halted reactors were tested. In spite of #1, operational reactors are possibly more dangerous than halted reactors.

3. The first level of the stress test does not test physically to see whether the outer containment can really withstand severe quakes. Therefore, passing the test does not guarantee any real physical integrity. If we take the condition for the second level literally, we can’t restart any reactors. Instead, we need some kind of rating system to decide whether each nuclear reactor can be restarted.

Right now, KEPCO, which serves Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, and Kobe, is trying to restart two out of eleven reactors as early as April. Up to now, the central government and local governments that host nuclear plants were ducking the issue of nuclear power plants for fear of a public outcry. The current administration seems to have decided to restart nuclear reactors no matter what. When you look at my three reasons that the conditions are silly, # 2 does not apply, because every reactor will be halted soon. But #1 and #3 still hold. KEPCO got a clearance on level one of the stress test in an open meeting of the Nuclear Safety Commission. It took only five minutes to certify level one, in spite of questions and opposition. They are now at level two and likely to pass it some time soon, so that two reactors can be restarted as early as April.

Under the guidance of Toru Hashimoto, maverick mayor of Osaka, the City of Osaka will suggest getting rid of nuclear reactors in an upcoming KEPCO shareholder meeting. The City of Osaka, along with the Cities of Kyoto and Kobe, holds about 13% of KEPCO's stock. KEPCO reported that the district it serves would be short of power this summer without nuclear power. What they want is to restart their nuclear reactors to remedy this. The stock owned by the Cities of Osaka, Kyoto, and Kobe does not constitute a majority but is big enough. Their demand is that all the nuclear power plants be abandoned.

I wish they had had a rational discussion of this. KEPCO should publish detailed information about its power supply and demand. How much does it lack at the peak times, as opposed to non–peak times? If peak times are the only problem, there are a lot of ways to avoid that. Some people wonder whether last summer’s power shortage in the TEPCO territory was real. Some people are skeptical that KEPCO really has a power shortage problem without nuclear power.

If there is a reasonably priced way not to use nuclear reactors without hurting individuals and businesses, it should be considered. But one thing remains to be addressed. Simply halting nuclear reactors does not guarantee safety, because fuel rods need constant cooling, which requires power.

Naoto Kan, Prime Minster of Japan, just announced that the government will reconsider its energy policy. Nuclear power was the main force in the original energy policy. The plan was to make nuclear plants produce more than 50% and renewable energies generate 20% of total energy production by 2030. This follows Kan’s earlier request to shut down all the nuclear reactors in the Nagoya area, which generates about 15% of the power in that region.

The new plan will include the use of renewable energies for power production. The details are to be announced later. Regarding the type of renewable energies, power company people told me that wind was not considered appropriate in Japan because of its geographical constraints. However, I got information from another source that power companies were pressuring the government not to grow wind as one of the sources for power generation in Japan. I will meet with wind power operators in Tokyo soon to get their side of story.

Other countries also are following different policies after the Fukishima incident.

Germany is stopping old nuclear reactors and will turn itself from an exporter of power into an importer of power from countries like France.

France is not changing its policy on nuclear power at all. Nuclear plants produce 77% of all the power generated there. The French president points out that the Chernobyl accident was caused by faulty architecture, the Fukushima disaster was caused by a tsunami, and neither wind nor solar are ready to replace nuclear power.

South Korea has not changed its policy and may exploit Japan’s business decline to gain new opportunities in the world market. Nuclear plants generated 36% of its power in 2007, and the country plans to increase the rate to 59% by 2030.

The US has not changed its policy, but construction of new nuclear power plants will be hard.

India wants to develop more nuclear power plants to accommodate its economic growth. However, because of a strong campaign against it, its nuclear power growth is slowing down.

Finally, I would like to add this short note. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Economics, Trade and Industry will receive their salaries until the Fukushima situation is settled. This is very Japanese. I do not recall that President Carter returned his salary after the incident of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactors.