Nuclear energy - a double-edged sword

(Baonghean) - Nuclear energy is one of the greatest inventions of all time, because of the enormous benefits and dangers it brings. It can be a weapon that destroys the world, but it is also the best solution (up to now) to the planet's energy problem. Holding nuclear energy in your hands is like playing with a double-edged sword that can "turn against you" at any time. And of course, the danger can also come when the knife is in the hands of another person...

Japan's nuclear power still can't heat up again

On Tuesday, April 14, the Fukui District Court ruled that the restart of two nuclear reactors at the Takahama Nuclear Power Plant would be prohibited due to safety concerns. The decision was a “cold shower” on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ambitions to rekindle the nuclear program.

This is not the first time Shinzo Abe’s intention has been met with opposition. In fact, the majority of Japanese people do not agree with the idea of ​​“living” with the risks of nuclear power plants. After the Fukushima disaster, the resumption of reactors has posed many difficult problems. However, for the first time, there has been a legal decision on the question of whether or not to restart nuclear power plants.

Responding to a lawsuit against the re-installation of the nuclear reactors, Judge Hideaki Higuchi of the Fukui District Court (in central Japan) said that the safety standards applied in 2013 “lacked assurance”. Among the factors leading to the ruling was the project’s investor, the Kansai region’s Kepco Electric Power Company, which had not properly assessed the geological risks at the reactor site. In addition, the evacuation plan in case of an accident was also controversial. The ruling is effective immediately until a new court decision is made.

Judge Higuchi will certainly not be a favorite of nuclear advocates. In May 2014, he issued a similar ruling against two Ohi reactors (also in Fukui Prefecture and owned by Kepco). He argued: “Reactors are merely tools for generating electricity and their importance cannot be compared to the basic right (to live) of the people.”

Mr. Bob Corker, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US Congress. (Middle)

In response, Kepco said the decision was “unacceptable” and demanded that the lawsuit related to the Takahama reactor be withdrawn. Fukui Governor Issei Nishikawa, who supports the idea of ​​restarting the nuclear sector, expressed his agreement with Kepco. In November 2014, the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) inspected and concluded that the Takahama reactors fully met safety standards.

This is considered a ray of hope that opens the door to a return to the nuclear path for Kepco. It is worth noting that before the Fukushima disaster, among Japan's nine power companies, Kepco was the most dependent on nuclear power. Thermal power plants are an unpalatable alternative because of the high costs. In financial summary by the end of March, Kepco had suffered a loss of 161 billion yen (about 1.3 billion euros) and as a result, in early April, the company had to increase electricity prices by 14% for its corporate customers. It is known that Kepco is a supplier to large corporations based in the Osaka area, such as Panasonic or Sharp.

For the Japanese central government, the Fukui Court's ruling is clearly not welcome news, although spokesman Yoshihide Suga said it would not change the Abe government's nuclear policy. After the Fukushima disaster, nuclear reactors in Japan were gradually shut down, significantly affecting the Japanese economy. Before 2012, nuclear power accounted for 28% of Japan's total electricity production. It is also for economic reasons that Mr. Abe's government advocated restarting the nuclear sector, despite public opposition.

Another reason is the increasing greenhouse gas emissions after the cessation of nuclear power generation and the use of fossil fuels. Compared to 2012, emissions in 2013 increased by 1.3% to 1.4 billion tons - breaking the record of 2007. Japan set a target of 3.8% lower emissions than in 2005 by 2020. However, the 2013 figure was even 0.8% higher than the 2005 standard and with the current trend of energy production and consumption, it will be difficult for Japan to achieve the set target. However, the Fukushima disaster has left a deep wound, a haunting for the Japanese people and it will probably be difficult for the Japanese to "open their hearts" to nuclear energy again. Especially with the incident of 160 dolphins stranded on the Pacific coast since April 10, it has raised suspicions of a new earthquake.

US politics "heats up" over Iran's nuclear program

On Tuesday, April 14, with 19 votes in favor (0 votes against), the US Foreign Affairs Committee approved giving the US Congress the right to comment on the Lausanne agreement related to Iran's nuclear program. This decision, made just a few days before the resumption of the 5+1 round of negotiations with Tehran, is certainly not good news for US President Barack Obama.

Specifically, any final formal agreement with Iran must be approved by Congress before it can be implemented. The chairman of the US Foreign Affairs Committee, a Republican, Congressman Bob Corker, persuaded eight Democrats and one moderate from Maine to vote in favor of a 60-day review period. This limit was later agreed to at 52 days. In addition, the mechanism requiring President Obama to prove that Iran has no terrorist activities targeting the US was removed. Instead, the Obama administration will have to regularly report on “Iran’s terrorist activities” and on the country’s ballistic missile program.

For weeks, President Obama has been trying to resist the Senate’s request for a vote. As White House Secretary of State Denis McDonough wrote in a letter to Sergeant Corker on March 14, “The official negotiators are the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.” Thus, the right to accept or reject the terms of a final treaty with the aim of increasing “international legitimacy” belongs only to the Council and is completely independent of the opinions of the US Congressional representatives. However, it seems that the US President has had to “go it alone” in this debate, when even loyal Democratic members like Nancy Pelosi also said that the opinion of the Congress should be passed. In the end, the President had to compromise instead of using his supreme veto power.

However, in practice, the President's powers have not changed fundamentally. According to the general agreement on the Iran issue, Congress will have three options to choose from when the treaty with the Iranians is submitted. First, Congress passes and the US President can immediately lift the embargo. Second, Congress does not pass but the US President can still lift the embargo after the 30-day period. Third, the delegates unanimously reject the treaty completely.

In this case, the President would not have the power to lift the embargo. However, he could still invoke his veto power within 12 days. Congress would have 10 days to override the veto – something experts say is unlikely. A two-thirds majority, or 67 votes, is needed to override a presidential veto. Meanwhile, Republicans only hold 54 seats in the Senate.

The confrontation between the two sides is likely to continue, even in the media. The Weekly Standard magazine - the voice of leading politicians in Parliament - called for the campaign to continue: "Today's vote result is very positive, but remember: The goal is to kill the deal, not simply to complicate the path to achieving it."

On the contrary, the powerful pro-Iran group, the Iran-America National Council, promised to increase pressure on the Democratic representatives. In case the conflict reaches its peak, the lifting of the embargo will be delayed by 52 days - a complicated situation but not a complete deadlock, President Obama affirmed. And the important thing is that the Iranians trust the White House owner's ability to do that. Immediately after announcing the results of the Senate Committee's vote, Iranian President Hassan Rohani "signaled" that Tehran's negotiating partner is not the US Congress but the major powers.

Thuc Anh

(According to Le monde)