Markets, Transaction Costs and Institutions: Compensating for Nuclear Risk in Japan

To drill or not to drill: determinants of geothermal energy project siting in Japan

“…The 'economics-first' perspective argues that energy projects are more likely to occur where they will be profitable to the developer and will not hurt existing economic interests (Lesbirel 1998(Lesbirel , 2003(Lesbirel , 2011. The basic version of this perspective would expect poorer localities to be more likely to accept energy projects in order to create some jobs despite potential negative environmental externalities.…”

“…The difficulty of gaining local acceptance for siting almost any kind of energy project in Japan is a key reason for the country's poor performance on geothermal (Lesbirel 1998, Aldrich 2008, Motosu and Maruyama 2016, Fraser 2020, Fraser and Aldrich 2020, Hager and Hamagami 2020. Kubota et al (2013Kubota et al ( , p. 1079) write, 'The societal acceptance of geothermal power by local stakeholders is the fundamental barrier as it affects almost all other barriers, such as financial, technical, and political risks.'…”

Japan’s energy security predicament post-Fukushima

“…The Japanese government has treated nuclear power as a semi-indigenous form of energy supply. As a country with virtually no natural resources, it perceived nuclear power as a central pillar in reducing dependence on imported oil and enhancing energy security (Lesbirel, 2003). Since the 1980s, nuclear energy has been an integral part of Japan's energy supply system (Figure 1).…”

“…Some studies focus broadly on Japan's energy security (Atsumi, 2007;Evans, 2006;Hideaki, 2000;Nakatani, 2004;Toichi, 2006;Yokobori, 2005). Other studies focus on single issue-areas such as overseas oil development policy (Koike, 2006;Koike et al, 2008); energy diversification (Lesbirel, 2004); oil import diversification (Vivoda and Manicom, 2011); public perception of energy security (Valentine et al, 2011); the role of nuclear power in energy security (Suzuki, 2000;Lidsky and Miller, 2002;Medlock and Hartley, 2004); nuclear politics (Lesbirel, 2003); electricity and petroleum industry regulatory reform (Hartley, 2000;Oyama, 2000;Asano, 2006;Hosoe, 2006) and improved energy efficiency (Morita, 2010;Stewart, 2009).…”

Waste Management Facility Siting and Social Conflicts – the Case of Hungary

“…increase in air pollution and noise load near a newly completed motorway section), whereas others have a very low occurrence probability (such as the leakage of a nuclear waste repository, for example). The negative health or economic impacts may be accompanied by negative social impacts, such as the erosion of the social networks or the often irreversible alteration of the local cultures (Lesbirel, 2003). In the context of an international comparative survey of the motives of protest against the siting of low-level nuclear waste repositories, Anna Vári and her fellow researchers came to the conclusion that concerns about undesirable facilities typically fall into five categories: the opponents of the repositories expressed health and safety, economic, environmental and social as well as technical and decision-making-related concerns (Vári et al, 1991).…”