科学的根拠とデータに基づくエネルギー政策に向けて- Towards Energy Policy based on ScientificEvidence and Data March 2, 20122012年3月2日、東京大学
University of Tokyo
Tatsujiro Suzuki
鈴木達治郎
Vice Chairman, Japan Atomic Energy Commission
原子力委員会委員長代理
本発表は筆者の個人的見解に基づくものであり、必ずしも原子力委員会や政府の見解を代表するものではない
1まとめ（Summary）
1.

3・11以降エネルギー政策決定過程の再構築が行われている。
Restructuring of energy policy making process is underway after
3/11.
– その中で「客観的なデータに基づく検証」が基本原則として含まれている。
– “Verification based on objective data” is included as an important principle.

2.

発電コストの再検証の中で、「データ」のみならず「方法論」や「前提」が議論の対象となった。
During the process of cost evaluation, not only “data” but“methodologies” and “assumptions” became subjects of debate.
– 不確実性の扱いが特に重要 How to deal with uncertainties is most important3.

透明性と公正性が国民の信頼醸成に極めて重要であることが認識された。
We recognize “transparency” and “fairness” are very importantfor gaining public trust.
– 合意できる点、できない点を明確にすること Clarify what is agreed and what is not– 全てのデータをサイトに掲載して誰でも再計算できるようにすること Put all dataand methodologies on the website so that everyone can verify the numbers
2

６．Towards Innovative Energy and Environmental Strategy－Structures for New Energy/Environmental Policy Making Processes－
End of 2011

By Mid-2011

Energy Best Mix○Cost Reevaluation○Scenario for reducing
dependence on nuclear power○Reform in energy
supply/demand structure○Expansion of renewable energy○Strategic utilization of resource○Robust industry structure andcreation of employment

PowerSystem○Supply stability and costreduction○Distributed power and energy
conservation○Managing nuclear power risk
○Reform of electric powerindustry structure including
unbundlingNuclearPower○Thorough examination ofnuclear energy policy○Assurance of nuclear safety

Policy Debate basedon Basic
Phikosophies issued
by the Min. Council

Energy & Env. Council
issue Basic Policy basedon policy debate at each
insititution

Energy & Env
CouncilMoredeliberation

New Strategy will be
published

EnergyBasicPlan
byMETI

Innovative Energy & Env.
Strategy

Basic Philosophies issued
by the Energy & Env. Min.
Council

2012

総合エネ調

METI etc

Energy & Env.
Council
METI etc

Checkand
Review by
Energy&Env
CouncilGreen
Innovation
Strategy
Industry
strategy
forEnergyand Env.

○JAEC’s New Framework for Nuclear Energy
Policy3エネルギー環境会議：革新的エネルギー戦略の基本理念
New Energy Policy: Three Philosophies (July 29, 2011) by Energy and Environment
Min. Council(1)原子力依存度の低減と原子力政策の徹底検証：
Reducing dependency on nuclear power, strategic
approach for energy security, complete
reevaluation of nuclear energy policy(2) 分散型エネルギーシステムの実現と国際貢献:
Realization of distributed energy system,international contribution, multi-eyed approach)(3) 国民との合意形成：二項対立を超えた国民的議論と「客観的データに基づく」戦略の検討：
National debate in order to overcome “pro-“ “anti“ conflict, strategy based on objective data,dialogue with various sectors of the public.
4

原子力委員会の活動
JAEC’s Activities for Nuclear Energy Policy• 原子力新政策大綱の議論を再開（2011年9月27日）：Restarted thedeliberation process for new Framework for Nuclear Energy Policy(Sept. 27, 2011)– 福島事故後一時中断
It was suspended after the 3/11 Fukushima accident– メンバーを多少入れ替え、批判的専門家を追加
Members of the Committee have been changed slightly to reflect changing
circumstances after the accident• 原子力発電・核燃料サイクル技術検討小委員会を設置Established
Sub-Committee on Issues for Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle
Technology Technologies– 7人の専門家、直接の利害関係者を省く：7 expert members (Chair:Tatsujiro Suzuki) excluding direct stakeholders– データと根拠に基づく選択肢と評価軸の提示：Identify options andcriteria for evaluations based on objective data and evidence– 意思決定は行わない：Not intended to make final decisions– 多数決を取らないで、合意しない点は明記する：Identify key
differences of different opinions, not intended to take majority vote

5

核燃料サイクルコスト検証プロセス
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Evaluation Process• 核燃料サイクルコスト：2004年の発電コスト手法を継承。データのアップデートを基本。
Nuclear Fuel Cycle cost: Based on 2004 data andmethodologies• モデルプラント・コスト手法で、3つの燃料サイクルモデルを比較
3 fuel cycle models are compared– 「全量再処理」「直接処分」と「現状ベース（50％再処理+50％貯蔵後再処理）」– “All reprocessing” “Once-through(Direct Disposal)”and “Current Status (50% reprocessing and 50%storage+reprocessing)
67

Table 1 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost of a Model Plant

Costs of Three Cycle Models (1) —Discount rate: 0%，1%—(yen/kWh)

Items

Discount rate: 0%

Discount rate: 1%

Reprocessing Direct disposal State-of-themodel
model
Art model*

Reprocessing Direct disposal State-of-themodel
model
Art model

Uranium fuel

0.62

0.72

0.62

0.65

0.75

0.68

MOX fuel

0.17–

0.170.16–

0.12(Total at the front end)

0.79

0.72

0.79

0.82

0.75

0.80

Reprocessing, etc.

1.10

-

1.10

1.06

–

0.79

Temporary storage

–

0.14

0.07

–

0.12

0.06

High-level radioactive
waste disposal

0.24

–

0.24

0.16

–

0.12

Direct disposal–

0.41–0.48––

0.24–0.28–(Total at the back end)

1.34

0.56–0.63

1.41

1.21

0.37–0.41

0.98

Total

2.14

1.28–1.35

2.21

2.03

1.11–1.15

1.78(Note) The total may not correspond to the sum of all the items due to rounding.

(Sending end)

*50% of spent fuel is reprocessed first, and the rest will be reprocessed after interim storage period.
8Table 2 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost of a Model Plant

Costs of Three Cycle Models (1) —Discount rate: 3%，5%—(yen/kWh)

Items

Discount rate: 3%

Discount rate: 5%

Reprocessing Direct disposal State-of-themodel
model
Art model

Reprocessing Direct disposal State-of-themodel
model
Art model

Uranium fuel

0.73

0.81

0.77

0.81

0.88

0.86

MOX fuel

0.15

–

0.07

0.14

–

0.04

(Total at the front end)

0.88

0.81

0.84

0.94

0.88

0.90

Reprocessing, etc.

1.03-0.46

1.04

-

0.30

Temporary storage

–

0.09

0.05

-

0.07

0.04

High-level radioactive
waste disposal

0.08

–

0.04

0.05

–

0.01

Direct disposal–

0.10–0.11––

0.05–0.05–(Total at the back end)

1.11

0.19–0.21

0.55

1.08

0.12–0.12

0.36

Total

1.98

1.00–1.02

1.39

2.03

1.00–1.01

1.26(Note) The total may not correspond to the sum of all the items due to rounding.

(Sending end)9• http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20
111221/siryo3.pdf

出所：コスト等検証委員会報告書、２０１１年１２月１９日。
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20111221/siryo3.pdf

10事故対応リスク評価プロセス：
Accident Risk Cost Method
事故損害費用の算定手法：Method to estimate accident risk cost• モデルプラントを採用：Model LWR plant (120万キロワット軽水炉、ある平均的な立地サイトを想定、稼働率は60~80%）：
Model Plant, 1200MWe, capacity factor=60,70,80%, consider site characteristics variations such
population density)•

事故コストは損害賠償想定額を基準、除染廃止措置コスト、避難費用、医療費、失業対策、食品汚染、風評被害等現在想定されている損害費用をもとに算定、将来の除染費用は含まず。
Economic damage includes; lost assets (onsite and offsite), land decontamination,
evacuation/relocation, loss of job, inspection of foods, human health (mental anguish), othersocio-economic damages such as compensation to rumor-induced damage in the market•

発電所規模に依存しない損害費用（避難費用など）と規模に依存する費用を別途計算
Economic damage grouped into one-time damage (rumor-induced and inspection: notproportional to the amount of released FP) and yearly recurrent damages (proportional to level ofcontamination)•

その結果、1基あたり約5兆円と算定；ただし将来除染費用が高まった場合の増加コストも計算し、1兆円増加するたびに0.1円/kWh増加することを明示。
As a result, accident cost is estimated to be about 5 trillion yen based on report by theManagement and Finance Committee for TEPCO. But it also clarifies that cost would be increased
by 0.1 yen/kWh if total compensation costs were increased by 1 trillion yen

11事故リスク対応コスト計算手法（２）
Accident Risk Cost Method (2)• 期待値に基づく方式：Expected Value Method– 総損害額 ｘ 事故確率/総発電量
Total Damage Cost x Accident Probability/ Total
lifetime power generation• 相互扶助による保険料方式：Insurance Cost
based on “pool” (mutual cooperation) scheme– 総損害額を全原子力発電事業者で相互負担
Total damage costs will be shared by all nuclearpower utilities
12事故確率をめぐる議論
Debate over accident probability• IAEA基準の事故確率（1x10-5）を採用すべきIAEA
Safety Standard (1x10-5)should be used
• 実際に起きた深刻事故の確率を採用すべき
Actual probability of severe accident should be used
– 世界（world）：3.5 x 10-4
– 日本（Japan)：2.0 x 10-3

どちらを採用すべきか合意に達しなかった。
No agreement reached which probability should be used.
13

Table 3 Estimation of the Accident Risk Cost based on the Frequency of Occurrence ofDamage based on 5 trillion yenAccident Risk Cost of a Model Plant

事故確率Frequency of occurrence(/reactor year)

事故リスクコスト
Accident risk cost of the model plant, by
operation rate(yen/kWh)

事故リスク追加コスト
Additional cost per increase in the amountof damage by 1 trillion yen(yen/kWh)

Utilization
factor
60%Utilization
factor70%

Utilization
factor
80%Utilization
factor
60%Utilization
factor70%

Utilization
factor
80%

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.002

0.001

0.001

0.28

0.24

0.21

0.06

0.05

0.04

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.32

0.27

0.24

1.0×10-5(IAEA safety goal for an earlylarge release from an existing
reactor)

3.5×10-4（Frequency of severe accidents
at commercial reactors aroundthe world; equivalent to once
every 57 years[1])2.0×10-3(Frequency of severe accidents
at commercial reactors in Japan;equivalent to once every 10years[1])[1] Frequency of occurrence of accidents on the condition that 50 power reactors are in operation

14

Table 3 Estimation of the Accident Risk Cost in Reference to the Insurance Scheme

Estimation of the Accident Risk Cost under the U.S. Mutual AidScheme••

Amount of damage, including expenses for decommissioning reactors, as estimated by theSubcommittee in relation to the model plant: 4.9936 trillion yen
Exclusively for the purpose of making estimation, the Subcommittee calculated the amount ofdamage as 5 trillion yen based on the assumption that there is a mutual assistance scheme fornuclear plant operators in reference to the Price-Anderson Act. As a result of sensitivity analysis,
the estimated amount of damage nearly doubled to 10 trillion yen.
総損害額
Amount ofdamage

支払期間
Period ofpayment

総発電量
Total nuclear power
generation [1]5 trillion yen

0.45 yen/kWh40 years

10 trillion yen

事故対応コストAccident risk cost

280.0 billion kWh0.89 yen/kWh[1] Actual result in FY2010, Energy and Environment Council– The amount of damage could be further reduced if it is shared among nuclear plant operators
around the world.

15コスト検証委員会で5.8兆円と修正
Accident Risk Cost has been reevaluated by Cost
Verification Committee

出所：コスト等検証委員会報告書、２０１１年１２月１９日。
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20111221/siryo3.pdf

16

Accident Risk Cost:
Minimum 0.5 yen/kWh, 0.1yen/kWh will be
Added if total damage costs increase by 1 trillion yen

出所：コスト等検証委員会報告書、２０１１年１２月１９日。
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20111221/siryo3.pdf

17

出所：コスト等検証委員会報告書、２０１１年１２月１９日。
http://www.npu.go.jp/policy/policy09/pdf/20111221/siryo3.pdf

18