nuclear-news

Japan mulling over energy options for the future

A key element in the national dialogue will be the future energy mix for Japan to 2030. Three advisory committees – to METI, Environment and Cabinet – have been consulted and the government is ready to put out three options for public consultation

The government appears to have got the message that the public want more choice in their energy supply.

It will be interesting to see what happens when they let the public have their say.

Japan’s energy dilemma: a renewables embrace?, Climate Spectator,  8 Jun 2012. Gwen Andrews “……..modeling by the Institute of Energy Economics of Japan demonstrates the immensely difficult choices the country is facing……

The announcement of the restarts may be twinned with another announcement, of a ‘national dialogue’ on future energy policy. Japan reviews its energy policy plan every three years, with the last review completed in June 2010. The events of ‘3/11’, as the Japanese call the tsunami disaster, has brought forward a fierce debate on where the
country goes from here.
The debate is notable in that it is front page news, including
speculation on utilities being split up and electricity markets
reformed. The media would not have reported such possibilities before
3/11, given the traditional close relationships among utilities,
industry and government.
A key element in the national dialogue will be the future energy mix for Japan to 2030. Three advisory committees – to METI, Environment and Cabinet – have been consulted and the government is ready to put out three options for public consultation. These involved shares for
nuclear in 2030 set at 0 per cent, 15 per cent and 20–25 per cent.
The most favoured option is option 2. This includes 15 per cent
nuclear (which contributed 26 per cent of Japan’s generated
electricity in 2010), an increase of renewable energy to 30 per cent,
an increase in co-generation to 15 per cent, and a decrease in thermal
power to 40 per cent.
A decision to keep nuclear power will not be popular, but both the
IEEJ and the key business group, the Keidanren, believe that the
public is not yet aware of the costs associated with other options.
Japan has little in the way of indigenous fossil fuels and increased
imports of coal and gas have been placing an immense burden on the
national economy, as well as driving up prices in Asia generally.  The
feed-in tariff regime for renewable energy that will start on 1 July
is extremely generous and will add to consumers’ bills. However, not
even the newly established Japan Renewable Energy Foundation believes
that it can drive renewable energy much beyond 30 per cent of the
generating mix by 2030.
The IEEJ estimates that reducing nuclear to 15 per cent of the mix
will drive up overall generating costs from 7.5 trillion yen in 2010
to 13.4 trillion yen in 2030.  This is a about 2 trillion yen higher
than the 2010 basic energy plan, which foresaw nuclear increasing to
50 per cent in the generation mix by 2030. There will be impacts on
CO2 emissions as well. Keidanren modeling estimates that option 2 with
15 per cent nuclear will change Japan’s ambitions from a 25 per cent
reduction in 1990 emissions in 2020 to 20 per cent by 2030.

A second element in the national dialogue on Japan’s energy future
will be energy market reform.  The government appears to have got the
message that the public want more choice in their energy supply.
The limited transmission links between the east and west of the
country – a result of vertically integrated regional monopoly supply
by utilities – has exacerbated the current electricity situation since
regions with excess supply cannot transmit to regions with shortages.
Unbundling of generation and transmission is therefore likely to
become a topic for debate. Surprisingly for economically literate
organisations, neither the IEEJ nor the Keidanren at this point are
convinced of the benefits of unbundling.
Whatever Japan’s future, it seems likely to include some nuclear. A
reduction to 15 per cent of the generating capacity can be achieved by
building no more nuclear plants and retiring the existing ones as they
reach the end of their 40 year life span. However, a bill currently
before the Diet that allows the extension of this span to 60 years if
the facility is proved safe illustrates that the government is not yet
ready to give up on nuclear.
It will be interesting to see what happens when they let the public
have their say.   Gwen Andrews is Vice President, Environmental
Policies and Global Advocacy (Asia and Oceania) for Alstom.

June 8, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Japan, politics