Future grows darker for solar energy growth in Japan

I'm all for solar power, but what I've seen going on up here in Aomori is unbelievable. They are cutting down huge areas of old growth trees to set up solar panels. That seems to be a bit counterproductive if you asked me. At the university I teach at, right next to the school was this lovely wooded area that has been there for at least 100 years, judging by the size of the trees. Then in March, everyone was cut down, and they are clearing the land for solar panels. There is a lot of vacant farm land and other places they could put these panels, don't cut down trees for them.

So sad. Lessons haven't been learned.

Of course, the reason for this is that the youth of this country are not encouraged to VOTE.

Get rid of these old men who were born in the nuclear age.

There's a real opportunity to reinvent Japan into a cleaner, more efficient nation.

We all have this fear of death but when you read an article like this you realize that the grim reaper is very objective and it's not personal at all. He's helping society change. Big nuclear needs to go the way of the dodo bird. We're never going to need mass evacuations if a solar panel breaks.

Nuclear energy has literally amputated part of this beautiful nation. Japan lost a limb. Nuclear energy is a cancer. If we keep going with it the next time we have a big earthquake it could be YOU!!

And that while they finally found a better and efficient way to store/collect solar energy. what a step back.

The cost of nuclear disaster should be factored in as it is the greatest cost of nuclear energy. How much would it cost to purchase all that land that has become unusable as a result of the Fukushima disaster? That is not even taking into account the cost of destroyed lives and livelihoods.

the more solar panels are put up, this will create more demand on the panel producers, in the long run the price of mass produced items comes down so it makes sense to install and produce more keeping cost down, its cleaner its free electricity why not?

renewables will never get a fair shot in japan because of the cozy relationship between the LDP and the energy industry.

5m down it's 10C, there's your air conditioning. Low depth geoexchanger can make up for a lot of losses in housing and commercial buildings. Even Walmart has been renovating its buildings into green energy savers because that's where the money savings are. The mistake is thinking solar panels are enough. If not sized correctly they may not be. However even if not, what energy they do create can be used to power other systems .

No one renewable is going to be a panacea. The irony is that no one energy is currently your energy source even now. So why would only one renewable be either? It's a canard.

Therefore just what are the renewable choices available right now? First off, building design is going to make the biggest difference. Combining it with other on site available resources would be more efficient. Painting rooftops white would reflect off summer sunlight from the building, reducing the need for air conditioning. This trick is well known in commercial vehicles and warehousing. It would be cheaper to paint all rooftops white first rather than put solar panels on every building. Make it a city plan building code requirement. This reduces demand right away. The low hanging fruit as it were. Consider that a stage one.

Then stage two add solar panels as you can. Add light geothermal (not km depth, just 5-10m or so) and you have robust systems that reduce demand to begin with and reduce load on the grid. The solar can run the geoexchager.

Germany latitude is 52 degrees North. Hokkaido is 42 degrees, and they're the leader in solar?? The holdback is clearly political and psychological. You have to have solar panels to get electricity, even cloudy days. Complaining won't do it. If Germany can do it, then all the griping is just due to a lack of vision and not seeing the forest for the trees. Even if your building gets a 30% reducing in energy usage, that translated across society means no more nuclear. Then add in the other renewables on top of that, and it is possible. For any country the surface area is to put up solar is anywhere you can, not like nuclear which must be long distance generation. We save the 4% loss from heat on the wires. Another 40% savings in building design (Germany again). Add geoexchangers (Sweden et al), and even before a single panel is placed we have stopped gluttonously thrown energy around.

The least you can do, you can't even do, is a psychological cancer that must be destroyed. Doing something oddly enough does something. It's not nothing.

The real problem is that individual homes bear the burden when energy systems should be like sewage or utilities and included in your city property tax. Local utilities and cities can think 25 years in design time. Why pay $20 (or whatever) a month to support an energy system that will never make a return, when, eventually, that same monthly fee is the cashflow to allow renewables to be able to? It's more economic from the standpoint of a city and not individually.

nigelboyAug. 05, 2014 - 07:17AM JST Stress test guidelines reviewed by NRA.

NRA's new commissioner Tanaka has received nearly $100,000 in funding from the industry? Why? It undermines PM Abe's commitment to an independent watchdog at a time when utilities are pushing to restart their idled reactors. The NRA's independence should be under scrutiny. The commission was set up as an independent agency after Fukushima to replace a regulator is now seen as too close to the industry.

If the total amount of approved renewable energy capacity, 68.6 gigawatts, was all brought online it would lead to an annual increase in costs of 1.9 trillion yen ($18.66 billion), says the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry, which is run by Japan’s regional power monopolies.

This is such a farce. The gov prints 60 trillion yen per month to prop up the nikkei and stimulus programs, yet 1/3 of one month of that is unavailable for a years worth of solar....hmmmm. Yes it must be the land titles getting in the way, uh huh.

Raymond ChuangAug. 04, 2014 - 01:17PM JST

I think a big problem with solar power in Japan is that we're forgetting that the Tohoku region of Honshu and Hokkaido experiences long, very snowy winters, which make solar power not such a great idea.

Ramond The PV panel generates electricity from "daylight" even on cloudy days

I've heard land acquisition and use is the big problem. The local farming communities, populated by 80 year olds, are resisting a lot of the installation plans, which explains why only about an eighth of the approved projects are actually operating.

Ah, Japan! When will you wake up? Stop being so damn tight-fisted and put the money into alternative energy. It's interesting to see them complaining about the cost of solar power. How about comparing it to the cost of the Fukushima disaster? Or, how about comparing it to the ongoing cost of storing nuclear waste? I agree with the solar electricity panel member. The METI is just manipulating everything to ensure nuclear power is back to favor. Japan has a chance to become a world leader in alternative energy, but instead they are the laughing stock of the modern world due to their their block-headed mentality.

I think a big problem with solar power in Japan is that we're forgetting that the Tohoku region of Honshu and Hokkaido experiences long, very snowy winters, which make solar power not such a great idea. In the Chugoku region of Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu, there are enough good weather days to make solar power much more viable economically. As such, companies that build and install solar power panels should concentrate first in western Japan to get a faster return on investment.

Ramond The PV panel generates electricity from "daylight" even on cloudy days

On cloudy days it generates much less. A single cloud crossng the sun can reduce output by more than 1/3. Even the changing angle of the sun as it moves through the sky causes a change in voltage, high-end solar arrays rotate the panels so they remain perpendicular to the sun. Dust or dirt accumulated on the panels also reduces output.

People will use any excuse to keep the old energy sources going as the entrenched electric power establishment fights positive changes to eliminate their complete command and control.

Ah yes, the journey back to the LDP nuclear glory days is now complete.

You can lookup in wikipedia solar thermal energy, and you'll find that molten salt storage is a section within it. Salt is used by wind and solar to store energy, making it last beyond the event of energy creation. Spain has the largest of this with their solar thermal plant melting salt at 500C which allows it to make electricity 24/7, 8 months of the year, but that's a unique example taking advantage of geographic features.

Smaller scale home use of salt for heat storage would be an interesting experiment for removal of the assumptions of intermittency that would be forthcoming in any serious attempt to remove nuclear, if allowed to think in that direction

The feed in tariff subsidy in comparison to the cost and waste that is nuclear energy was money well spent. Gravitating a society off nuclear waste takes time and it wasn't a loss if the result was more replacement. Replacement means less waste. What is the cost of the waste? x40,000 years?

Rome wasn't built in a day. Why the sudden fear that a government dependent on a system that has received and is dependent upon receiving even more government subsidies is suddenly stricken that a new technology needs subsidies? It's not about the subsides, it's about eventual inevitable energy replacement. The cost of 1 nuke put into renewables (not just solar) still means no nuclear waste and less demand on the grid. Continuing this approach takes decades. Now it will take longer.

Come to Ontario. We have a feed in tariff system and even with 490 solar projects approved we need more. C'mon over. Build the plant here and you get access to the USA market when their shale starts to sputter.

@Raymond Chuang:

The season has nothing to do with solar panels, only hours of light. Solar panels absorb photons of light. Photons of light have nothing to do with ambient temperature. You can have solar panels working in Antarctica. You can Google that and click on Images to see for yourself.

And Germany is at a higher latitude than Hokkaido and generates TWh's. We're going to find that when a solar-poor country can make money on it, they can because they actually tried. Why should any location be started first? Start everywhere and see what you get. Start at all.

In theory, there isn't a difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is!

Not when you take capacity factors into account. divide that number at least in 1/2 if not 1/3.

Unfortunately, this is true. The "sticker" rates of solar and wind tend to be as much a half more than the actual rate. My house is solar powered, and the net amount of power generated is far less than what the manufacturers speciifed. The net rate is exactly half what the manufacturer specified.

If your solar array is set up at moderate altitude in a place like west Texas, which receives quite a lot of sunshine, then you get close to the factory rating. But if you are in a more northerly place like Japan, with lower altitudes, frequent rainfall, and less direct sunligh, your array gets significantly less sunshine.

The alternative energy rating system is much like EPA mileage ratings performed on cars. "Highway" mileage is tested with the car driving on a cool, dry day, on level ground, at 45mph, with no passengers or baggage. Solar and wind power ratings are determined by testing under similar favorable conditions, which are seldom encountered in reality.

Ramond The PV panel generates electricity from "daylight" even on cloudy days

And a car will move even in first gear, but not very efficiently.

PV modules produce power anytime the sun is out. On cloudy days power output is considerably reduced.

http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/bu/solar/faq/index.html

Actually, Germany is a horrible example for what will go wrong if you base your economic decisions on (green) ideology. Germany also guarantees the price for every solar kWh of a panel for 20 years. These subsidies have now amassed a burden of 200 BILLION Euros for the next 20 years, which is borne by all electricity consumers, private as well as enterprises (some exceptions for some industry sectors apply, but they are steadily reduced). The highly subsidised green electricity is depressing wholesale prices, making many conventional power stations lose money, most big electricity companies are in the red (RWE etc), but they are not allowed to retire their lossmaking plants, because they are needed as backups for winter time etc, when there is not enough solar power.For now the grid is stable, but it is only a question of time until most nuclear reactors will have to be closed(a tsunami in Japan causes Germany to abolish nuclear power, ever heard of tsunamis in Germany ?), and the conventional plants will have reached their useful lifespan. In the meantime, I am now paying 27cents per kWh (37 yen) in Germany, In Japan I never payed more than 20 yen. As a German having returned to my home country after 8 years in Japan, it is still incomprehensible to me, how this country can still compete,despite the sheer drag on the hardworking people in its automotive, machinery etc industries, that all these green, bureaucratic etc. moochers are causing

nigelboy

Yes, the burning of fossil fuels for contingency is unfortunate however that's more due to a lack of planning than about specific energy tools. If all you have is a hammer... In Toronto where I'm from we have three hydrothermal tubes into Lake Ontario that handles the air conditioning for the entire downtown core. Otherwise we would have needed a natural gas plant right in the downtown due to a lack of supply wires. This was put in in 2003 and took years of planning. Funny enough the provincial power company has refused to add any and is the nuclear energy provider, while Toronto Hydro is unique and made it happen. I'm wondering if the capital issues are more an issue of too large power companies and not enough local competition. Scale enough but not too large I guess.

Thinking back on the reservoirs again, it struck me that Japan having seasonal typhoons might place such plants in regions with the propensity for getting hit by them. Which would be a fair number of places. It would be interesting if seasonal rains could be harvested. Hardly regular sure, but couldn't hurt ;)

nigelboy Aug. 05, 2014 - 05:57AM JST What this country need is to eliminate the red tape and restart NPP under new regs as soon as possible so that these utility companies can make money for the said necessary investment.

You conclude that the future will be the same as the past then nuclear seems like the right choice. But when you also think about the less urbanized areas of Japan, nuclear is much less attractive. Japan’s bureaucratic elite would say nuclear is the way to go. But the problem here is the lack of independent think tank inputting into policy, which means that the energy policy process in Japan is not open to the consideration of alternatives and that could also explain why peak oil is yet to enter the policy debate.

The big challenge is related to nuclear is the issue of safety and risk, especially in an earthquake prone country like Japan and particularly in relation to how radioactive waste is dealt with. Nuclear power has always been predicated on the concept that future generations will be more capable than we are to deal with nuclear waste. The logic runs that they will, by that time, have solved how to make it safe, and so therefore it is fine to leave it for them to figure out. The planning, construction and implementation of nuclear power plants take decades. The rate of oil depletion and cost after the peak will be a significant factor in determining how rapidly we need to find alternatives to oil.

Pushing nuclear does mean that Japan would require less oil for energy. So it may be safe to conclude that by pushing so aggressively down the nuclear path, Japan may be putting too many eggs in one basket. The rationale behind this approach is easy to understand since business as usual is easier than radical reform, and maintaining monolithic centralized structures is easier than decentralized ones in which less control by Tokyo and other urban centres would be a given.

nigelboy Aug. 05, 2014 - 05:57AM JST What this country need is to eliminate the red tape and restart NPP under new regs as soon as possible so that these utility companies can make money for the said necessary investment.

What new regs? There are none by think tank of independent studies. What your saying is making money is more important than safety of people in Japan? No wonder, the initial Fukushima construction was based on seismological information that tsunami levels had been underestimated by presenting alternative scientific studies and lobbying. Tepco’s intentional errors that led to the disaster. You want the same problem to restart NPP?

Energy Sources are, Coal, Natural Gas, Oil, Hydroelectric, Geothermal, Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Biofuel, Biomass for utility companies. In Japan percentage of Nuclear must be large. However, Abe's deal with oil rich Latino countries may increase proportion of oil quite large. Watch out. Abe will shuffle his cabinet, he said. I suspect METI may become victim of Abe's reshuffling plan as Abe promised oil business deals with all these countries. Beside that, powerful Mitsubishi is not going to be quiet when it can not have its PV Cells panel manufacturing facilities in Japan.

Emission Type: High-level Radioactive emission, Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon monoxide, Matter, Voltaile organic Compounds, Oxides of Nitrogen, heavy metals. ,,,,,,,,, Just copied and pasted data. Don;t have specific volume per Mega Watts hours.

USA is large and there are states colder than Japan and some states that are hotter than Japan. So, read 'Solar power in the United States' in WikiPedia to know it is not only hot places but also cold places (not sunny) have been changing to solar energy for quite a while.

I personally know three private investors with their money in solar farms(no trees felled)receiving back 10% a year back a on a 25 year contract.Big players like Sharp have poured massive amounts into the solar business because it makes money.While there are plenty if naysayers here,the truth is that there are profits to be made investing in technology which unlike nuclear dies not kill for thousands and thousands of years !!!!

Companies in the US install home solar energy free of charge. Homeowners pay nothing in utility bills and the company sells excess energy back to grid. Why can't Japan do this?

It's now an exciting time in the development of alternative energy. One that's gaining ground in grassroots efforts around the world is the use of zero-point or quantum energy which is based on ideas and patents by the brilliant inventor Nikola Tesla 130 years ago. Tesla, who had over 700 patents, developed free energy devices way ahead of his time. Unfortunately, the powerful and greedy energy companies backed by elites like J.P. Morgan and Edison suppressed his inventions since they won't be able to charge people for it. As a result, we're all being metered for our electric usage up to this day.

Hopegirl of FTW Foundation and teams worldwide are paving the way in the development of free energy and of freeing us from the clutches of these energy companies. The Quantum Energy Generator (QEG), based on Tesla's patents, is in concurrent development in over 30 countries, all grassroots efforts and crowdfunded. The best part is that the plans and designs are all opensource, so anyone with enough technical knowhow can implement them himself. This makes the plans impossible to suppress. Developers are close to achieving self-running, after resonance and overunity was achieved. The advantage of this new opensource, globalized paradigm is the fast paced development and knowledge sharing. I'm looking forward to what the future brings and how it'll help Japan and other countries find free and clean solutions to their energy problems.

http://hopegirl2012.wordpress.com/

Renewables can be used for instant power.

If available.

Pumped storage hydroelectricity is fine with near-instant electrical load demands and is often used specifically for load balancing.

It was "fine" when NPP did the pumping during the night thanks to the constant output. Now, we're using thermal energy (burning/consuming fossil fuels) for contingency.

nigelboy

no, it would be operating as regular pumped storage plant and reservoir with an occasional added boost

sfjp330

yes that's correct. No amount of renewables are going to continue this wasteful useless planet of a civilization.

So make a new one.

It's a mistake to make renewables match the demand of our wasteful systems to begin with. if you have walkable cities you don't need to drive, or a good transit system you don't need gas. Or if we had grid connected vehicles. Removing fossil fuels in transportation that takes up 90% or whatnot of that energy resource would make a huge impact. This is something fossil fuels cannot do. They cannot become more efficient.

The common denominator for civilization to continue without fossil fuels will be efficient design and how electricity is generated.

Trying is good. Transitioning to another plane of energy generation is good. Expecting instant results when our current system is the result of 50-100 years of subsidies isn't reasonable, and is a canard.

Germany is further down the road than the rest of us, and if we were all where Germany is today we'd be helping each other continue to improve. They have their own politics that prevents leaving the coal in the ground too. No country is perfect. At least they are trying to go down a new road. Throwing one's hands up and saying it's impossible isn't a future. It's meaningless.

Change will happen. We only have 565 Gigatons of "room" in the atmosphere for more pollution, yet have more than 2,700 Gigatons of carbon in the ground that sectors of the economy are determined to produce. We don't have the room for them to do it, should we wish to have a habitable planet. A levy refundable carbon tax should put them slowly out of business. People will have to do less polluting things.

The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones, and likewise we will have to leave the carbon sources in the ground. Transitioning to other things is a part of our long energy history, and it's more important than ever.

sf2k Aug. 05, 2014 - 04:47AM JST The common denominator for civilization to continue without fossil fuels will be efficient design and how electricity is generated.

It is true that in the long run, an economy that uses petroleum as a primary energy source is not sustainable. Every technology since the birth of civilization has been replaced as people devised better and more efficient technologies. No one can predict the future, but the world contains enough oil to last beyond 2100. Only fools would try to anticipate what energy sources our descendants will use that far in the future.

What new regs?

Stress test guidelines reviewed by NRA.

nigelboyAug. 05, 2014 - 07:17AM JST Stress test guidelines reviewed by NRA.

NRC statement:" I think there’s going to be a lot of work by the Japanese and probably international peer review groups to try and understand how some of those issues that now appear to have been vulnerabilities weren’t addressed earlier."

Source: www.pbs.org

I think people forget that from Niigata and Fukushima prefectures north to Aomori prefecture and on Hokkaido, winters have long nights and very high levels of snowfall. That combination makes solar panels not very economical for year-round use. Western Honshu plus Shikoku and Kyushu enjoy many more good weather sunny days year-round, and that makes solar power much more economically viable. In short, there should be a lot of solar power installations in western Japan by now (e.g., where's all the solar power panels on building rooftops in Okayama, Hiroshima, Shimonoseki, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Kumamoto, Kagoshima, Matsuyama, Takamatsu, Tokushima, etc.).

So?...Doesnt matter how you label them - Daiichi was a gamechanger and as such they should be included in the cost of business calculations. Oh but wait, if that was the case then the next time an accident happens at a N-plant the utilities couldnt play the " no one could have predicted this" card. Get it.

No I don't. Unless it's a recurring expense, it's dumb to consider it to calculate the efficiency in cost.

@MarkX

it's been two years so quite unlikely you'll see this - could you give me more info on that solar panel site next to your university where they cut down all those trees? Thanks!<>

Pipe dream from the beginning. Problem with renewables has always been the inability to adjust to the demands hence you are sometimes required to buy the electricity at these high costs when it's not needed.

Bears responsibility, (not bares).

'Bear' is carry, 'bare' is reveal, or make naked.

Just watching a program last night on how various systems of nuclear fusion are making interesting progress. One day we may be seeing a third way, fusing heavy hydrogen (deuterium/tritium) atoms.

sangetsu03 and Mike O'Brien

Thanks.

It's because of this volatility in output which in turn results in more reliance on thermal which zichi, et al simply ignores.

Utility companies can predict the daily usage and the output needed for that day based on the combination of weather forecasts (namely, temperature) and days of the week and accordingly , make decisions on which plant (turbines) to operate on that given day. But when you have a high % of alternatives as your output source where it is volatile and unpredictable, you are essentially going to have to offset that by running thermal plants regardless to avoid a black out.

There is "Ken Corps ,,,, " article on Japan Today - Technology Board. Check the article and comments.''

Sounds METI has a plan to import sunshine from other countries.

The old rooftop solar panels collect sunshine daytime and collected sunshine is distributed whenever airconditioner and house hearters, cooking stoves are on. Check to read more about PV Cells developments in WikiPedia.

@nigelboy...

Renewables can be used for instant power. Pumped storage hydroelectricity is fine with near-instant electrical load demands and is often used specifically for load balancing. They are used for peak power. On off-peak power, the water is pumped back up into the reservoir. I had to look it up in Wikipedia, but there is one in Japan, the Okutataragi Pumped Storage Power Station (1,900 MW) in Hyogo.

Adding more of these in a country with a lot of mountains without creating nuclear waste either is a winner

Thinking back on the reservoirs again, it struck me that Japan having seasonal typhoons might place such plants in regions with the propensity for getting hit by them. Which would be a fair number of places. It would be interesting if seasonal rains could be harvested. Hardly regular sure, but couldn't hurt ;)

It would hurt. Your asking a company to build infrastructure that may operate just a few times a year, depending on the weather.

Guess you need to go away and do your homework. All G20 countries give subsidies on all fossil fuels which it has stated it will end by 2025. Japan refuses to give exact figures for the total amount of its fossil fuel subsidies but probably about 0.75% of its GDP.

What the local communties receive for having nuclear power plants in their communities has nothing to do with fossil fuel subsidies.

My god. After all these years of posting, you haven't had a single clue of how these 'subsidies' work.

Where do you think the source of this money comes from? Yep. The utilities companies. They are taxed by the central government at a rate of 375 yen/1000 kwh sold. The said collected money goes into the central government general account, take some off the top, and remainder goes to the agency that is responsible for distribution and allocation to said communities.

66 gigawatts of planned solar power under the renewable energy program, nominally equal to about 66 nuclear reactors

Not when you take capacity factors into account. divide that number at least in 1/2 if not 1/3.

I couldn't figure out in the first place where Japan would import all the sunlight from?

According to a report from the Japan Center for Economic Research,

Paper from 2011. Lot of assumptions there but it turns out the actual fuel costs increased with companies (not just TEPCO) resulting in record losses so I don't know why the paper would conclude this.

I had to laugh at this. "increases in energy cost could lead to energy consumption"

No kidding. It also puts manufacturers in danger and loss of profitability, probably an issue this author didn't give a damn about.

sf2k Aug. 05, 2014 - 01:44AM JST If Germany can do it, then all the griping is just due to a lack of vision and not seeing the forest for the trees. Even if your building gets a 30% reducing in energy usage, that translated across society means no more nuclear. Then add in the other renewables on top of that, and it is possible. For any country the surface area is to put up solar is anywhere you can, not like nuclear which must be long distance generation. We save the 4% loss from heat on the wires. Another 40% savings in building design (Germany again).

In Germany, the country that has spent the most and had the largest build up of renewables in the world, but they are not replacing them with yet more wind or solar renewables.They’re opening new coal plants and depending on grid from France and Czech nuclear energy.

Japan's is the third largest economy in thw world and they need for energy to keep the civilization going. And sadly, no conceivable renewables is going to provide enough energy to keep that civilization going. Japan needs nuclear as part of the mix and the more you eliminate coal and natural gas then the more nuclear your going to have to use. If you notice, why do you think China will be adding close to 30 nuclear plants within a decade or two?

We should argue it from point of availibitity. You see even prior to the nuclear disaster even with the investment of trillions and the yearly subsidies of trillions and the construction of about 18 atomic power plants with about 54 reactors and the construction of the waste-of-money Monju, and the construction of the reprocessing plant in Aomori, nuclear energy only managed to generate 27% of total power demand. In future, according to the NRA that total will only be about 15% of total power demand from about 20 reactors.

And yet you conveniently forget the subsidies received for thermal as well? Why argue it "from point of availabiliy" when the NPP is not in operation and is now subject to new standards? If rules are changed, as it is in this case, 20 NPP reactors at 15% will most definitely alleviate the 3.6 trillion yen/yr additional cost in fuel. So why are you not advocating the restart of NPP if you are going to argue from that angle?

So the other 85% of total power demand will be generate from what according to you? One of the major problems in this country has been the lack of capital investment in power generation except for nuclear energy and it also seems according to the NRA that not enough capital investment was made to be able to build safe reactors and atomic power plant.

Majority, thermal. And/Or restart more NPP.

Listen to yourself zichi. Their is lack of capital investment is because the utility companies are posting record losses. Cash strapped. Why? Because NPP stopped. Are you arguing to restart the NPP?

The country needs need massive capital investment so it also prevent another ¥50 trillion nuclear disaster from happening. There's still the problem to solve about decommissioning the failed reactors and the problem of storing the spent nuclear fuel. The central gov't is even having a problem trying to build a waste storage depot in Fukushima

What this country need is to eliminate the red tape and restart NPP under new regs as soon as possible so that these utility companies can make money for the said necessary investment. If you'd prefer, in exchange for restarting NPP, place an additional levy fee to address those future problems.

Over the past 50 years, nuclear energy received greater subsidies than fossil fuels but nonetheless they did receive some form of subsidies which also went to the very same companies which owned the nuclear power plants. So, altogether, the 9 mainland power utilities have done well out of all forms of subsidies. The same power utilities also received tax and other benefits not allowed by other industries. Oil remains the largest primary energy source, about 47% but only the low sulphur type is used for power generation according for less than 10%, I think?

Are we talking about the same thing? Are you talking about the subsidies received to the local government and municipalities from the central government for building NPP or thermal plants in the area?

NRC statement:" I think there’s going to be a lot of work by the Japanese and probably international peer review groups to try and understand how some of those issues that now appear to have been vulnerabilities weren’t addressed earlier."

NRC =/=NRA. Why are you quoting Gregory "Pool is bone dry" Jacko from 2012?

The G20 have stated they will end all fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, so by 2030, power generation from renewable energy could become cheaper than that from both fossil fuels and nuclear energy?

My god you're confused.

So, altogether, the 9 mainland power utilities have done well out of all forms of subsidies

The power companies are not receiving subsidies. The ones receiving such subsidies are the local governments and municipalities/towns that house them.

Except modern gas turbines can respond to demand fluctuations instantly and without power problems. The combination of solar, wind and other renewables are best when coupled with those modern gas turbines and fuel cell too. Gas turbines can also operate from biogas.

Oh. More capital investments just to make renewables work. Seriously zichi. Perhaps it's not best to argue from a standpoint of cost efficiency, me thinks.

Without those subsidies the cost of fossil fuels would be higher.

Uhhm? Thanks for supporting my argument.

So what we have here are companies that are involved in the manufacturing of commercial grade fossil fuels receiving subsidies.

On the flip side, we have utility companies in Japan who use the said commodities are then TAXED at 375 yen/1000 kwh.

So how do you come up with the conclusion that nuclear energy got massive subsidy?

But the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has cut tariffs for solar power by a fifth in the two years

Oh my god -- METI has actually opened up the solar industry to real competition. Shame on them.

Since solar energy is always generated in the day time peak demand period when it's always needed. Cost of power from nuclear energy is currently three times more than before the nuclear disaster, I think about ¥17 per KWhr? That's before the full cost of dealing with the nuclear disaster is factored in and still decide who pays for it, TEPCO or all the power utilities?

The cost of nuclear disaster should not be factored in for it's essentially TEPCO who bares the responsibility in and not the other 8. I've seen your 50 trillion cost figure and has not been supported ever as recently as last month. And no. The increase in 2 trillion yen plus per year due to reliance on fossil fuels, the retrieval of cost of decommissioning the plants are argument used to restart the NPP, not against.

The volatility in output of these renewables are unstable which for, utility companies will be complete nightmare if these ever becomes highly reliant percentage wise.

Forget the solar energy. It's just drop in the bucket. Japan has depended heavily on natural gas to power its factories and cities. Japan now consumes nearly one-third of the world’s supply of LNG that is easily transported by boat. J-goverment is resurrecting an old plan to import natural gas from pipeline from Russia’s Sakhalin Island and Putin will most likely propose the project to PM Abe when he visits Japan later this year. After the Fukushima crisis, J-goverment is eager for such a pipeline. Japan imports 10% of their LNG from Russia and Russia agreed to double LNG shipments to Japan by 2020. The terminal in Vladivostok, which is still under construction, is expected to start operations in five years. Then Russia will export additional 10 million tons of natural gas per year to Japan, on top of the 10 million tons Japan currently receives from a different terminal. But Russian natural gas delivered through a pipeline would be substantially cheaper.

Lol - how convenient. Well, the Daiichi debacle has shown that "extraordinary expenses" should be included in cost of business calculations for electricity providers on this earthquake prone island. Arguing otherwise in this country is just an insult to everyone affected by the disaster.

Well, they aren't ordinary expenses are they?

Yeah, its amazing how nuclear power generation cost figures make sense when inconvenient things such as "nuclear disaster costs" are left out.

Because we are talking about the cost efficiency from a business standpoint which should not include extraordinary expenses.

In 2012, 3.1 trillion yen increase in fuel costs. In 2013, 3.6 trillion yen. These are recurring additional costs that people will have to pay for years if NPP isn't restarted.

http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/keizaisaisei/bunka/energy/dai1/siryou5-3.pdf

This is why there have been increases in charges requested by the utilities companies and accepted by the government. And it will continue but alternative is not the answer as Germany is beginning to realize this. The one thing that Germany has going is the ability to import/export electricity from neighbors, which for an island nation like Japan, cannot do.