COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
national

Japan's nuclear restart may be delayed until 2015

44 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014. Click For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

44 Comments
Login to comment

Whatever happened to cheap, safe fusion energy?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

a few months delay should not affect Nikkei shares since it is down for so long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but the utility was supposed to hand in additional, detailed paperwork on specific safety features at the site and how they planned to construct them.

OMG -- they were going to be required to actually have a specific plan, rather than simply saying "trust us". Will wonders never cease? Although it is not really surprising they could not do this in time, since the utilities have never been held to any real standards on safety.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The longer they remain off line the more likely less of them will restart. Some of the power utilities have failed to update the safety of their atomic plants to the levels required by the NRA, almost just hoping they'll be restarted anyway? Even if and when any reactors are restarted they have lost the hold they once had.

Prior to the 3/11, nuclear energy generated about 27% of total power! but in future that could drop to 7%. Electricity from nuclear energy cost about ¥7/KWhr but with all the additional costs that's now reached about ¥17-20/KWhr or more than twice that by fossil fuels. Eventually even the cost of renewables will become less than nuclear energy.

The nuclear disaster is the most expensive industrial accident making the BP Gulf oil spill look like a drop in the ocean!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

The long-awaited restart of Japans nuclear power plants

I dont understand where "long-awaited" comes from? Biased reporting.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@HowardStern

I don't understand either... I'm certainly NOT "awaiting" any "restarts". Shut them all down PERMANENTLY !

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@FightingVikingAUG. 07, 2014 - 09:02AM JST

@HowardStern

I don't understand either... I'm certainly NOT "awaiting" any "restarts". Shut them all down PERMANENTLY !

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

The article should reveal who has long-awaited.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Not very good for Japan's trade deficit.

For the short-term, getting these reactors online is a priority. After that, invest in all the clean energy you want.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Instead of bailouts why not just nationalize the power companies? Seems that would be a much cheaper alternative.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So, regardless of public opinion it seems inevitable that most of the plants will be back online within a few years. However, my questions is, if they do get these plants back online to reduce the cost of producing electricity is the public gonna see a reduction in tariffs or, are the savings just gonna into corporate coffers?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You know I often wondered why so many people on here hated Japan's system. Now I understand, after just living here for 3 years I have started to notice so much corruption and money grabbing within this government.

After all this they still want to put nuclear power back on? Put more lives at risk so they can have more money? Why the hell isn't anyone doing something? I'm just a simple white devil that probably would not make a difference, but why don't the Japanese do something????

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Inevitable? Nothing is inevitable but death. What happens before is a choice. Chose to burden future generations with toxic land and toxic waist, or choose to follow a different path. Pretty simple. Corruption will decide as it always seems to.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

No nuke restart. I am afraid there will be a next big earthquake in Japan as many world scientists predict.

When do you start investing on energy alternatives? Come to Colorado. We are leading the energy alternative industry in the States and creating jobs. We would like to show you.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hey, listen, most of you. Coal and gas would be burned out in about 300 years, and the speed of the consumption grows as population grows. If you want Japan as polluted as China, just burn coals. Notably, the mining industry killed far more people than all the nuclear disasters. Friends, please search the direct casualty by nuclear disaster yourself. The truth is, the impact of nuclear disaster is heavily exaggerated by the public stupidity and deliberate anti-nuclear campaign funded by the 'dirty energy' company. Low-level radiation is very common. The coal plant produce more radiation than the nuclear plant in normal operation. When you take a flight, you are radiated more. Inevitably, mankind would rely on nuclear fuel in the near future. By nuclear energy, I mean the light water reactor, fast breeder reactor and possibly the fusion reactor. The uranium resource for the current light water reactor could last for 300 years. However, for the fast breeder reactor, the uranium resource could last for 1000 or 2000, depend on the technology. All the other clean energy is far less stable and efficient than the nuclear energy. Remember, the only fundamental energy source is the sun, which is actual a big fusion reactor!!! The fossil fuel is the concentrated 'solar energy' by the dinosaurs over billions of year. That is why direct solar energy and the 'new-grown' bio-energy cannot be even close in efficiency to the fossil fuel.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Good. More time for renewables to creep in and get footholds in the energy sector and undermine the most dangerous enterprise man has ever fooled himself into believing is beneficial and safe. When the consequences are so catastrophic when it goes wrong, which it does and will again, nuclear energy fuelled by uranium HAS to be stopped. NOW. It's the STUPIDEST way to boil water.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The uranium resource for the current light water reactor could last for 300 years. However, for the fast breeder reactor, the uranium resource could last for 1000 or 2000

And the nuclear waste needs to be stored safely for at least 10,000 years.

All the other clean energy is far less stable and efficient than the nuclear energy

With the advantage that it doesn't explode, burn holes down into the earth, irradiate the groundwater and from there the sea, or destroy whole communities, lifestyles and ecosystems when 'unexpected' things (like earthquakes and tsunamis on the Ring of Fire, duh!) occur.

Remember, the only fundamental energy source is the sun, which is actual a big fusion reactor!!!

Yes, and though it's roughly 150 million kms away, if I stand in its rays unprotected for half an hour or so it will turn my skin red, blistery and extremely sore. Repeated exposure gives me a very good chance of getting skin cancer. If I look at it directly, I'll go blind. Now why would I want a mini one of those anywhere near me on these unstable, wobbly isles?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Public science still has a long way to go. Get a PhD in science, then you guys may understand.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Anti stupidity, your bang on mate ! we, have to think LONG term not short term, fossil fuel IS running out now, so we have to change our perspection of burning polluting fossil fuels.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Serrano

Whatever happened to cheap, safe fusion energy?

Its always 30 years away, like intelligent machines and a mission to Mars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The key words always seem to be the same:

Restart,

safety regulations,

detailed paperwork,

final deliberations,

additional documents,

remain idled,

annual losses,

government bailout ,

For me the key words are NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.

No operation disposal mechanism = No restart

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Coal, gas, oil uranium, all gone in less than 100 years! However the rain wind and sun will continue for millions of years.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Coal, gas, oil uranium, all gone in less than 100 years!

Hardly

However the rain wind and sun will continue for millions of years.

Yes they will. And so will typhoons, tornadoes and meteorites. Was there a point?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

After all this they still want to put nuclear power back on? Put more lives at risk so they can have more money? Why the hell isn't anyone doing something? I'm just a simple white devil that probably would not make a difference, but why don't the Japanese do something????

That is because all the main stream media is controlled by the government to undermine all the anti-nuclear movements which have gone unnoticed by the majority of the population.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

<<That is because all the main stream media is controlled by the government to undermine all the anti-nuclear movements which have gone unnoticed by the majority of the population.

Because the Public Sector is controlling the Private Sector too much in Japan. Encourage a concept of free/true enterprise and go for structural reforms in Economic model. Japanese bureaucrats (KANRYO) want to control everything too much, and it is not working..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Sendai plant cleared the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s (NRA) initial safety hurdle last month, but the utility was supposed to hand in additional, detailed paperwork on specific safety features at the site and how they planned to construct them.

Considering the schedules, in plain text this can only mean that the NRA is willing to allow the restart based on plans, which do not have to be implemented before the plant starts again but rather some more ot less distant future. Nothing will ever change in this industry...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

For those of you touting solar energy, the main reason why they're not going to become mainstream anytime soon is because even the cheapest solar installations are still well above even the highest cost curves of cheaper alternatives (coal, nat gas). The only way they become cost effective is for the government to subsidize them, but even then that's not a long-term solution.

We all think clean energy is great, but when the burden will likely fall on taxpayers, I'm sure we'll all think twice - that's the reality of the situation, money drives everything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The simplest way to show that solar and wind, with current technology, are incapable of supporting the electric requirements of a major country is to look at the plants that make the solar panels and wind turbines. I have not seen a single proponent that has been able to point to a single one that relies on their own product to power their factory.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan’s electric utilities have racked up more than $34 billion in losses in the three years since the disaster

These numbers go totally unnoticed by the anti-nuclear crowd for they fail to realize that these amounts will eventually be fully funded by the consumers.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@ryuusei

We all think clean energy is great, but when the burden will likely fall on taxpayers, I'm sure we'll all think twice - that's the reality of the situation, money drives everything.

You mean like first, the taxpayer picking up the tab for construction of the nuclear power plants, and then giving them subsidies like the R&D grants of ¥500 billion per year, but then that's probably why the insurance industry calls nuclear energy the "mother of all subsidies".

Secondly, the taxpayer will again pick up the ¥50 trillion plus for the cost of the most expensive industrial accident in history.

Thirdly, the taxpayer will pick up the tab for decommissioning the failed reactors even though it was suppose to be collected from the power charges and the tab for building the storage for the spent nuclear fuel?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You mean like first, the taxpayer picking up the tab for construction of the nuclear power plants, and then giving them subsidies like the R&D grants of ¥500 billion per year, but then that's probably why the insurance industry calls nuclear energy the "mother of all subsidies".

We went over this, zichi. The receipient of the subsidies are communities that house them. The source of such funding is collect via special tax FROM the utilities companies.

Secondly, the taxpayer will again pick up the ¥50 trillion plus for the cost of the most expensive industrial accident in history.

Which you have NEVER substantiated those figures.

Thirdly, the taxpayer will pick up the tab for decommissioning the failed reactors even though it was suppose to be collected from the power charges and the tab for building the storage for the spent nuclear fuel?

It would lessen the burden if you allow the NPP to operate.

The problem with your assessment is that you attach the cost of "not restarting NPP" as your argument.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Nigelboy

We went over this, zichi. The receipient of the subsidies are communities that house them. The source of such funding is collect via special tax FROM the utilities companies.

No we didn't. The nuclear energy industry receives substantial government subsidies including construction costs, the guarantee for insurance cover, tax breaks not given to other industries, the R&D grants which started in 1974 and about ten years ago had reached ¥500 billion per year. Just why do you think the insurance industry calls the nuclear industry the mother of all subsidies?

What you commented on was the money received by the local communities which have the power generation plants and most of the money is given during the construction stage. That has nothing to do with government subsidies given to the nuclear power industry. That is by way more of a tax and not a subsidy. I think the figure you quoted was ¥375/1000 KWhr which would amount to about 1.5% of the sale price of the electricity.

The ¥50 trillion for losses and costs of the nuclear disaster I have listed several times recently, but lets just think back a couple of years when you were stating that the cost of the nuclear disaster would not be more than ¥5 trillion which currently is the amount of monthly support payments given to the nuclear victims and these payments will likely continue for at least another 5-10 years. The total compensation claims have reached more than ¥5 trillion but will probably reach ¥10 trillion. TEPCO have received ¥10 trillion for the nuclear disaster site and has said it needs another ¥17 trillion.

Unfortunately, the total losses and costs picked up by the public will be much more than ¥50 trillion before the disaster is under some sort of control in 50 years plus.

It would lessen the burden if you allow the NPP to operate.

I don't have any power to decide anything? That's the responsibility of the NRA which has stated that probably less than 20 of the reactors will reach a safety standard allowing them to restart. The others because of age or failure on safety will have to be decommissioned. This is happening now because originally the lack of capital investment to build safe atomic plants and now the utilities are trying to play catch up with their safety standards which will probably cost more than ¥15 trillion and no doubt a cost the utilities will try to pass on.

The costs of decommissioning are suppose to be calculated into the power charges but they are already going cap in hand to central government.

The problem with your assessment is that you attach the cost of "not restarting NPP" as your argument.

No unlike you and others I have tried to work out a realistic loss and costs for the nuclear disaster, which includes the loss by the utilities and the increase costs of fossil fuels.

Also you pro nuclear energy guys keep harping on about restarting the reactors but no comments on that in future nuclear energy will probably only generate 7% of total power demand, and certainly less than 10%. Nuclear energy isn't a renewable and the uranium will run out.

We need investments and research in renewable energies from here on because eventually it will have to be 100% renewable energy.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

No we didn't. The nuclear energy industry receives substantial government subsidies including construction costs, the guarantee for insurance cover, tax breaks not given to other industries, the R&D grants which started in 1974 and about ten years ago had reached ¥500 billion per year. Just why do you think the insurance industry calls the nuclear industry the mother of all subsidies?

What you commented on was the money received by the local communities which have the power generation plants and most of the money is given during the construction stage. That has nothing to do with government subsidies given to the nuclear power industry. That is by way more of a tax and not a subsidy. I think the figure you quoted was ¥375/1000 KWhr which would amount to about 1.5% of the sale price of the electricity.

The subsidy fund of 1974 IS EXACTLY THAT

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%BB%E6%BA%90%E4%B8%89%E6%B3%95

The utility company PAYS the central government 375 yen/1000 KWhr electricity sold via following TAX.

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%BB%E6%BA%90%E9%96%8B%E7%99%BA%E4%BF%83%E9%80%B2%E7%A8%8E%E6%B3%95

Which in turn goes into the general account of the central government and subsequently the below linked special account which does ALL of what you stated above. (i.e. Subsidies)

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A8%E3%83%8D%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AE%E3%83%BC%E5%AF%BE%E7%AD%96%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%E4%BC%9A%E8%A8%88

It simply amazes me that after all these years of writing on this subject, you were under the FALSE assumption that th government was giving handouts to these companies.

The ¥50 trillion for losses and costs of the nuclear disaster I have listed several times recently

You haven't.

The funding that TEPCO received from the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund is 5.1 trillion yen. Of the total applicants filing for compensation in damages, about 87% have already been paid as of August 1 at 4.1 trillion yen.

What is this urge to double and triple figures then add zero?

The costs of decommissioning are suppose to be calculated into the power charges but they are already going cap in hand to central government.

Yes. Why are repeating the same argument when the above should the cost as a result of "not operating NPP?"

No unlike you and others I have tried to work out a realistic loss and costs for the nuclear disaster, which includes the loss by the utilities and the increase costs of fossil fuels.

If that is your true intent, I sincerely appreciate it by balancing them instead of stringing them together as if it's part of the "nuclear energy" true cost. And as I noted before, this is a COST as a result of "not operating NPP".

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Nigelboy

Under the Power Development Promotion Tax Law (Dengen kaihatsu sokushin zei hō), a national tax levied on the sales of electricity by electric power companies was introduced. The service provider charges the electricity consumer tax to all users at the current rate of 375 Yen per 1,000 kWh. The revenue is channelled through the Special Account for Electric Power Development Acceleration Measures (Dengen kaihatsu sokushin taisaku tokubetsu kaikei), and distributed among hosting communities according to the regulations of the Law on the Development of Areas Adjacent to Electric Power Plants (Hatsuden yō shisetsu shūhen chiiki seibi hō)

http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/ejcjs/vol13/iss1/feldhoff.html

Its the electricity consumers domestic and business which are paying the ¥375/1,000kWh charge which the government pays to those communities with electric power plants. This isn't paid by the power utilities themselves, they just collect the money on behalf of the government. nigelboy, you incorrectly stated that the ¥375/1,000kWh was being paid by the power companies.

Further, government subsidies,

The government's nuclear energy budget is published in an official nuclear energy white paper. The nuclear energy budget for the last 10 years is shown in figure 1 below. It amounts to about 500 billion yen each year. Around one third is from general revenue. The rest is from special accounts. There are two special accounts, one for the "diversification of electric power" and one for "site establishment". The funds for these special accounts come from a special purpose tax called the Electric Power Development Tax. Currently the tax is collected from consumers via their electricity bills at the rate of 400 yen per 1,000 kWh. The revenue is distributed in accordance with the Law for the Adjustment of Areas Adjacent to Power Generating Facilities.

so the government's subsidy to nuclear energy works out at 1.5 yen/kWh

http://www.cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit113/nit113articles/nit113cost.html

Another government subsidy is covered by the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage of 1961. In the case of a nuclear plant accident, compensation is to be paid from insurance contributions of the electric power company; but at present the limit is a mere ¥120 billion. So even though the nuclear disaster will cost many tens of trillions, the liability of TEPCO is limited to ¥120 billion.

TEPCO support compensation payments and compensation payments. As of 8/1/2014, Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees have received ¥4.5 trillion.

Evacuees receive ¥100,000 yen a month in psychological suffering compensation. The money is tax-exempt and paid unconditionally. Currently, about 84,000 evacuees receive the payments. http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201310260046

According to the Japanese Science and Environment Ministry (Asahi), about 84,000 refugees are being, or will be, paid stipends from Tepco as a result of being evacuated. An average family of four will receive between about $400,000 (40 million yen) and about $900,000 (90 million yen), depending upon where they lived within the evacuation zone.*(see Note below). This is not a single payout, but will continue each year that the family members are refugees. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/11/04/the-fukushima-refugee-business/

In addition to the support payments, TEPCO as of 08/01/14 pay ¥4.15 trillion in compensation payments. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/comp/images/jisseki-e.pdf

According to the latest TEPCO plan, compensation payments increased by ¥1 trillion to ¥3.9 trillion. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu14_e/images/140115e0205.pdf

**Nigelboy, two years ago you said the cost of the nuclear disaster would be no more than ¥5 trillion, a figure you pulled out of your hat. I have said it will cost more than ¥50 trillion and recently gave a list to show that.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Its the electricity consumers domestic and business which are paying the ¥375/1,000kWh charge which the government pays to those communities with electric power plants. This isn't paid by the power utilities themselves, they just collect the money on behalf of the government. nigelboy, you incorrectly stated that the ¥375/1,000kWh was being paid by the power companies.

Look at your bill. I do not see such tax allocated on my bill.

http://www.kepco.co.jp/home/ryoukin/shikumi/breakdowns.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/e-rates/individual/basic/charge/charge01-j.html

Nowhere in the law does it states "tax is collected from consumers via electricity bills" because if these customers are delinquent/non payment, the utilitity companies has to pay based on "consumption".

Another government subsidy is covered by the Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage of 1961. In the case of a nuclear plant accident, compensation is to be paid from insurance contributions of the electric power company; but at present the limit is a mere ¥120 billion. So even though the nuclear disaster will cost many tens of trillions, the liability of TEPCO is limited to ¥120 billion.

That is not subsidy

**Nigelboy, two years ago you said the cost of the nuclear disaster would be no more than ¥5 trillion, a figure you pulled out of your hat. I have said it will cost more than ¥50 trillion and recently gave a list to show that.

I'm standing by it. What you fail to understand are once compensation is settled and paid, the monthly stipend ends. So more case settled, the less monthly recipients.

It's you who changes goal posts by adding costs (as a result of NPP).

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Nigelboy

Look at your bill. I do not see such tax allocated on my bill.

Then I guess you didn't even bother to read the link I provided. You say you are standing by your statement that the cost of the nuclear disaster won't be more than ¥5 trillion when even the compensation claims and payments for evacuation and mental anguish have exceeded that figure alone? TEPCO are paying out more than ¥70 billion a month or ¥840 billion a year for those evacuation payments. Even people returning will continue to receive support payments for one year.

But the nuclear liability law is a subsidy because without it the nuclear power companies would have to pay much higher insurance covers.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

nigelboy, you incorrectly stated that the ¥375/1,000kWh was being paid by the power companies.

So you are claiming that NO business ever pays any taxes because the money just comes from their customers. In fact you are claiming that no company ever pays, from supplies to salaries, for anything because ultimately all their money comes from their customers.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Then I guess you didn't even bother to read the link I provided

I read the law itself for they never mentioned about taxing the consumers.

http://law.e-gov.go.jp/cgi-bin/idxselect.cgi?IDX_OPT=1&H_NAME=%93%64%8c%b9%8a%4a%94%ad%91%a3%90%69%90%c5%96%40&H_NAME_YOMI=%82%a0&H_NO_GENGO=H&H_NO_YEAR=&H_NO_TYPE=2&H_NO_NO=&H_FILE_NAME=S49HO079&H_RYAKU=1&H_CTG=1&H_YOMI_GUN=1&H_CTG_GUN=1

Face it zichi. The responsibility to pay the amount lies with the utility companies. This TAX that the utility companies pay are the SOURCE of funds for these subsidies.

You say you are standing by your statement that the cost of the nuclear disaster won't be more than ¥5 trillion when even the compensation claims and payments for evacuation and mental anguish have exceeded that figure alone? TEPCO are paying out more than ¥70 billion a month or ¥840 billion a year for those evacuation payments. Even people returning will continue to receive support payments for one year.

Yes. I stand by the 5 trillion yen figure for compensation to individuals and corporations. What I don't agree with is your evolving definition of "cost of the nuclear disaster" for you have ADDED the "cost incurred as a result of stoppage of NPP" to suit your argument.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Nigelboy No, a couple of years ago you actually said the total cost of the nuclear disaster would be no more than ¥5 trillion in response to my comment when I said it would be ¥25 trillion, which will now be more than ¥50 trillion, and TEPCO in their last updated plan stated compensation payments will be more than ¥5 trillion.

The responsbility of collecting the charge under the Power Development Promotion Tax Law are the power utilities but then so are the collections of sales tax but both are paid by the consumer and not by the power companies which you keep mistakenly suggest?

The idea behind the law was that all people benefit from having electricity by because of NIMBY not everyone would be willing to have a power plant in their location and those who are IMBY or willing to have them should receive local benefit for that and hence the charge made and passed on.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nigelboy No, a couple of years ago you actually said the total cost of the nuclear disaster would be no more than ¥5 trillion in response to my comment when I said it would be ¥25 trillion, which will now be more than ¥50 trillion, and TEPCO in their last updated plan stated compensation payments will be more than ¥5 trillion

http://www.minyu-net.com/osusume/daisinsai/serial/140305/news2.html

Again, what I disagree is your inclusion of costs as a result of the "stoppage of NPP" which you have time and time again failed to separate them and use it as some cost figuration for nuclear energy not being cheap.

The responsbility of collecting the charge under the Power Development Promotion Tax Law are the power utilities but then so are the collections of sales tax but both are paid by the consumer and not by the power companies which you keep mistakenly suggest?

See Mike O'Brien's post. They are paid b the utility companies and while sales tax are clearly indicated on the customer's bill, the other is not. The abusurdity of your argument is that such source of funds should not come from the utility companies' operating revenue when their whole business is providing electricty and getting paid for them.

The idea behind the law was that all people benefit from having electricity by because of NIMBY not everyone would be willing to have a power plant in their location and those who are IMBY or willing to have them should receive local benefit for that and hence the charge made and passed on.

Yes. Instead of utility companies doing it themselves, they pay the government in a form of a special tax who in turn assigns the money to a entity who in turn allocates them to do such tasks.

Would you prefer that the government eliminate such tax and have the utility companies do it themselves without intervention?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Nigelboy

But I have provided a link fully explaining the Power Development Promotion Tax Law and the charges are made to the customer and not paid in some form of tax by the power companies and none of the links you have provided actually state otherwise. Just because they don't actually exist on the monthly power bill only shows that the charge is included and calculated in the basic charge which in itself is made up of many aspects such as a cost for decommissioning reactors. Please provide a link showing that the charge is paid by the power companies and not the customer?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But I have provided a link fully explaining the Power Development Promotion Tax Law and the charges are made to the customer and not paid in some form of tax by the power companies and none of the links you have provided actually state otherwise.

I provided the link to the actual law itself. This is where you question your own link.

Just because they don't actually exist on the monthly power bill only shows that the charge is included and calculated in the basic charge which in itself is made up of many aspects such as a cost for decommissioning reactors. Please provide a link showing that the charge is paid by the power companies and not the customer?

Please refer to Mike O'Brien's post as well as my input. The law specifically states that the taxes are paid by the utility companies.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Nigelboy,

you continue to state that the cost of the nuclear disaster will be ¥5 trillion even though TEPCO have stated the cost of compensation will be more than ¥5 trillion.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu14_e/images/140115e0205.pdf

All costs incurred by a business, in this case, the power utilities are passed onto their customers whether its taxations, cost of fuel, overheads. The customers of any business are the ones paying and the amount left are the net earnings of the company which then pays corporate taxes on its profits. The ¥375/1000 kWh collected under the "power development promotion tax law" is actually paid by the customers, just like all costs, expenses and charges are paid too.

According to you, the charge of ¥375/1000 kWh is paid directly by the power utilities and not their customers, which would mean it would have to be deduced from the company after it paid corporation tax, which just isn't the case.

The power utilities receive a range of tax breaks and subsidies not given to other industries.

Government subsidies to the power companies.

Long-term program for Research, Development and Utilization of Nuclear Energy (Long-term Program) was formulated in 1956. Today, it is the basic program for the nation on nuclear power development and utilization. The plan is revised and updated every five years.

In 1974, three basic laws for the promotion of electric power development were made into law; namely, the "Law for the Adjustment of Areas Adjacent to Power-Generating Facilities," the "Electric Power Development Promotion Tax Law," and the "Special Account Law for Electric Power Promotion." These laws also advanced the appropriate siting of nuclear power stations.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CNPP2013_CD/countryprofiles/Japan/Japan.htm

Subsidies

you have claimed the power companies don't receive subsidies???

The government is financially involved in the electricity sector in a number of ways. It is a direct owner of two-thirds of EPDC and of part of Japan Atomic Power Corporation (JAPC). The government is financially indirectly involved in the electricity sector through its involvement in fuels, notably in support of nuclear generation and coal-fired generation (through support of the domestic coal industry). The Japan Development Bank has historically provided utilities with low-interest loans for power generation, particularly from non-oil fuels; its loans total about 6% of power sector investment. The bank’s policy to offer low-interest loans has now been extended to independent power producers, who can receive low- interest loans to cover up to 50% of their investment. However, EPDC currently sells its hydroelectric energy at cost, which is less than ¥9 per kWh (excluding pumped storage), through long-term agreements with the nine utilities.

PAGE 21 http://www.oecd.org/regreform/2506728.pdf

1 ( +2 / -1 )

you continue to state that the cost of the nuclear disaster will be ¥5 trillion even though TEPCO have stated the cost of compensation will be more than ¥5 trillion.

No. I stated that I stand by the 5 trillion yen for compensation.

All costs incurred by a business, in this case, the power utilities are passed onto their customers whether its taxations, cost of fuel, overheads. The customers of any business are the ones paying and the amount left are the net earnings of the company which then pays corporate taxes on its profits. The ¥375/1000 kWh collected under the "power development promotion tax law" is actually paid by the customers, just like all costs, expenses and charges are paid too

Why stop there. How about stating that employers who pays the "customers' salary are paying for the tax since we're at it. Stop with this nonsense.

According to you, the charge of ¥375/1000 kWh is paid directly by the power utilities and not their customers, which would mean it would have to be deduced from the company after it paid corporation tax, which just isn't the case.

It is, by definition, paid DIRECTLY by the utility companies.

you have claimed the power companies don't receive subsidies???

A loan from Japan Development Bank is a subsidy?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

A report by NHK has shown that operators of nuclear power plants in Japan charge the public users over 90 million dollars per year, in order to cover payments made to local authorities in the areas which host the nuclear sites. Last year, the central government announced that it did not consider these charges as an expense, and that it would no longer allow utilities to charge users to cover them. Osaka University Professor Tatsuo Hatta says utilities may be able to find other ways to compensate themselves for the payments, and is calling for further transparency. Kansai Electric has been charging their users around 40 million dollars per year, TEPCO charges around 22 million, Kyushu charges around 10 million, Chugoku charges about 8 million, and Chubu charges about 4 million.

http://www.lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/editorials/japanese-nuclear-plant-operators-charge-over-90-million-dollars-per-year-to-pay-local-authorities

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites