The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.Oi No. 3 reactor restarts, but Japan's energy policy in flux
TOKYO©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.
55 Comments
Login to comment
minello7
I have a question,not having a scientific mind. Before the Fukushima disaster there were 54 reactors on line in Japan, maybe not all running at the same time due to maintenance, but only producing 30% of Japans, electricity. My question, " 54 reactors, are they not sufficient to provide 100% of Japans needs of electricity." " and if so, shouldn't the cost to the consumer be a fraction of what is charged now " sorry thats 2 questions.
nath
Minello. Japan has mountainous areas and lots of rivers. In some cases, the nuclear power plants are just too far from the people or factories that need the electricity. In those cases it is much more logical to produce local energy, rather than transport it over a huge distance. The problem is indeed that the power companies have neglected year after year after year to invest their profits in renewable energy on a decent scale, instead playing risky and short term thinking with the nuclear.
basroil
minello7Jul. 06, 2012 - 09:04AM JST
They produced about 30% but accounted for less than 25% of the generation capacity. Electricity production isn't about producing 100% all the time, it is about producing what you use when you use it. Nuclear provided the stable base load power, so the amount people use at night+ amount to charge certain other systems like pumped hydro. During peak, nuclear accounts for as little as 20%, but off-peak, it was over 80% in some places.
First part, see above. Second part, no, it costs only 6 yen per kWh to produce nuclear (including transmission and insurance fees), 8-14 yen a kWh for fossil fuels (dirty coal is cheapest, then natural gas, clean coal, then oil), and a whopping 50-60 yen per kWh for solar. Since nuclear was the cheapest, the cost, even at 20-30% of total, is going to increase drastically (several percentage points).
basroil
FIT will cost the economy 100-400 trillion yen per percentage point increase in renewable as a function of total energy production per year. And that's in the tariff alone, the cost of installing that much solar would cost another 300 trillion or more. I doubt that the government thought it through, because that is up to twice the GDP of Japan, and no less than half the GDP. I don't care who you pass on the bill to, the economy simply can't afford it.
Clearly the writer has agendas here. Japan lags simply as a function of economics and geography. Large scale solar panels just aren't possible at reasonable costs. Hence Japan has focused on small footprint power stations like coal, gas, oil, and nuclear, simply because they don't have enough space.
Hydro is considered separate in Japan, and even Japan has a fairly sizable amount of production where they can. The quote here probably includes non-commercial production, and is overestimating the percentage produced because of that.
basroil
zichiJul. 06, 2012 - 09:52AM JST
Feudal-japan style human trafficking? I guess you meant to say brides and their dowries, or probably just the dowry without the bride.
TheBigPicture
Based on the facts zichi presented, nuclear is a lose lose situation. Way.
basroil
TheBigPictureJul. 06, 2012 - 10:29AM JST
What "facts"? The estimated peak power Japan needs? That's actually more than the official estimates, and in fact more than Japan ever had! The actual demand numbers are about 180GW for summer, 170GW or so after "savings". Japan's capacity is only about 210GW, maybe 220-230GW if you include both nuclear AND long-idled plants. Check http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/3938.pdf .
Lets also look at his 400 billion R&D budget. Assuming that is correct, which we can't be certain of, we can see the cost-benefit using the expected increase in prices vs the R&D cost. Average operational costs per kWh are expected to rise by 3.7 yen per kWh, and either customers pay it or the companies pay it. If the companies pay it (which they have so far), it would amount to about 3-3.7 trillion yen in lost profit. From a 40.7% corporate tax, we are looking at over a trillion yen (almost 1.5 trillion) in lost tax revenues. For those figures, nuclear R&D is a very profitable investment, returning 3 yen for every yen you put in. Even if corporate tax was only 20%, they would get much more in taxes than they give out.
kurisupisu
It is not a question of "public safety fears" on one side and "worries about high electricity costs costs on the other" -that is far too simplistic a debate. The issue, considered by and reported on, by the Japanese parliament summed up thus:
"The Fukushima nuclear meltdown was a “man-made” disaster caused in large part by Japan’s culture of deference and collusion between the government, regulators and the plant operator."
Thus, it can be seen that the industry is unable to regulate itself. The most dangerous power known to man is being handled by liars and incompetents on an island which sits on numerous fault lines,likely to destroy any structure that happens to be above them.
The effects of the fallout have been seen in plants and animals and are increasingly being seen in humans.
Cancers,heart disease,infertility and genetic generational physical abnormalities are the results of errant nuclear power.
Fukushima still has a highly radioactive environment that cannot be contained and is still poisoning us-presently there are no remedies to prevent this.
Steps to continue with nuclear power which is already killing us all to some degree or another is abhorrent!
mosha
According to this article in the Japan Times (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nb20120608a1.html)
Households pay about 90 percent of the utility's income but use only about 40 percent of the total supply.
Mind-boggling.
basroil
zichiJul. 06, 2012 - 10:53AM JST
There was a small issue in the change up between yen and dollar rates, just divide everything by 80. I'm tired, been busy with work, I can make a slipup every once in a while. Interestingly, the second post looks about right, probably because all of the data was in yen.
SquidBert
Basroil,
Now you ask for understanding for your slip ups? But when Zichis iPad (or what ever device he was using) auto corrected "bribe" to "bride", you found it necessary to spend an entire post taunting him about it.
I would like you to really consider the purpose of your posts here. I think you would do your cause a favor by posting a few well informed posts a day, instead of flooding the forum with disinformation and disagreement.
To many of your posts just sound like the 'Argument Clinic' skit by Monty Python. The only difference being, it ain't funny.
-Respectfully, Squids United
Cricky
I'm pretty sure "that" person is being paid by "that industry"
basroil
zichiJul. 06, 2012 - 11:56AM JST
Using what math here? You yourself stated 150 trillion not long ago. 5 trillion over 30 years (minimum decommission time) is 167 billion yen a year. Oi 3-4 alone makes 10TWh a year on average including downtime from Fukushima. Even assuming that Oi is the only plant (and since 3-4 are 13 years newer than 1-2, they won't be scheduled for shutdown until past 2025), the "price for nuclear" is increased by 16 yen to 22 yen per kWh. That's still half to a third of the expected cost for a new solar panel installation, and about the same as high output wind sites. Japan makes nowhere near enough food for biomass, so unless you want 1000 yen slices of bread lets just forget that silly idea.
If they go back to 15% like they said, you increase the cost by 1 yen per kWh at most, and (assuming prices are fixed into the future), it would still be cheaper than coal, gas, oil, and the "renewables" by a fair margin. And these numbers assume just 50% capacity rather than 85% that is the world average.
warispeace
basroil
How predictable: more distrotion disguised as information. It is so easy to just repeat the standard anwer given by the self-interested, pro-nuclear industry instead of doing some critical thinking. Did this information come right off of the Tepco homepage?
If we calculate the true cost of nuclear energy, we must include all the externalities, such as the decades-long payments to deal with the man-made nuclear disaster, as well as the cost of waste storage, decommissioning and the lost opportunity costs of not investing in renewable energy and energy effienct technologies? Also, the cost of solar keeps going down as the technology improves and the demand increases.
minello7
Thankyou all, I think you answered my questions with clarity, its been an education reading the posts.
Geoffrey Walker
Nuclear waste disposal and de-commissioning costs are the elephant in the room. As alluded to these costs will consume the balance sheet of all Japanese utilities and much more....and then guess who gets stuck with the bill....again?
basroil
zichiJul. 06, 2012 - 01:50PM JST
But if you do the calculations it actually amounts to 3.3yen per kWh per trillion if ONLY Oi 3-4 are restarted at 50%, or 0.25 yen per kWh per trillion if 15% is nuclear. For $30 trillion in costs (about 500 times more than official estimates), you are looking at 7.5 yen/kWh, which brings the cost up to 14 yen/kWh which is just about the same as LNG, so very cheap comparatively.
My numbers are simple 30 year amortization, which likely are actually too high year to year since you stated 5 trillion (17%) would be decommissioning which takes place no earlier than 30 years.
Do tell us where those numbers are, I haven't seen them anywhere but in activist blogs.
Cricky
10 points basroil you are a persistent troll
SquidBert
The turf sure is growing thick in here lately. I would guess it is the best turf that can be bought with brown envelopes full of dirty money..
nandakandamanda
Monju in Fukui and Rokkasho in Aomori are being given the green light too it seems, although Monju may take until 2050 to come properly on line.
There are suggestions that Japan may wish to have the added option of a defensive nuclear deterrent.
basroil
CrickyJul. 06, 2012 - 03:05PM JST
I really do wonder why blatant attacks on me are considered fair game but even calling someone "clearly unqualified" is grounds for my posts to disappear without notification... I'm starting to think the moderation rules need to be more defined and followed on an equal basis.
basroil
zichiJul. 06, 2012 - 04:03PM JST
Now you just sound like an anti-nuclear activist idiot.
I don't work for Hokuden, makers of nuclear reactors, or subcontractors. I've said that in the past, and this is the last time I will say it.
Ranger_Miffy2
Basroil, you idiot. Zichi is not named "zichijul". That is zichi + JUL, the current month. The name is "zichi", as any person can see except you. No one can respect you here, and with such simple errors, it does seem you are trying to play in the wrong sandbox. Bon voyage.
basroil
zichiJul. 06, 2012 - 04:45PM JST
Bloom servers are nice, with good theoretical efficiency, nice and compact. But only in California. While they have 10 cents a kWh there, you can expect 1.5-3x that here, so still more expensive than coal or nuclear here. Much better idea than solar though, but also kills the Kyoto protocol.
basroil
zichiJul. 06, 2012 - 06:45PM JST
Bloom makes hydrocarbon fed fuel cells. Because they use natural gas, they produce CO2. They output as much CO2 as a regular gas turbine for about the same energy.
Penfold
Hey guys, forget about Basroil, the paid Troll. Don't get bogged down, there are more pressing issues at hand.
SquidBert
@Basroil
zichi stated that the Bloom Boxes were fed Bio Gas, which means it is a zero sum game for environmental CO2.
Not completely true they are much more efficient than a gas turbine, so even when you run them on LNG or some other fossil fuel they output much less CO2 per KW than a traditional thermal power plant or gas turbine.
The get something like 50% to 55% conversion efficiency. with 0.8 pounds/kWh CO2 ouput for LNG , Compared electricity from coal-fired plants (2 lbs/kWh) or natural gas plants (roughly 1.3 lbs/kWh).
Once again, with Bio Gas the net output becomes 0.
SquidBert
And, yes that was good advice Penfold.
basroil
SquidBertJul. 06, 2012 - 07:08PM JST
CAN be bio gas, usually just regular natural gas, and in Japan, would 100% be natural gas since bio-gas fuels are economically impossible. Bio anything is NOT net zero, as you need more CO2 to produce the feed than you save.
Nuclear on the other hand IS zero CO2 production during energy generation. Wind and solar too
SquidBert
You are wrong(as usual), but I am going to take Penfold's advice and start celebrating my week end.
Cricky
He has Freinds under the bridge?
basroil
zichiJul. 07, 2012 - 01:02AM JST
With 1.5 trillion directly associated with fuel costs that they can't pass onto customers without first asking the government.
Serrano
Hey, just re-start the nukes and let's hope there are no more earthquakes/tsunamis, lol.
nandakandamanda
Yes, I saw that on TV this evening. Apparently they had an internal discussion on whether to cut back power as the filters were full of jellyfish, but as numbers have since dropped off they made a final decision to crank it up to 100% power.
basroil
zichiJul. 08, 2012 - 06:39PM JST
Odd, jellyfish are typically going after places with high salinity and temperature, yet the water there shouldn't be that warm yet. Easy enough to clean up though, and not that time sensitive.
basroil
zichiJul. 08, 2012 - 05:30PM JST
I agree that the monopoly is a bad idea for residential customers, since they get stuck with huge administrative fees on top of production and transmission (which are higher than major lots). At the same time, unless they have a unified power management system, it will end up like the USA, where a few downed power lines can shut down thousands of houses, and a blown substation can turn off electricity to half the country. Even with that issue, some sort of deregulation is needed, especially if it allows people to decide the source of their power (people who want solar can buy it, those that want the cheapest price can get the cheapest price.
There was some talks about adding more 765kV lines to allow the companies to share. Problem is that they all peak around the same time, and all are expecting to be at the margin if temperatures hit 35 for an extended time.
Again, biomass doesn't make sense for Japan, since the primary source would be burnable trash, but that has too low a energy density to be viable outside major cities. Natural source geothermal is also difficult because Japan has pretty much turned all the best places into onsen, and pumped geothermal is very bad for the environment (heavy metal pollution and earthquakes). Wind/solar take too much space, about 58km^2 per GW for solar and five times that for wind.
But they should research future energy production methods, since an energy revolution would not only bring cheap power, but also be a great export. I just can't see current alternative energy methods being useful for Japan (usually cost ratio is far too large and will drive the country further into debt)