Japan Today
politics

War in Ukraine eclipses opposition to Japan's nuclear policy shift

34 Comments
By Takaki Tominaga

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

The Ukraine crisis has drastically changed the global energy landscape including the role of fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming and are now a source of energy security concerns.

Propaganda as pablum, for the masses.

When “Scientism”; a sort of political faux science, replaces truth, the grift is set...

3 ( +10 / -7 )

The right wing hawks are loving the Ukrainian crisis, can’t raise living standards…Ukrainian war, must raise taxes …Ukrainian war, must buy more weapons…Ukrainian war. Inflation…Ukrainian war. LDP are corrupt and stupid…Ukrainian war. My toe hurts…Ukrainian war.

2 ( +13 / -11 )

War in Ukraine eclipses opposition to Japan's nuclear policy shift

no it doesn’t how are the two connected? Other then the LDP precariously linking them. Ukrainian war, again it’s the excuse for steamrolled devious decisions by a government devoid of any social responsibility.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

Crap. Increased priced is caused by western plus Japan’s sanctions. The LDP just needed an excuse to restart the reactors. At the cost of the people.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

The Ukraine crisis has drastically changed the global energy landscape including the role of fossil fuels, which contribute to global warming and are now a source of energy security concerns.

Propaganda as pablum, for the masses.

When “Scientism”; a sort of political faux science, replaces truth, the grift is set...

I have a question or two "blue in green".

If this is all propaganda, are you saying that:

there is no Ukraine crisis

there is no drastically changing global energy landscape

fossil fuels do not contribute to global warming

and there are no energy security concerns?

Are you suggesting that these are all "a sort of political faux science"?

Whatever that means

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Germany, a pioneer in the introduction of renewable energy, has decided to temporarily halt the phasing out of nuclear power in an effort to shore up energy security.

”… a pioneer in the introduction of renewable energy …” and best customer of Russian natural gas.

What a charade.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

LDP did nothing that Japan will produce more electricity from so called renewable natural resources,all talk but action.compare with Chinas progress for example.

That is not true. As of Dec 22nd 2022.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/japan-s-first-large-offshore-wind-farm-starts-operations

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Kenta Izumi, leader of the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, criticized the nuclear power policy shift, saying the government is not making sufficient efforts to increase the use of renewable energy.

The CDPJ, which aims to raise the proportion of renewables in power generation to 50 percent in 2030, has told the government that initiatives such as the accelerated introduction of renewable energy and the improvement of transmission lines will be enough to ensure stable power supply.

This is the core of the problem here - know-nothing politicians taking their lead from single-minded activist groups.

As Anomymous refers to above - look what that got Germany.

Kenta Izumi has absolutely ZERO science or engineering knowledge, but he aims for renewables to be 50% of power generation in 2030.

He tells the government that “improved transmission lines” will ensure stable power supply.

Germany had 46% renewables in 2021 - does Izumi plan to be guzzling gas and burning coal to back up his plan, just like Germany is doing now? Will he have a change of heart at the last moment, and try desperately to preserve what NPPs are left?

Far better a 50% renewables and 50% nuclear goal, but the CDPJ would have to be open to professional advice, to be able to think, and be willing to sell the plan to their electorate. Of course, it’s easier for them to sell fairy dust to their voters…

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This reads like pure propaganda. If the government is going to do this at least make it less obvious.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If the war in Ukraine is the problem, then solve that problem first!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The cost of building new reactors has become very expensive costing about $15 billion or about $8,000 per MWh.

.Feb 29, 2016

Advanced nuclear reactors are estimated to cost $5,366 for every kilowatt of capacity. That means a large 1-gigawatt reactor would cost around $5.4 billion to build, excluding financing costs.

Renewable energy is now about $50 per MWh.

I understand and accept the current renewables cannot replace the energy entirely generated by fossil fuels. Generating an overnight load of 25% is a problem.

There is also the problem of the Nuclear Liability Law that limits the amount paid by the power companies in a nuclear accident like Fukushima to a maximum of ¥120 billion. Fukushima will cost many tens of trillions.

Hydrogen and ammonia turbines are good and can be used in existing plants.

Replacing coal-fired plants is a priority.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

> Japan has made a significant turnaround in its nuclear power policy amid concerns about a stable power supply….

Amid a significant increase in pro-nuclear power propaganda.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Climate change is grossly oversold. Its advocates are often too extreme. Carbon is not all bad, as plants need carbon for nutrition. Plus, you can't power fighter planes, missiles, subs and tanks with solar!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Climate change is grossly oversold.

Good on you, Xin Xin, for not using “global warming”. I’m old enough to remember the “threat of global cooling” less than 40 years ago - a new Ice Age was approaching. “Climate change” at least leaves room for debate.

I don’t think the problem is science or scienticists. It’s the alliance of some politicized scientists, politicized media, and professional activists whose real intentions are obscure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wallace

The cost of building new reactors has become very expensive costing about $15 billion or about $8,000 per MWh. 

.Feb 29, 2016

Advanced nuclear reactors are estimated to cost $5,366 for every kilowatt of capacity. That means a large 1-gigawatt reactor would cost around $5.4 billion to build, excluding financing costs.

So the reactors are $15 billion, but they’re also $5.4 billion?

Renewable energy is now about $50 per MWh.

You’re mixing units of energy and power. However, if that was all that was needed, that’d be grand. Amazing what low-cost grants will do.

Unfortunately renewables generally need lots more transmission lines, expensive ones as they have to be able to take the full output power even though many renewables rarely reach that.

They need grid reinforcement and other updates to deal with variability, and power storage and peaker plants to jump in and deal with short-term power cut-outs. Long-term is a completely different matter though

I understand and accept the current renewables cannot replace the energy entirely generated by fossil fuels. Generating an overnight load of 25% is a problem.

Hydrogen and ammonia turbines are good and can be used in existing plants.

Hydrogen and ammonia turbines are in their infancy, and have almost zero infrastructure support.

Replacing coal-fired plants is a priority.

Tell that to the Green movement.

There is also the problem of the Nuclear Liability Law that limits the amount paid by the power companies in a nuclear accident like Fukushima to a maximum of ¥120 billion. Fukushima will cost many tens of trillions.

At some point, countries have to step up and shoulder the liabilities of utilities for rare events. However, there is a side of me that wishes that TEPCO was hit with all the costs by the acclamation of the public, bankrupting them, and leaving Tokyo without power.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Star-viking

wallace

The cost of building new reactors has become very expensive costing about $15 billion or about $8,000 per MWh. 

.Feb 29, 2016

Advanced nuclear reactors are estimated to cost $5,366 for every kilowatt of capacity. That means a large 1-gigawatt reactor would cost around $5.4 billion to build, excluding financing costs.

So the reactors are $15 billion, but they’re also $5.4 billion?

Did you pay no attention to the dates?

The current cost of a reactor is about $15 billion or $8,000 per MWh. As I posted in 2016, the cost was $5.4 billion. Now a three-fold price increase.

Renewable energy is now about $50 per MWh.

You’re mixing units of energy and power. However, if that was all that was needed, that’d be grand. Amazing what low-cost grants will do.

The current cost of generating 1MWh of renewable energy is an average % of 50.

The nuclear industry, including Japan, receives mass government subsidies.

Unfortunately renewables generally need lots more transmission lines, expensive ones as they have to be able to take the full output power even though many renewables rarely reach that.

I don't think that is quite correct. Most power from a renewable energy source goes to the nearest electric pole. I am a former electrical engineer.

Japan since 2011 has increased its renewable energy from about 3% to 20%.

They need grid reinforcement and other updates to deal with variability, and power storage and peaker plants to jump in and deal with short-term power cut-outs. Long-term is a completely different matter though

None of that is right.

I understand and accept the current renewables cannot replace the energy entirely generated by fossil fuels. Generating an overnight load of 25% is a problem.

Hydrogen and ammonia turbines are good and can be used in existing plants.

Hydrogen and ammonia turbines are in their infancy, and have almost zero infrastructure support.

Actually if you read up the Japanese American companies are in production but yes still a way to go.

Replacing coal-fired plants is a priority.

Tell that to the Green movement.

Which green movement is supporting coal?

There is also the problem of the Nuclear Liability Law that limits the amount paid by the power companies in a nuclear accident like Fukushima to a maximum of ¥120 billion. Fukushima will cost many tens of trillions.

At some point, countries have to step up and shoulder the liabilities of utilities for rare events. However, there is a side of me that wishes that TEPCO was hit with all the costs by the acclamation of the public, bankrupting them, and leaving Tokyo without power.

Fukushima became a mass taxpayer burden over the next 100 years, probably more than ¥80 trillion without providing a single watt of power.

Nuclear energy in Japan was 27%. The target was 50% by 2040. That is now gone to the wind.

Maybe nuclear energy could reach 15% now so the other 85% needs to be generated from other fuels, mostly fossil.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

* The initial construction costs for a new nuclear energy reactors are capital-intensive and can range from* $6 billion to $8 billion

https://nuclearenergyfission.weebly.com/costs.html#:~:text=Costs.%20How%20much%20does%20it%20cost%20to%20build,are%20greater%20than%20those%20of%20fossil%20fuel-fired%20plants.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2022 (HTML)

United States.

Cost estimates for the only two reactors under construction at the Vogtle site now exceed US$30 billion.

United Kingdom.

The construction project at Hinkley Point C continued to experience cost overruns and delays.

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2022-HTML.html

The United States has increased its reactor life cycle to 80 years, twice the original recommended period.

*

*

In France, the cost of nuclear power is $138 per MWh. Wind is $80 per MWh.

"Due to rising costs, France aims to reduce nuclear from 70% to 50% by 2025 and replace it with renewable

energy.

The electricity issue is particularly important in France, as it has the most

electrified heating system in Europe. The path of least resistance: extend the life of existing nuclear reactors

to 50-60 years instead of building new ones, and phase in renewable energy over a longer period of time"

https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/global/pb/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/the-rising-cost-of-nuclear-power.pdf

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

wallaceDec. 26  12:46 pm JST

The cost of building new reactors has become very expensive costing about $15 billion or about $8,000 per MWh.

$15 billion is expensive.

wallaceToday  04:10 pm JST

Cost estimates for the only two reactors under construction at the Vogtle site now exceed US$30 billion.

Whoa--now the prices are doubling !!

Why contradict yourself??

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I guess for some, simple adding can be a problem.

The initial cost of building a nuclear reactor greatly increases over the construction period.

There is no price contradiction.

Two American reactors are costing $30 billion or $15 billion each. They are the first new reactors built in over three decades.

https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle.html

The problem in Japan is the construction of any new reactors other than those started is difficult because of costs and local opposition to having an NPP.

$15 billion for a reactor is very expensive.

A plant like Fukushima with 6 reactors could cost $90 billion. The money the power companies do not have.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

wallace

So the reactors are $15 billion, but they’re also $5.4 billion?

Did you pay no attention to the dates?

The current cost of a reactor is about $15 billion or $8,000 per MWh. As I posted in 2016, the cost was $5.4 billion. Now a three-fold price increase.

Your 2016 date looked like a poorly-formed attempt to provide a reference to your statement. As the reference was incomplete, I ignored it.

The nuclear industry, including Japan, receives mass government subsidies.

Do say?

Unfortunately renewables generally need lots more transmission lines, expensive ones as they have to be able to take the full output power even though many renewables rarely reach that.

I don't think that is quite correct. Most power from a renewable energy source goes to the nearest electric pole. I am a former electrical engineer.

My background is in physics and engineering. Please explain to me how the lines that bring the variable renewable power of wind and solar do not have to be rated for the maximum probable power output.

They need grid reinforcement and other updates to deal with variability, and power storage and peaker plants to jump in and deal with short-term power cut-outs. Long-term is a completely different matter though

None of that is right.

So the grid does not need reinforcement and storage because of the addition of variable renewable energy (VRE)? News to me.

Hydrogen and ammonia turbines are in their infancy, and have almost zero infrastructure support.

Actually if you read up the Japanese American companies are in production but yes still a way to go.

Long way to go, though at least turbines have been run on hydrogen in jets.

Replacing coal-fired plants is a priority.

Tell that to the Green movement.

Which green movement is supporting coal?

Germany’s at least. Oh, they say they want rid of them, but their actions imply the opposite.

Fukushima became a mass taxpayer burden over the next 100 years, probably more than ¥80 trillion without providing a single watt of power.

That’s what once-in-a-thousand year catastrophic events do.

Nuclear energy in Japan was 27%. The target was 50% by 2040. That is now gone to the wind.

Maybe nuclear energy could reach 15% now so the other 85% needs to be generated from other fuels, mostly fossil.

But then there’s the wee problem of climate change…

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wallace

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2022 (HTML)

Produced by an anti-nuclear organisation, led by someone with no visible scientific qualifications (Mycle Schnider)

Two American reactors are costing $30 billion or $15 billion each. They are the first new reactors built in over three decades.

First-of-a-kind (FOAK) anything costs a significant amount of money. Even more so after decades-long enforced hiatus. The anti-nuclear types crow the costs to the world, and try to add costs by litigation and public protest.

The problem in Japan is the construction of any new reactors other than those started is difficult because of costs and local opposition to having an NPP.

$15 billion for a reactor is very expensive.

Well, FOAK. Even so, the Finns were happy to have their expensive new reactor when Putin was tightening the energy screws.

A plant like Fukushima with 6 reactors could cost $90 billion. The money the power companies do not have.

Fossil fuels cost too. The McKinsey report “Japan’s uncertain energy future in the post-Fukushima era” states these have cost an extra 28 billion dollars per year up to 2015, probably more now.

Also, the learning curve would drop the costs for subsequent reactors, and we have Small-Medium Reactors being designed with more inherent and passive safety to look forward to in the 2030s.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-Viking

I was providing a comparison. In 2016, the reactor cost was about $5,4 billion. Easy enough to find online. By 2002 the costs have increased to about $15 billion as shown with the two constructed at the  Vogtle site in America. Also available online.

from 2008

"The construction cost estimates for new nuclear power plants are very uncertain and have

increased significantly in recent years. Companies that are planning new nuclear units are

currently indicating that the total costs (including escalation and financing costs) will be in

the range of $5,500/kW to $8,100/kW or between $6 billion and $9 billion for each 1,100

MW plant."

https://www.synapse-energy.com/sites/default/files/SynapsePaper.2008-07.0.Nuclear-Plant-Construction-Costs.A0022_0.pdf

*

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

2019

"The high cost of constructing plants has made it difficult for nuclear power to compete with other energy options in the United States, particularly natural gas."

"In 2017, two South Carolina utilities abandoned two unfinished Westinghouse AP1000 reactors due to difficulties in equipment manufacturing, significant construction delays, and cost overruns. The original cost estimate of $14 billion has risen to $23 billion."

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/

*

Until 2011, the Japanese nuclear industry received billions in government subsidies, and a law was passed if I remember correctly in the mid-1970s to provide for that. Also available online.

The renewable plants are connected directly to the grid and the power companies need to adjust their own outputs. There is or was some problem with that in Kyushu with the power company solar power had reached the maximum that it could deal with.

There was no upgrade of cables on the grid systems. Unless you can show a link otherwise.

The grids carry 220-550kV. Never read about any grid upgrades.

The power supplies from the various renewable sources need to have cables capable of carrying the maximum plus a bit more.

https://www.spf.org/topics/20151106Panel3_Mr.HiroshiAsano_CRIEPI.pdf

https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/pg/supply/facility/flow-e.html

Greenpeace supports nuclear energy.

That’s what once-in-a-thousand-year catastrophic events do.

That is unpredictable and the nuclear industry does not agree with that. Hence the new regulations for reactors and plants. I think you live in Fukushima so try telling the people you lost their homes and property.

So you don't have answers to the energy problems.

20 reactors can provide 15%-20% of power so how do you suggest the other 80% is generated?

Hydrogen Power Generation for a Zero-Carbon World

Japanese government

https://www.japan.go.jp/kizuna/2022/08/hydrogen_power_generation.html

0 ( +1 / -1 )

typo

 I was providing a comparison. In 2016, the reactor cost was about $5,4 billion. Easy enough to find online. By 2002.

Should be 2022.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2022 (HTML)

https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Who-We-Are.html

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The OL3 plant is Finland's first new nuclear plant in more than four decades and Europe's first in almost 15 years, with a capacity equal to about 14% of Finnish electricity consumption, TVO has said.

In October, the operator said cracks were found in the OL3 reactor's four feedwater pumps after test production, further delaying startup originally planned to be in 2009.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/finlands-ol3-nuclear-reactor-faces-new-delay-blow-power-supply-2022-12-09/

Full-scale electricity production at Olkiluoto 3 reactor delayed until 2023

https://yle.fi/a/3-12679800

Costs 11 billion euros.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

wallaceToday  09:06 pm JST

Star-Viking

I was providing a comparison. In 2016, the reactor cost was about $5,4 billion. Easy enough to find online. By 2002 the costs have increased to about $15 billion as shown with the two constructed at the Vogtle site in America. Also available online.

2002 costs are $15 billion , but 2016 costs $5.4 billion?

Bargain sale!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I guess you missed my typo correction. Eye test probably,

2022, not 2002.

Got anything to post on the topic?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

if you are that interested read Star-viking archives on Fukushima.

0 ( +1 / -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