The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOWar in Ukraine eclipses opposition to Japan's nuclear policy shift
By Takaki Tominaga TOKYO©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
34 Comments
Login to comment
blue in green
Propaganda as pablum, for the masses.
When “Scientism”; a sort of political faux science, replaces truth, the grift is set...
Cricky
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.
Cricky
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.
Rodney
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.
garymalmgren
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
Anonymous
”… a pioneer in the introduction of renewable energy …” and best customer of Russian natural gas.
What a charade.
garymalmgren
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
Star-viking
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…
gogogo
This reads like pure propaganda. If the government is going to do this at least make it less obvious.
Fredrik
If the war in Ukraine is the problem, then solve that problem first!
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.
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.
yokohamarides
Amid a significant increase in pro-nuclear power propaganda.
xin xin
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!
Anonymous
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.
Star-viking
wallace
So the reactors are $15 billion, but they’re also $5.4 billion?
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
Hydrogen and ammonia turbines are in their infancy, and have almost zero infrastructure support.
Tell that to the Green movement.
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.
wallace
Star-viking
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.
The current cost of generating 1MWh of renewable energy is an average % of 50.
The nuclear industry, including Japan, receives mass government subsidies.
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%.
None of that is right.
Actually if you read up the Japanese American companies are in production but yes still a way to go.
Which green movement is supporting coal?
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.
painkiller
* 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.
wallace
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
painkiller
wallaceDec. 26 12:46 pm JST
$15 billion is expensive.
wallaceToday 04:10 pm JST
Whoa--now the prices are doubling !!
Why contradict yourself??
wallace
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.
Star-viking
wallace
Your 2016 date looked like a poorly-formed attempt to provide a reference to your statement. As the reference was incomplete, I ignored it.
Do say?
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.
So the grid does not need reinforcement and storage because of the addition of variable renewable energy (VRE)? News to me.
Long way to go, though at least turbines have been run on hydrogen in jets.
Germany’s at least. Oh, they say they want rid of them, but their actions imply the opposite.
That’s what once-in-a-thousand year catastrophic events do.
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…
Star-viking
wallace
Produced by an anti-nuclear organisation, led by someone with no visible scientific qualifications (Mycle Schnider)
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.
Well, FOAK. Even so, the Finns were happy to have their expensive new reactor when Putin was tightening the energy screws.
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.
wallace
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 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
wallace
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.
wallace
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2022 (HTML)
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Who-We-Are.html
wallace
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.
painkiller
wallaceToday 09:06 pm JST
2002 costs are $15 billion , but 2016 costs $5.4 billion?
Bargain sale!
wallace
I guess you missed my typo correction. Eye test probably,
2022, not 2002.
Got anything to post on the topic?
wallace
if you are that interested read Star-viking archives on Fukushima.