|
|
Post by sod on Sept 7, 2012 18:33:00 GMT 9.5
I am curious, what people here think about the new plans for japanese power mix.
I think Reuters has a pretty balanced report on the subject:
Japan new Energy plan: down to 15% nuclear?
So I know, that regulars of this site would advice Japan to expand instead of reducing nuclear power. But i am interested in what you think will happen (or at least be planned) next week....
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 7, 2012 21:39:03 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Sept 10, 2012 17:16:02 GMT 9.5
What one thinks should happen is not always what one thinks will happen. In the case of Japan, let's be realistic: no politician can push for more nuclear power now. On the other hand, economic realities will keep some plants open. So there will be a target of 15% of electricity made from nuclear, the older reactors will have to close. Some politicians will push for more renewables, but we will get more fossil fuels. At least in the beginning, in the long run the security of supply is not ensured, especially for oil...
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 11, 2012 3:59:55 GMT 9.5
the decision to announce an energy strategy for Japan has been postponed (to the end of the week?) www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/japan-nuclear-idUSL3E8KA2BM20120910i started this discussion, because even i am not sure about what to do. I support a quick exit, but i also think that a smooth transition is better than an abrupt change. on the other hand i am worried about the power of the nuclear lobby and i think that the transission period will be used by the nuclear lobby to change the course significantly. a strong sign for this is, that we now often see the number, showing a doubling of electricity prices in a 0% nuclear scenario. What is left out is, that over 30 years basically all scenarios have similar price increases. |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Sept 11, 2012 7:00:07 GMT 9.5
i started this discussion, because even i am not sure about what to do. I support a quick exit, but i also think that a smooth transition is better than an abrupt change. on the other hand i am worried about the power of the nuclear lobby and i think that the transission period will be used by the nuclear lobby to change the course significantly. a strong sign for this is, that we now often see the number, showing a doubling of electricity prices in a 0% nuclear scenario. What is left out is, that over 30 years basically all scenarios have similar price increases. The main problem is that nuclear exit scenarios (or even nuclear reduction scenarios) all conclude to an increase in carbon emissions. Renewables bar hydro are very expensive and require fossil fuel plants to ensure security of supply. When oil supply will start to decrease, fossil fuel prices will become very volatile and the upward trend will accelerate when the world is not in recession. That's why nuclear power will probably come back, and this becomes certain if no cheap and quickly deployable storage solution appears. Frankly, I fail to find any reason to welcome a decrease in nuclear power anywhere in the world. Knowing that it provides a stable price, kills so few people and emits practically no carbon over its life cycle, it must be used in the struggle against climate change. Once carbon emission will be eliminated, it will be possible to scale it down, but not before. And even then, I think there is a pretty strong case for nuclear power. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 13, 2012 6:07:44 GMT 9.5
It looks as if Japan is actually going for a 0% nuclear option in 2030. The link describes the plans by the democratic party in some more detail: www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120913a6.htmlThis would surprise me! -------------------------------- Thanks for the reply, proteos. Any removal of nuclear power must lead to an increased CO2 output in the short term. (no country has a big "cold reserve" of CO2 free power) In the long term, i disagree with you. a switch to alternative energy can happen faster, when countries abandon nuclear power. I prefer the japanes way proposed above to the German path, taken by Chancellor Merkel. Having a strict set of safety rules and a clear maximum running time of nuclear reactors should lead to a smooth transition to renewables. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 15, 2012 9:32:09 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Sept 15, 2012 16:37:26 GMT 9.5
In fact, the government statement appears contradictory, since it envisions a 40-year lifetime, which will make some reactors operate until the 2040s and at the same time want no nuclear power in the 2030s (understand: by december 31st 2039) I find the story by world nuclear news, even if it's business sponsored, more complete in this regard since it also adds what's the official plan to replace nuclear power: and — surprise — it's fossil fuels till well into the 2030s. Japan just scrapped its climate change targets. The quote of Mark Lynas at the end sums up my opinion. Thanks for the reply, proteos. Any removal of nuclear power must lead to an increased CO2 output in the short term. (no country has a big "cold reserve" of CO2 free power) In the long term, i disagree with you. a switch to alternative energy can happen faster, when countries abandon nuclear power. The problem here is that it is the total emitted quantity of carbon dioxyde (and other greenhouses gases) that counts. If we were to continue to send CO2 in the atmosphere like today until 2049 and stop all emissions on 1st january 2050, it will do nothing for climate change. Increasing our emissions right now will make things harder in the future if we ever want to reach the targets laid down in various climate conferences (if it's still possible to reach them, which I doubt). Today there are missing techs to allow renewables like wind and solar to take up the slack. Waiting till 2030 for a saviour technology is no strategy, this is ostrich policy. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 15, 2012 18:24:16 GMT 9.5
let me try again: I am sorry, but i think the news from "world nuclear news" is plain out false. the plan is to limit the "maximum operational life of a nuclear reactor to 40 years.", as outlined in this source which i linked above. www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120913a6.htmlIt does not follow from such a limit, that nuclear power plants will be allowed to run the full 40 years. so the contradiction pointed out in the "world nuclear news" article does not exist. the article also makes a false claim about the response of the japanese people to the different options. it claims: " Around half of people supported the 15% or 0% options for nuclear's share of electricity, compared to the 30% it provided before the Fukushima accident. " In contrast to this claim, the true percentage seems to be as high as 705 to 80%. www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120829004867.htm |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Sept 15, 2012 18:43:54 GMT 9.5
the plan is to limit the "maximum operational life of a nuclear reactor to 40 years.", as outlined in this source which i linked above. www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120913a6.htmlIt does not follow from such a limit, that nuclear power plants will be allowed to run the full 40 years. so the contradiction pointed out in the "world nuclear news" article does not exist. What they say is that it makes the government position far from clear. You find the same in the Reuters story: "By applying a strict 40-year limit on the lifetime of reactors, most will be shut down by the 2030s." While it does not make the claim of exiting nuclear in the 2030s false, the 40 year lifetime limit make it unclear. " Around half of people supported the 15% or 0% options for nuclear's share of electricity, compared to the 30% it provided before the Fukushima accident. " In contrast to this claim, the true percentage seems to be as high as 705 to 80%. www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120829004867.htm On this I agree with you. Yet I don't think it is important, the underlying news is the same: most japanese want nuclear to be throttled down. And finally: do you agree that Japan just ditched its climate targets? |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Sept 15, 2012 20:13:05 GMT 9.5
To add to the fact that the exit-from-nuclear policy is unclear, here is the account of the NYTimes, with an excerpt: |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 16, 2012 9:45:25 GMT 9.5
proteos --- Yes, Japan just ditched its climate targets. 
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Sept 16, 2012 13:43:55 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Sept 16, 2012 13:51:14 GMT 9.5
More contradictory stuff: "The government plans to stick with its policy of supporting the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as part of a fuel recycling program for the time being, it has been learned, although this appears to contradict the goal of ending nuclear power generation by the 2030s." www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T120913004237.htm |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 16, 2012 18:29:51 GMT 9.5
I still disagree with the term "contradiction".
It is a contradiction, when you want to HAVE the cake and EAT it at the same time.
But many people, who want to "phase out the cake business" will start it, by eating a final piece.
this quite often is not a good start, but it is not a contradiction.
the current government of Japan has laid out a strategy. it includes several individual points and plans. like a life time limit of 40 years for reactors and a target of 0% in 2030s.
there are conflicts in the details, but not really a logical contradiction.
There are often problems hidden in the details of plans, which need to be sorted out.
A typical practical problem are the new plants under development. If the government declares the end of these plants, they will be forced to pay compensation.
What they often try to do, is to avoid these costs. They know, that the plan to phase out nuclear and the population will put enormous pressure on the companies, when they decide to continue building those reactors.
-----------------------
but at the end, i do of course agree with you. we will see another enormous betrayal of those promises given to the opponents of nuclear power. many of those minor problems will be used to find loopholes to extend the use of nuclear power.
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Sept 17, 2012 10:55:20 GMT 9.5
Is it possible to get the actual Japanese government policy document rather than a Reuters, Japan Times, or Yomiuri reiteration?
If so does someone know where to find it? Or post the link if it is immediately known?
In Japanese is fine as it can be easily translated. Maybe there is an English version.
I find that journalists, through no deliberate fault (mostly), tend to misinterpret/leave out context when writing to a word and space limit and time deadline.
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 17, 2012 11:08:51 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Sept 17, 2012 14:16:20 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by stevedarden on Sept 19, 2012 13:30:05 GMT 9.5
"Examining Japan’s Energy Choices" is the first balanced analysis I have seen come out of Japan. The two authors are in the Nuclear Energy Group at the Institute of Energy Economics. The report dates back to July (in Japanese). www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a01202/ |
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Sept 19, 2012 14:10:08 GMT 9.5
From what I've read the policy seems to be moving in a direction of phasing out existing plants and continuing the phase in of new plants. In effect a technological upgrade of the fleet, albeit at a lower proportion of the total generating asset base.
Does anyone else arrive at this conclusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 19, 2012 17:46:56 GMT 9.5
I come to the opposite conclusion.
And i am astonished: How do you think a "0% nuclear target" is compatible with a "phase in of new plants."?
again: what is happening is simple: If the japanese government abandons reactors after having given the right to build them, then the government has to pay the costs.
If the government declares a 0% target, but allows to continue the building of planned reactors, it shifts the costs to the company.
|
|
|
|
Post by 5centsonthedollar on Sept 19, 2012 18:08:42 GMT 9.5
Japan's economy minister suggested Wednesday that the Cabinet has stopped short of fully approving a plan to phase out nuclear energy by 2040.
Motoshisa Furukawa said at a press conference that the Cabinet has decided to take the plan to phase out nuclear energy, unveiled last week, "into consideration" when formulating the country's long-term energy policy.
Mr. Furukawa told reporters that it is too early to judge whether it will be possible to phase out nuclear power by the end-2030s goal.
"It is not unusual for the Cabinet to approve a policy in this way," he said. Except it is not quite as simple as you make it out to be. This is political promise made in an election year by a cabinet with a 30% approval rating, NOT a set of stone tablets handed down from Mt. Fuji. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 20, 2012 6:27:38 GMT 9.5
No sod, what it means is that the people in the government don't expect it to actually go through, I mean it is a target set decades in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 20, 2012 8:57:25 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Sept 20, 2012 11:14:17 GMT 9.5
I come to the opposite conclusion. And i am astonished: How do you think a "0% nuclear target" is compatible with a "phase in of new plants."? again: what is happening is simple: If the japanese government abandons reactors after having given the right to build them, then the government has to pay the costs. If the government declares a 0% target, but allows to continue the building of planned reactors, it shifts the costs to the company. The 0% target was reported by the media before the full policy was announced. With the full policy announced there appears to be a shift to a greater regulatory agency, no extensions of existing licences, and allowance of current planned reactors to be built. As can be seen in the links directly above from the WSJ and WNA. Japan has a worse dependency on oil and gas than any country on this planet. They cannot afford to continue down this path of no nuclear and a fossil-renewable mix. Per dollar they get more energy from Uranium than Oil and Gas. Forgetting the climate aspect, fiscally it makes sense to continue with nuclear. |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 20, 2012 22:32:04 GMT 9.5
here is a nice explanation of the process in japanese "terms": ajw.asahi.com/article/views/vox/AJ201209200058(beware, Asahi, which i consider to be the japanese paper with the best articles, has a 3 per month limit..) I am not stupid. Indeed, i was surprised by the move towards 0% (notice my post starting this discussion is about 15%..) the question is, what the effect will be in the end. Making false promises can lead to anger and strengthen the anti-nuclear groups. Even talk about 0% can make it difficult to raise money to build the plants under construction. I do not know, what will happen. That is, why i started this discussion. I am seriously interested in your views about the outcome. (and i prefer a discussion about what you expect to happen, to one about what you want to happen. That i know already!) |
|
|
|
Post by QuarkingMad on Sept 21, 2012 10:30:40 GMT 9.5
here is a nice explanation of the process in japanese "terms": ajw.asahi.com/article/views/vox/AJ201209200058(beware, Asahi, which i consider to be the japanese paper with the best articles, has a 3 per month limit..) I am not stupid. Indeed, i was surprised by the move towards 0% (notice my post starting this discussion is about 15%..) the question is, what the effect will be in the end. Making false promises can lead to anger and strengthen the anti-nuclear groups. Even talk about 0% can make it difficult to raise money to build the plants under construction. I do not know, what will happen. That is, why i started this discussion. I am seriously interested in your views about the outcome. (and i prefer a discussion about what you expect to happen, to one about what you want to happen. That i know already!) Probably be best to leave out the emotive statements? i.e. "And i am astonished: How do you think a "0% nuclear target" is compatible with a "phase in of new plants."?"Astonishment tends to be reserved for the truly outlandish statements. No hard feelings on my end, but just watch the language. I'll put what I said in bullet points as to avoid further confusion: - Old plants -> 0% target
- Constructed and Planned plants -> 15% - 30% - 40% target
They'll never re-license a Gen II BWR. However considering how Onagawa plant handled the above normal ground acceleration with "remarkably" little damage (oil fire in turbine building was the damage) the re-licensing may become based on safety upgrades and not just "old plant = no license". But I'm not holding my breath. We may see a large amount of Nuclear construction in Japan to replace the oldest of plants whilst improving their share of renewables to ensure a stable grid. If business moves offshore so do jobs and in the end radio-phobia may be the least of their problems. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 21, 2012 12:02:26 GMT 9.5
sod --- Yes, the Ashi piece is useful.
QuarkingMad --- I agree that for the sake of continued prosperity Japan has no choice but to use plenty of NPPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 23, 2012 22:49:32 GMT 9.5
I expect some big swings in target numbers, but Japan will end up with a serious reduction of nuclear power. (15%in 2030?!?) I also do not expect a high chance of any new builds going online. (50% per plant?) I am seriously troubled by the first interview with the new "safety watchdog". He is taking a pure pro-nuclear industry position and so he has lost the support of all those who are sceptic of nuclear power, before he even began his work. ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201209220039This is not a clever move, even though those among you who support nuclear might think so. Opinion about nuclear power has taken a massive hit by the Fukushima accident, even among experts and even among nuclear scientists. ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201209220009A new safety watchdog should try to win back support, by showing that the new way is safety first. I think Tanaka failed badly on this topic in his first interview and i have little confidence that this will change in his first actions. |
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 28, 2012 9:37:11 GMT 9.5
The Japanese government is seeking to relax procedures on environmental impact in order to make it easier to build more coal fired power plants. [Power Engineering]
There goes the climate goals.
|
|
