Japan drops plans to phase out nuclear power by 2040

[FBaggins]

Japan has effectively abandoned a commitment to end its reliance on nuclear power by 2040 amid pressure from the country's business lobby, dropping a deadline recommended by a cabinet panel only days ago. The cabinet on Tuesday gave only a vague endorsement of the panel's report, released last Friday, and dropped any mention of plans to complete the phase-out some time in the 2030s. The trade and industry minister, Yukio Edano, acknowledged that meeting the target date could prove impossible.

...snip...

The U-turn came after sustained pressure from business and industry leaders, who said the move would harm the economy by forcing firms to shift production overseas due to the high price of imported oil and gas. The panel's recommendation was based on a two-month public consultation on Japan's future energy mix, in which the no-nuclear option proved far more popular than two other choices that involved a limited role for nuclear. Instead, the cabinet said it would take the policy document "into consideration" and listen to the views of the public, the nuclear industry, businesses, and communities that depend on atomic facilities for jobs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/19/japan-2040-nuclear-power-exit

[Systematic Chaos]

1. They have no choice in this matter other than to work their asses off...

...to do everything possible to prevent another Fukushima. Better to spend the money on newer reactors and as close as possible to a perfect safety record.

I never said I was in love with nuclear power, but I understand when it is a necessity.

[longship]

2. I will chime in here to agree with you.

I understand the dangers and the problems, but I just do not see that Japan has many alternatives. They are huge consumers of power and the tsunami wreaked havoc on their infrastructure.

I don't blame them for flip flopping. And I do not blame the public for protesting nuclear. But I don't see much of any other short term solutions.

Others here are vehemently anti-nuclear. I understand their arguments and have sympathy for them. But I do not see practical alternatives with older grid components.

[bananas]

8. The people went a year without nuclear power and want to keep it that way.

The flip-flop is a result of corrupt entrenched industries.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. Yes, we (here in Japan) have gone without nuclear power for a year

People and organizations really made a concerted effort to get through the past two summers in particular by cutting down on energy use, and as a result we did not have any blackouts either time. However, this has led to electric rate increases (just got my notice from TEPCO the other day-- 8.5% increase), and this will hit some industries pretty hard.

[RobertEarl]

19. Whoa! What?

The people of Japan used less energy and now they have to pay MORE?

That simply makes no sense. Can you explain why?

[FBaggins]

20. You're kidding, right?

You really don't see why they're paying more (for less)?

They turn off significant generation that has almost no fuel cost and replace it (to the limited extent that they can) with record imports of gas/oil at prices driven up by supply/demand... and un-retire older fossil generation that is far from current efficiency levels. What would you expect to happen?

[RobertEarl]

21. Way to totally miss the point

Art says they used less energy. And are now paying more.

Try to stick with the truth.

Now, as for the future, yes. TEPCO et al have stranded costs. Costs that will continue to rise as nukes become ever more decommissioned. So, TEPCO needs to find a way to raise funds to pay for a non-performing asset.

Why do people who use less now need to pay more? To cover up the mistakes of the TEPCOs whose power supply has proved to be not needed.

Only a real communist would be in favor of protecting the big conglomerates from their colossal Fukushimas, right?

[FBaggins]

22. Nope... you're aparently left without a clue.

Art says they used less energy. And are now paying more.

Try to stick with the truth.

That is the truth. They're using less power (largely because they don't have a choice), but the power they are using is coming from a dramatically increased amount of imported gas/oil. That costs money. They're not just importing (much) more of the stuff... they are doing so at much higher prices per unit because their demand has driven up prices throughout Asia.

Next you'll express shock that they've lost control of their carbon emissions too, right? "How could they be putting out so much more carbon when they're using less energy? That simply makes no sense!"

Now, as for the future, yes. TEPCO et al have stranded costs.

Their current energy cost woes have nothing to do with reimbursing power companies for stranded costs. That $50+ Billion price tag comes later if they don't get their act together. Their finance minister warns them to prepare for prices to double (or even triple) from 2010 levels.

Why do people who use less now need to pay more?

Because the power they're using costs more to produce than it used to. Amazing that you express shock at just what we predicted would happen a year and a half ago. Less nuclear power in Japan necessarily means more fossil generation at high cost and with higher emissions (all while sacrificing daily just to keep the lights on).

[RobertEarl]

24. You just don't get it

I've heard that before: Nuke power is the cheapest. Cleanest. I won't even mention safest.

All those "Facts" have now been proven to be absolute lies. It costs more and is the dirtiest.

And now the nukies have to find a way to pay for their mistakes and that is why they are charging more.

Someone has to pay, and it won't be the nukies if they can get away with it. Just look at what is happening in Florida.... they are making everyone pay ahead of time for future nukes. It is just a huge ripoff with the only benefits going to the 1% corporations, everyone else is getting screwed.

[FBaggins]

29. You're obviously not paying attention.

Natural gas import prices in japan have been in the $17-18 range. That's five times as much as US gas for electricity generation.

And you really don't see how that could have an impact on prices?

And now the nukies have to find a way to pay for their mistakes and that is why they are charging more.

Nope. You're dead wrong. Even if we accept your spin on whose "mistake" it would be... that bill has not yet been presented. You miss that Japanese utilities have to ask the government for permission to raise rates and so far that has only been to recoup increased fuel costs. The far higher price necessary to reimburse companies for governmental decisions to force them to turn off reactors (if they come at all) are still a long way down the road (and Germany is facing the same problem).

[RobertEarl]

32. So, Japan is getting ripped-off, bigtime?

FB writes:
"That's five times as much as US gas for electricity generation."

No wonder Art is paying more. According to you NG in Japan costs five times as much as in the US.

The poor Japanese people. They cut back and get charged more. Five times as much for the same gas.

[FBaggins]

34. Not really.

It isn't at all "the same gas". Natural gas isn't particularly easy to export/import and there's a severe shortage of ships that can transport it. It's necessarily more expensive than here in the US (where we have a supply glut).

I'd say that somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 of that price is due to such difficulties. Much of the rest of the world is also well above the US price (IOW, ours is artificially lowered due to the glut). There are companies anxious to spend billions of dollars creating (almost from scratch) a LNG export capacity for the US (which will lower global prices and increase US prices... but also help with the trade deficit).

The poor Japanese people. They cut back and get charged more.

You continue to miss the rest of the equation (that was just a single example). They're paying higher fuel costs due to supply/demand and they're using much more fuel. If the price of a thing goes up (for example) 25% per unit (in this case because there are fuel costs for a higher proportion of total generation), it doesn't cut it to decrease your consumption by 10%. You're still paying 12.5% more.

[RobertEarl]

37. Lots of made up numbers there

The real question is.... how many trillions of dollars is it going to cost to clean up Fukushima.

And who is going to pay the bill?

&&&&&&&&&&&
I really am sick of reading the replies here that show not one ounce, or one penny's worth of feelings for what the Japanese people are going through. All I see is: Too bad, so sad, pay up and shut up.

[XemaSab]

38. Explaining simple math

is hating on the people of Japan?

[RobertEarl]

39. I never wrote the word Hate

Funny that you did.

If not showing any compassion for the way the Japanese people are being ripped-off can be called hate...

I'll not argue with you about that.

[FBaggins]

40. Not "made up"... simplified.

You've seen that the actual numbers say the same thing... but couldn't "get it"... so I simplified it for you.

The real question is.... how many trillions of dollars is it going to cost to clean up Fukushima.

Trillions? You've been drinking the coolaid again. It will be incredibly expensive, but nothing close to trillions.

I really am sick of reading the replies here that show not one ounce, or one penny's worth of feelings for what the Japanese people are going through

And you're blind to the fact that it is you that is doing so.

Sad.

[RobertEarl]

41. No.

All I see is "business as usual"

The Japanese people have been taken advantage of. First it was "Trust us. Nukes are cheap and safe."

Now they are paying 5 times as much for NG as we do in the US.

And all this BS here about how hard it is to pump gas is just BS. It is like you all are saying the Japanese people are too stupid to be able to pump gas.

I see the Japanese as being victims... first of the nuclear industry that fucking lied to them and now will take all the money from their pockets to fix their nuclear mess, and second by what is called 'disaster capitalism' which takes advantage of the weak.

Basically what I see here is "too bad, so sad, stfu and pay the bill."

[XemaSab]

42. Why do you think fossil fuels are automatically the right answer?

Please tell me.

[RobertEarl]

43. Why?

Why should i even try to have an intelligent conversation with you? It is like talking to a brick wall.

I mean, here you are trying to ascribe words to me that I never said.

The point is that Japan has been lied to by the big corporations, and now that the corporations have failed, the Japanese people are going to be forced to pay for the corporate failures.

Japan could have lead the world in solar, and geothermal and other alternatives. And if, IF they can survive this corporate failure that has polluted their land like none other, they may just lead the world one day. Until then, you can put me down as feeling the Japanese people have been fucked over. And nothing any of you supposedly progressive-liberals have written here is gonna change that view.

[XemaSab]

44. You don't count yourself as a progressive-liberal?

Please tell me more.

[RobertEarl]

46. Hahahahaha

The support from supposedly liberal-progressives here for the corporations that are screwing Japan is quite disheartening. I figure most of it comes from their support of nukes.

I consider my stance on nukes to be utmost an environmentally correct stance and also a very progressive and liberal stance.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. You don't seem to understand that it is more costly to compress

bottle, and ship overseas Natural Gas in specialized ships, burning oil the whole way to transport it, than it is to pump it out of the ground (which you were going to do anyway) and run it directly to the distribution center in a pipeline and burn it.

[RobertEarl]

48. Do you have a clue

As to how much comes out of Alaska and goes onto ships?

Really am getting tired of this support for big corps screwing Japan. Some folks here should be ashamed of themselves.

I do understand that the power companies in Japan will do anything they can to jack up the price of non-nukes in order to scare the public into allowing them to restart nukes.

[XemaSab]

50. Do you have a clue

as to how much money is being spent on the proposed export terminal at Coos Bay?

Of course not. In your world, natural gas flows out of the ground for free.

However, the people of Japan are going to learn how much it costs because they'll be the ones paying for it.

[RobertEarl]

51. yep Japan is screwed

First lied to about nukes: "Safe and cheap"
Then screwed over again by the big power companies and big oil.

Japan, if they survive, will be using mainly wind, solar and geothermal and lead the world.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. 10-30 billion.

No one really knows for sure. If someone says they do, they are probably lying.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Speaking of geography...

Please try and be serious. The north slope doesn't feed Japan. Most of Japan's NG doesn't even come from the US. What DOES come from the US must come at a premium. There were already existing delivery contracts in place. Additional traffic out of those routes comes at increased cost. LNG transports don't pop into existence out of thin air. They cost almost a quarter billion apiece. They have to be built to increase capacity. Increasing demand without increasing capacity increases prices.

Then there's distance. If you want to divert a shipment of LNG from the south shore of Alaska (Kenai LNG export facility) to Japan instead of dumping it into the distribution system in WA, your transport is now out of circulation for 3700 miles each way, versus 2200 miles. Export from the North Slope would be closer to parity in distance, ah but now you have to factor in that they just applied for a export license to build a liquefaction plant on the north slope in July of this year.

To ship it to south Alaska for export from someplace like Valdez: 23 billion dollars for the plant and port. 200 million per transport ship. (A second study pinned the port and plant cost at 10.8 to 17.6 billion) Neither exist yet. Kenai is already running at capacity, and it is the only plant, period, in the entire US. It costs more to sell that same gas to Japan, as it does to Russia or the US.


http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/NG_MOVE_POE2_A_EPG0_PNG_DPMCF_A.htm
http://www.eia.gov/state/state-energy-profiles.cfm?sid=AK

The United States exports 1,507,000 million cubic feet last year. Of that, only 30,000 million cubic feet came from Alaska.

It would help if you knew more about energy production and distribution. Japan is currently a niche customer for the US, as they are primarily supplied by the middle east, and Australia. Until a north slope LNG facility is opened, or a pipeline from the North Slope to a new facility in Valdez, Alaska is a bit player.

Another metric to consider: LNG ships cost twice as much to build, as a crude oil tanker. There are only 8 shipyards on the planet that can build the damn things AT ALL, and the amount of energy they carry is 4-5x less than the total energy carried by that crude tanker, and the costs of transport are higher, because of the cryogenics required to keep that LNG liquid.

[XemaSab]

23. You honestly don't understand how they could be using less but paying more?

Ever take algebra?

Say apples are $1.00 a pound and kiwifruit are $5.00 a pound.

Every Saturday you go to the store and get 20 lbs of apples, for a total cost of $20.00.

Today there are only 10 lbs of apples on the shelf, so you get 10 lbs of apples plus 5 lbs of kiwifruit for a total cost of $35.00, but you only got 15 lbs of fruit. You're paying more for less.

Japan's run out of apples, so now they're buying the kiwifruit. They're paying more, but they're getting less.

[RobertEarl]

25. That's cute

No. Since they are using less (eating less) it makes sense that they'd be paying less.

Your explanation, while cute as can be, still makes no sense. Unless of course you think nuke power is the cheapest?

[XemaSab]

26. You do get that some types of energy cost more than others?

Right?

[RobertEarl]

27. So

You DO think nukes are cheapest?

Why, after all these posts, anyone would think that for one second is surprising. Yet the surprises keep on coming....

[XemaSab]

28. Where did I say that?

Meanwhile, you don't seem to get that some things are more expensive than keeping an existing nuclear plant open.

[RobertEarl]

30. Like what?

What is more expensive than keeping a nuke plant open? Closing one?

Only thing I can think of that is the highest are the costs of a plant decommission. And taking care of the waste for 100 years. See, the costs for nukes has been hidden. Now that a few have exploded and melted the costs have become ever clearer, and like someone above posted; expect to pay even more.

Why do I feel like I am talking to a brick wall? I thought everybody understood these facts already.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Duh, they only got 15lbs of fruit, of course they are eating less.

The story problem accounted for your meaningless objection.

Nuke power is expensive to build, expensive to shut down. It's not terribly expensive to maintain. It is VERY expensive to spin up old coal and other fossil fuel plants that were shut down, on an emergency basis. It's also costly in human lives, as air quality directly impacts health. There are also significant costs to idling down and offlining a nuclear plant. You can't just turn it off like a car and walk away, so while they are getting no benefit from those reactors in terms of energy production, there is still a significant cost overhead since they exist.

[Nihil]

60. FWIW, that's a good analogy ...

> Japan's run out of apples, so now they're buying the kiwifruit.
> They're paying more, but they're getting less.

Japan's had a major power shortage (by shutting down the reactors)
and now they're buying shitloads of fossil fuels for generation (the "kiwi fruit&quot .
They are paying more (for expensive power) but getting less (reduction in
absolute electricity consumption as noted by Art at the start of the subthread).

It is also an analogy that can't be simplified any further in order to help
those who just cannot understand algebra.



Nice try though.

[NickB79]

31. And all it cost them was $30 billion in fossil fuel imports

Oh yes, let's keep it that way

[RobertEarl]

33. Well

In Japan, according to an 'expert' posting above, it costs five times as much in Japan for NG, than it does for US gas.

Somebody is getting screwed, eh?

[XemaSab]

35. And you don't understand why that is?

Just as the U.S. is preparing to crank up sales of its vast natural-gas supplies abroad, the global market is being reshaped by Japan—which is suddenly retreating from nuclear power after last year's earthquake.

The island nation produces less than 4% of the gas it consumes and must import the rest by ship, a complex and costly process.

North America is seeing the first stirrings of projects aiming to sell newly uncovered natural gas supplies to Japan and elsewhere in Asia. In Australia, Japan's Inpex Corp. and France's Total SA in mid-January gave the green light for a $34 billion plan to develop one of the world's biggest offshore fields. As far away as Mozambique, Japanese companies are buying rights to natural gas with the home market in mind.

"The environment surrounding energy has dramatically changed since March 11," said Tsuyoshi Okamoto, president of Tokyo Gas Co., Japan's largest gas utility.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203824904577215030758114096.html

[NickB79]

36. In the US, we ship NG in pipelines. Japan relies on ships

Very, very complex and expensive ships. And those expensive ships can only offload the LNG at ports specifically designed for LNG transfers.

And NG isn't the only thing they're importing. They've also drastically scaled up their consumption of fuel oil and coal to make up for the closure of nuclear plants.

All this, and they still weren't running at full steam economically. Their economy lost a significant amount of GDP even while burning $30 billion in fossil fuels per year just to keep the lights on and A/C running.

[Art_from_Ark]

61. There are two huge problems with Japan's economy right now

in addition to the energy situation.

One is, the cost of rebuilding from last year's disasters is diverting huge sums of money away from other things (like R&D).

The second is, the overvalued yen is killing companies that rely on exports. For example, one company I know signed contracts with European customers with payment to be made in euros, which at the time were valued at 1 euro = 150 yen. The company figured it had a nice cushion of profitability, which it could have if the euro fell to 130 or even 125 yen. However, with the euro currently barely hovering above the 100 yen level, the company is losing big money by selling to Europe. The same goes for contracts based on US, Canadian, and Australian dollars.

[bananas]

10. The head of METI knows that isn't true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014186971

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:30 PM

UPDATE: Japan Can Eliminate Nuclear Power By 2030 - METI Minister

Source: Wall Street Journal

Japan's trade and industry minister on Tuesday said that phasing out nuclear power by 2030 is possible and would not be a drag on the domestic economy.

"We can do it," Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yukio Edano told reporters at a press conference, referring to reducing Japan's reliance on nuclear energy to zero.

"I don't think the zero scenario is negative for Japan's economy. On the contrary, it can create growth" by driving technological innovation in renewable energy and energy efficiency, he said.

<snip>

Mr. Edano added that phasing out nuclear energy is as least as possible as the other two options. His comments come after Prime Minister Noda instructed his Cabinet late Monday to look into the implications of deciding to eliminate nuclear power.

<snip>

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120806-716903.html

[longship]

12. Well, there you go.

Good if they can do it.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Japan is in a pinch. More interesting will be the full course to changeover in Germany.

Where resources, and conditions are more favorable. I'm rooting for Germany, actually, because they will help forge a path for everyone else.

[marions ghost]

4. Oh Sure

let's just pretend Fukushima didn't happen and "move on..."

If they don't learn from this, they are pretty stupid.

[joshcryer]

5. It's called math.

I don't think that they are pretending Fukushima didn't happen, they did the math and it didn't work out.

[marions ghost]

6. the math might work

if you consider the true cost of nuclear power.

[bananas]

9. The head of METI said the math does work for zero nuclear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014186971

[marions ghost]

11. thanks for that corroboration

& link to the statement.

I hope this minister can have some influence.

[bananas]

7. No, businesses concerned with short-term profits put the pressure on. nt

[Doug.Goodall]

14. Off topic but - Why isn't Kristopher in this thread?

Kristopher had ties to Japan I believe.

[FBaggins]

15. He could be focused on the Fall elections.

I know that I haven't spent much time here either.

I suppose we could hold out hope that he's seen the error of his ways and watched how truly nutty some on the anti side have gotten... but I'm not holding my breath.

[RobertEarl]

16. The true nuts stay away, eh?

Notice how there are so few pro-nukies here?

It would sure be interesting to see a polll of DU: Thumbs up or thumbs down on more Chernobyls or Fukushimas.

[FBaggins]

17. Hardly.

If anything... they come a-flocking like gold bugs and Paulites.

[RobertEarl]

18. Yes. I see your post.

Funny about gold bugs. They also think what they are selling is gonna keep rising. Just like nukies.

And dear Paul.... he's a nutty-ass-nuke-loving dumbass. He fits right in with nuke power. Have you been thinking about him a lot?

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Source?

Paul would end subsidies to the nuclear industry in the United States, if he had his way.
Is that 'pro nuke'?

[RobertEarl]

52. You sure know a lot about Paul, huh?

You have a source for that claim?
You do realize that taking away subsidies would doom nukes, right?

I don't have a clue what he sucks at now.
Years ago he was all in favor of nukes and for selling off our National Parks, so fuck him.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Helps to know your enemy.

At least on some issues. I happen to agree with a couple of his positions on foreign policy, for instance. But I digress.

Ron Paul opposed the Yucca Mountain disposal project. A win for environmentalists. He practically took a dump on the stage in one of the early primary debates over it. Every rethuglican in the room gave him the stink eye for siding with people like Harry Reid over it.

"I've opposed this. I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"? I think that's wrong. The government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. Nuclear energy is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage. The more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved. "
-RP CNN debate


This actually makes Ron Paul much more of an environmentalist than any other Republican I am aware of, because nuclear is insanely expensive to produce. I don't know if smearing him just makes you feel better about the world or what, but it helps to be accurate in your criticism of other people if you want the people you are arguing with to take you seriously.

[RobertEarl]

56. Feeling better?

You get your kicks hounding me don't you?

Fuck Ron Paul.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Pass, he's pretty old.

I usually try to discourage anti-ron paul rhetoric anywhere for two reasons.

1. He's unelectable. Let him do his thing. He's less harmful to us as a failed presidential candidate, than he is as a member of the house of representatives.
2. It totally sunders the republican party.

All the pro-ron-paul voters going over to Johnson as a protest vote robs Romney of votes. Win win win.

Happened to us with Nader. Now it's their turn. I want a second term for Obama, and this is a wedge for the Republican Party. We should be tying to drive that wedge as deep as possible.

[Art_from_Ark]

58. If I might interject a couple of things here

First, looking over my rate increase notice, I find that TEPCO's electric rate increase, which has taken effect for electric power consumed from September 1 onward, is an average of 8.5% but the actual increase depends on how the house, office or shop is wired. For example, small apartments are usually wired for 20A, and the expected rate increase for such users is 3.5%. The average house is wired for 30A or 40A, and the rate increases will be 4.5% and 6.9%, respectively. The houses that are wired for the maximum usage, 60A, can expect an increase of more than 10%.

Shops and offices wired for 12kVA/960kWh can expect a 12.7% increase, while those wired for 8kVA/470kWh will pay 8% more.

The official reason for the increase is higher costs associated with thermal power generation.

As for natural gas, there are two types used in Japan-- "toshi gas" (=regular natural gas) and propane. The type of gas that is used depends on how the house is set up. Rates vary considerably, with prices here in the Tokyo area being the highest in Japan. By comparison, rates for colder areas of Japan such as Hokkaido and the Sea of Japan coast are somewhat lower.

I don't know what the gas rates are in the US, but the rate for regular natural gas in this part of Japan is 503 yen (more than $6) per cubic meter. That doesn't include the 1500 yen base fee. Propane gas, on the other hand, is about half that price. Natural/propane gas can also be less expensive if it is purchased through a cooperative.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. A few more comments and observations

The average Japanese home consumes natural gas for basically two types of uses: heating water, and cooking. Cooking is usually done with a tabletop cookstove that does not include an oven. Water for bathing, washing dishes, etc., is heated on demand, rather than stored as hot water in a giant tube. Water in a bathtub can also be reheated using on-demand heating system.

Central heating is virtually non-existent in Japanese homes-- some homes (like mine) use electric heaters, others use kerosene stoves or some variation thereof. Clothes dryers are also extremely uncommon, as most households will hang clothes up to dry, outside in good weather, inside in bad weather.