Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita

Japan’s Nuclear Energy Policy after the
Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Feb. 29, 2012
,

Yuji Morita
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan
（IEEJ）
http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/

Issues
1.
1 Short-Term ：Response to the electricity shortage
(1) Shortage of electricity supply and the effort of electricity saving
(Winter and Summer 2012)
(2) Power generation mix and fossil fuel consumption

2. Medium- to Long-Term : Review of the Strategic Energy Plan
Medium Long Term
(1) Nuclear Energy policy
(2) Energy Conservation policy
(3) Renewable Energy policy
(4) Procurement of Fossil Energy
( )
(5) Global Warming
g

Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited

The Great East Japan Earthquake
 Date：14：46, 11th March, 2011
 Main h k Magnitude : 9.0
M i shock : M it d 9 0
• Hypocenter：130km off the coast
of Miyagi Pref. （depth ； 24km
■PWR source area ; more than 400km
■APWR long, 200km wide）
■BWR • Tsunami：Max. Height 40.5m at
■ABWR Miyako City, Iwate Pref.
 Aftershocks :
Tohoku • Magnitude 7 or greater : 6 times
Onagawa
TEPCO ■No.１ 52.4
• Magnitude 6 or greater : 96 times
Kashiwazaki Kariwa ■No.２ 82.5 • Magnitude 5 or greater : 580
■No.１ 110.0 ■No.３ 82.5 times
■No.２ 110.0
■No.３ 110.0
TEPCO  Casualties
Fukushima Daiichi
■No.４ 110.0
■N ４ 110 0 ■No.１ 46.0 • Dead : over 15 700
15,700
■No.５ 110.0 ■No.２ 78.4 • Missing: over 4,500
■No.６ 135.6 ■No.３ 78.4
■No.７ 135.6
• Injured: over 5,700
■No.４ 78.4
■No.５ 78.4
• Evacuees:Over 124,000
■No ６ 110 0
■No.６ 110.0 Damaged Stocks in Disaster
TEPCO Areas
Fukushima Daini
■No.１ 110.0 • Buildings : approx. 10.4
■No.２ 110.0 trillion Yen
■No.３ 110.0 • Lifeline Utilities : approx. 1.3
pp
■No.４ 110.0
■N ４ 110 0 trillion Yen
• Social Infrastructure : approx. 2.2
trillion Yen
• Others : approx. 3.0 trillion Yen
(Source）The Japan Meteorological Agency
• Total : approx 16 9 trillion Yen
approx. 16.9

Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 3

Restricted Area, Deliberate Evacuation Area And Regions including Specific
Spots Recommended for Evacuation (As of September 30, 2011)
p ( p , )  At 15:36 on March 12, an explosion
12
occurred in Unit 1 of the Fukushima Dai-
ichi NPS.
 At 18:25 on March 12, the Nuclear
Emergency Response Headquater-
g y p q
NERHQ instructed the Fukushima
Prefectural Governor and relevant local
governments to issue an evacuation
order to citizens within a 20km radius of
the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS
Dai ichi NPS.
 The results of radiation monitoring
showed there were areas with high
levels of radiation dose even in areas
more than 20km from the Fukushima
Dai-ichi NPS.
 On April 22, the NERHQ established
deliberate evacuation zones and
emergency evacuation p p
g y preparation
zones.
 The NERHQ provided those
municipalities with a directive to tell
residents in the former zones to be
prepared to leave their homes in an
evacuation after a period of
approximately one month.
 Evacuees: est. 113,000



(SOURCE) Fukushima Prefectural Government
 On September 30, 2011, Japanese
30 2011
government decided to lift the
Evacuation-Prepared Areas in Case
of Emergency designation
 Japanese government is taking
0μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜1.0μSv/ｈ measures to push ahead with
1.0μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜1.9μSv/ｈ decontamination work to eliminate
1.9μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜3.8μSv/ｈ radioactivity-related anxieties as
3.8μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜9.5μSv/ｈ early as possible in accordance with
9.5μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜19.0μSv/ｈ
9 5 S /ｈ≦Ob d D t ＜19 0 S /ｈ opinions of the International
i i f th I t ti l
19.0μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data Commission on Radiological
(SOURCE) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 12 Sept. 2011 Protection- ICRP


 The Government will take the lead in efforts to
engage in decontamination including as an
decontamination,
initial measure the maximal utilization of the
220 billion yen in reserve funds.
 However, the disastrous earthquake and
Tsunami has left innumerable disaster waste
such as debris and rubble of the smashed
houses, buildings and other concrete
structures, and scrapped cars and ships.
 The total quantity of the disaster waste is
estimated to amount 22.5 million tons.
However, only 1.2 million tons, 5% was
(SOURCE) Miyagi Prefectural Government processed and disposed as of 20 Feb. 2012


Current Issues
 Currently 52 nuclear reactors out of a total of 54 are shut down due either
y
to the earthquake or routine inspections, including the Hamaoka nuclear
power plants following the request of Former Prime Minister Naoto Kan
 Remaining 2 reactors in operation are due for regular 13-month
g p g
inspections by May 2012
 The Japanese government released on July 11th 2011 their unified views
that the nuclear plants must undergo “stress tests” before they are
stress tests
allowed to restart
 The government further announced that primary and secondary stress
tests should be carried out to determine whether a dormant reactor could
be restarted or whether an operating reactor should be shutdown,
respectively
 If no nuclear power stations are to return from their routine turnaround
turnaround,
all nuclear plants in Japan will have gone offline by May 2012, having
significant impact on the fossil fuel requirement, although the remaining
thermal power’s capacity to accommodate incremental requirements is
power s
limited
 Thermal power stations will have to be kept operating at extremely high
rates unless economic contractions or significant power savings take
place

Japan’s Nuclear Plants（Before Mar.11）
■PWR
■APWR ●Operation
■BWR ▲Inspection
Hokkaido
■ABWR Hokkaido ▼Trouble etc.
Tomari
■No.１ 57.9 Tomari
■No.２ 57.9 ●No.１ 57.9
■No.３ 91.2 ●No.２ 57.9
Kansai Japan Atomic Power Co. ●No.３ 91.2
Tohoku Kansai Japan Atomic Power Co.
Co
Takahama Tsuruga
T Tohoku
Higashi-Dori
■No.１ 82.6 ■No.１ 35.7 Takahama Tsuruga
■No.１ 110.0 ▲No.１ 82.6 ▲No.１ 35.7
Higashi-Dori
■No.２ 82.6 ■No.２116.0 Hokuriku ▲No.１ 110.0
■No.３ 87.0 ●No.２ 82.6 ●No.２116.0 Hokuriku
Shika
■No.４ 87.0 ●No.３ 87.0
■No.１ 54.0 Shika
Mihama ●No.４ 87.0 ▼No.１ 54.0
■No.２ 120.6
■No.１ 34.0 Mihama ●No.２ 120.6
■No.２ 50.0 ▲No.１ 34.0
Tokyo
■No.３ 82.6 ●No.２ 50.0 Tokyo
Kashiwazaki Kariwa Tohoku
Ohi ●No.３ 82.6
●N ３ 82 6
■No.１ 110.0 Onagawa Kashiwazaki Kariwa Tohoku
■No.１ 117.5 ■No.２ 110.0
Ohi ●No.１ 110.0
■No.１ 52.4 ●No.１ 117.5
Onagawa
■No.２ 117.5 ■No.３ 110.0 ▲No.２ 110.0
■No.２ 82.5 ●No.１ 52.4
■No.３ 118.0 ●No.２ 117.5 ▲No.３ 110.0
■No.４ 110.0 ■No.３ 82.5 ▲No.２ 82.5
■No.４ 118.0 ■No.５ 110.0 ●No.３ 118.0 ▲No.４ 110.0 ●No.３ 82.5
■No.６ 135.6 ●No.４ 118.0 ●No.５ 110.0
■No.７ 135.6 ●No.６ 135.6
Chugoku ●No.７ 135.6
Shimane Tokyo g
Chugoku
■No.１ 46.0 Fukushima Daiichi Shimane Tokyo
■No.２ 82.0 ■No.１ 46.0 ▲No.１ 46.0 Fukushima Daiichi
■No.２ 78.4 ●No.２ 82.0 ●No.１ 46.0
■No.３ 78.4 ●No.２ 78.4
■No.４ 78.4 ●No.３ 78.4
Japan Atomic Power Co. ■No.５ 78.4 ▲No.４ 78.4
■Tokai Daini 110.0 ■No.６ 110.0 Japan Atomic Power Co. ▲No.５ 78.4
Chubu ●Tokai Daini 110.0 ▲No.６ 110.0
Hamaoka C ubu
Chubu
■No.３ 110.0 Hamaoka
Shikoku ■No.４ 113.7 Tokyo ▲No.３ 110.0
Ikata ■No.５ 138.0 Fukushima Daini Shikoku ●No.４ 113.7 Tokyo
Kyushu ■No.１ 56.6 ■No.１ 110.0 Ikata ●No.５ 138.0 Fukushima Daini
Genkai ■No.２ 56.6 ■No.２ 110.0 ●No.１ 56.6 ●No.１ 110.0
Kyushu
■No.１ 55.9 ■No.３ 89.0 ■No.３ 110.0 ●No.２ 56.6 ●No.２ 110.0
Genkai
■No.２ 55.9 ■No.４ 110.0 ●No.３ 89.0 ●No.３ 110.0
●No.１ 55.9
Kyushu ■No.３118.0 ▲No.２ 55.9 ●No.４ 110.0
Sendai ■No.４118.0
■N ４118 0 Kyushu ▲No.３118.0
▲N ３118 0
■No.１ 89.0 Sendai ●No.４118.0
■No.２ 89.0 ●No.１ 89.0
●No.２ 89.0

54 Units, Total Capacity 48,960 MW 38 Units, Total Capacity 35,705 MW
as of Feb. 2011
fF b were i operation as of Mar 10, 2011
in ti f M 10
Source : IEEJ


Japan’s Nuclear Plants（After Mar.11）
●Operation ●Operation
▲Inspection ▲Inspection
▼Trouble etc. Hokkaido ▼Trouble etc.
Hokkaido
Tomari ×Damaged Tomari ×Damaged
▲No.１ 57.9 ▲No.１ 57.9
●No.２ 57.9 ▲No.２ 57.9
●No.３ 91.2 ●No.３ 91.2
Kansai Kansai Japan Atomic Power Co.
Japan Atomic Power Co. Tohoku
Tohoku Takahama Tsuruga
Takahama Tsuruga Higashi-Dori
Higashi-Dori ▲No.１ 82.6 ▲No.１ 35.7
▲No.１ 82.6 ▲No.１ 35.7 ▲No.１ 110.0
▲No.１ 110.0 ▲No.２ 82.6 ▼No.２116.0
●No.２ 82.6 ▼No.２116.0 Hokuriku
Hokuriku
▲No.３ 87.0
▲No ３ 87 0
●No.３ 87.0 Shika
Shika ▲No.４ 87.0 ▼No.１ 54.0
▲No.４ 87.0 ▼No.１ 54.0 Mihama ▲No.２ 120.6
Mihama ▲No.２ 120.6 ▲No.１ 34.0
▲No.１ 34.0 ▲No.２ 50.0
●No.２ 50.0 Tokyo
Tokyo ▲No.３ 82.6 Kashiwazaki Kariwa
▲No.３ 82.6 Kashiwazaki Kariwa Ohi
Tohoku
Tohoku ▲No.１ 110.0 Onagawa
Ohi ▲No.１ 110.0 ▲No.１ 117.5
Onagawa ▲No.２ 110.0 ×No.１ 52.4
▲No.１ 117.5 ▲No.２ 110.0 ▲No.２ 117.5
×No.１ 52.4 ▲No.３ 110.0 ×No.２ 82.5
●No.２ 117.5
●No ２ 117 5 ▲No.３ 110.0
▲N ３ 110 0 ▲No.３ 118.0
▲N ３ 118 0
×No.２ 82.5 ▲No.４ 110.0 ×No.３ 82.5
▲No.３ 118.0 ▲No.４ 110.0 ▲No.４ 118.0
×No.３ 82.5 ▲No.５ 110.0
▲No.４ 118.0 ●No.５ 110.0 ●No.６ 135.6
●No.６ 135.6 ▲No.７ 135.6
●No.７ 135.6 Chugoku
Chugoku Shimane Tokyo
Shimane Tokyo ▲No.１ 46.0 Fukushima Daiichi
▲No.１ 46.0 Fukushima Daiichi ▲No.２ 82.0 ×No.１ 46.0
●No.２ 82.0 ×No.１ 46.0 ×No.２ 78.4
×No.２ 78 4
N ２ 78.4 ×No.３ 78.4
×N ３ 78 4
×No.３ 78.4 ×No.４ 78.4
×No.４ 78.4 Japan Atomic Power Co. ×No.５ 78.4
Japan Atomic Power Co. ×No.５ 78.4 ×Tokai Daini 110.0 ×No.６ 110.0
×Tokai Daini 110.0 ×No.６ 110.0 Chubu
Chubu Hamaoka
Hamaoka ▲No.３ 110.0
Shikoku ▼No.４ 113.7 Tokyo
▲No.３ 110.0
Tokyo
y Ikata ▼No.５ 138.0 Fukushima Daini
Shikoku ▼No.
▼No.４ 113.7
Fukushima Daini ▲No.１ 56.6 ×No.１ 110 0
１ 110.0
Ikata ▼No.５ 138.0 Kyushu
●No.１ 56.6 ×No.１ 110.0 Genkai ▲No.２ 56.6 ×No.２ 110.0
Kyushu ▲No.３ 89.0 ×No.３ 110.0
Genkai ●No.２ 56.6 ×No.２ 110.0 ▲No.１ 55.9
×No.３ 110.0 ▲No.２ 55.9 ×No.４ 110.0
●No.１ 55.9 ▲No.３ 89.0
×No.４ 110.0 Kyushu ▲No.３118.0
▲No.２ 55.9 Sendai
Kyushu ▲No.４118.0
▲No.３118.0 ▲No.１ 89.0
Sendai ●No.４118.0 ▲No.２ 89.0
▲No.１ 89.0 Source : IEEJ
●No.２ 89.0
●N ２ 89 0

15 Units, Total Capacity 13,255 MW 2 Units, Total Capacity 2,268 MW
Were in operation in Aug. 2011 are in operation as of Feb. 29, 2011

 Of 54 nuclear power plants installed, only 2 nuclear power plants of total 2.268 GW
are operating as of Feb. 2012
 The 2.268 GW represents 4.6% of total installed nuclear capacity of 48.96 GW

Electricity Supply in Summer 2011
70.0
64.3
64 3
GW During the record 38.1℃
60.0 heatwaves in the
summer 2010, Tepco 60.0
saw the 59.99 GW 35.7℃
50.0 power on July 23 as its
highest power demand
demand.
49.2
40.0
36.1℃
30.0
24 Jul 01
24-Jul-01
23-Jul-10
20.0
18-Aug-11

10.0
Hourly Electricity Demand in TEPCO Area
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Planned Power-saving Measures for Summer 2011
 Demand restriction target was set at 15% reduction for all large-volume
customers (enterprises with contract for supply of 500kW or more), small-volume
customers and households (effective until September 30)
 To suppress the electricity-consumption peaks systematically, restriction on use
of electricity was imposed on large-volume-electricity customers (Tohoku: until
September 9, Tokyo: until September 22).
 E ti t d Reserve rate: Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO): -10.3%
Estimated R t T k El t i P C (TEPCO) 10 3%
Tohoku Electric Power Company (Tohoku EPCO): -7.4%)

Electricity Saving Effort by Sector in Summer 2011
Peak Electricity Demand in TEPCO Area
70.0
GW 59.99
60.0
Large 49.22
50.0 Enterprise 20.5 ▲6.0GW
≧500kW
（▲29％）
40.0 14.5
Small
p
Enterprise
30.0 ＜500kW ▲4.0GW
21.5 （▲19％）
17.5
20.0

10.0 Household ▲1 0GW
▲1.0GW
18.0 （▲6％） 17.0
0.0
July 23, 2010 August 18, 2011

 Thanks to cooperation in electricity saving and the relatively low temperature,
reduction of over 15% was realized (-15.8% in Tohoku and -18.0% in Tokyo at the
peak)
 Restriction on the use of electricity in the earthquake-affected area was lifted
(from September 5)
 Restriction on the use of electricity in TEPCO area was lifted earlier than
scheduled (September 22 was changed to September 9)
h d l d (S t b h dt S t b


Nuclear Power Plant Operation
90 Nuclear Plant Operation Rate % 90
GWH (Right A i )
(Ri ht Axis) ％
80 80
5.3% Hydro
70 70 5.4%
Nuclear
N l 8.0%
28.1% 60 60 Geothermal

50 50 Solar
Wind
40 40 Thermal
Hydro
30 30 Nuclear
66.6% Thermal 86.6%
20 20

10 10

0 0
Apr

Apr

Apr

Apr
Aug

Aug

Aug

Aug
May

Nov

May

Nov

May

Nov

May

Nov
Jul
Oct

Jul
Oct

Jul
Oct

Jul
Oct
Mar

Mar

Mar

Mar
Jan
Feb

Jun
Sep
Dec
Jan
Feb

Jun
Sep
Dec
Jan
Feb

Jun
Sep
Dec
Jan
Feb

Jun
Sep
Dec
2008 2009 2010 2011
Source : IEEJ

 As the nuclear power used to supply a quarter of Japan's electricity demand, a
complete loss of them will have a serious impact on electricity supply nationwide
 The gradual loss of generation capacity will make it difficult for the utilities to
cope with peak electricity demand in the Summer 2012.
 This will seriously affect industrial activity, etc.


Electricity Supply in Winter 2012
Eastern Japan, 3 Power Utilities Central and Western Japan, 6 Power Utilities
Total
Hokkaido Tohoku Tokyo Subtotal Chubu Kansai HokurikuChugoku Shikoku Kyusyu Subtotal
Maximum demand 575 1,350 5,150 7,075 2,234 2,549 509 1,018 520 1,482 8,312 15,387
Dec. Supply capabilities 627 1,279
1 279 5,494
5 494 7,400
7 400 2,387
2 387 2,563
2 563 548 1,070
1 070 537 1,463
1 463 8,568
8 568 15,968
15 968
2011 Supply reserve 52 ▲ 71 344 325 153 14 39 52 17 ▲ 19 256 581
Supply reserve rate％ 9.0% -5.3% 6.7% 4.6% 6.8% 0.5% 7.6% 5.1% 3.3% -1.3% 3.1% 3.8%
Maximum demand 579 1,390 5,150 7,119 2,342 2,665 528 1,074 520 1,533 8,662 15,781
Jan. Supply capabilities 650 1,342 5,457 7,449 2,487 2,477 561 1,146 544 1,499 8,714 16,163
2012 Supply reserve 71 ▲ 48 307 330 145 ▲ 188 33 72 24 ▲ 34 52 382
Supply reserve rate％ 12.3% -3.4% 6.0% 4.6% 6.2% -7.1% 6.2% 6.7% 4.6% -2.2% 0.6% 2.4%
Maximum demand 563 1,370 5,150 7,083 2,342 2,665 528 1,074 520 1,474 8,603 15,686
Supply capabilities 649 1,364 5,375 7,388 2,487 2,412 559 1,146 531 1,506 8,641 16,029
Feb
Supply reserve 86 ▲6 225 305 145 ▲ 253 31 72 11 32 38 343
Supply reserve rate％ 15.3% -0.5% 4.4% 4.3% 6.2% -9.5% 5.9% 6.7% 2.1% 2.2% 0.4% 2.2%
Maximum demand 545 1,270
1 270 5,023
5 023 6,838
6 838 2,175
2 175 2,459
2 459 496 984 469 1,377
1 377 7,960
7 960 14,798
14 798
Supply capabilities 581 1,357 5,205 7,143 2,343 2,265 533 1,083 530 1,437 8,190 15,334
Mar
Supply reserve 36 87 182 305 168 ▲ 194 37 99 61 60 230 536
Supply reserve rate％ 6.7% 6.9% 3.6% 4.5% 7.7% -7.9% 7.5% 10.0% 13.0% 4.4% 2.9% 3.6%
(Source: Energy and Environment Council, July 29, 2011)

 Japanese government announced on November 1, 2011 a request for electricity
conservation during this winter heating season.
 As peak demand in winter is lower than that in summer, it is forecast that the
national average reserve capacity will fall within the range of 2.4% for January
and 2.2% for February, slightly below the 3% guideline for stable supply.


Electricity Supply in Summer 2012
Based on the Summertime Peak Demand (daily maximum demand) in FY 2010
Eastern Japan, 3 Power Utilities Central and Western Japan, 6 Power Utilities
Total
Hokkaido Tohoku Tokyo Subtotal Chubu Kansai Hokuriku Chugoku Shikoku Kyusyu Subtotal
Maximum demand 506 1,480 6,000 7,986 2,709 3,138 573 1,201 597 1,750 9,968 17,954
Aug. Supply capabilities 474 1,485 5,193 7,152 2,750 2,533 565 1,234 529 1,534 9,145 16,297
2012 Supply reserve ▲ 32 5 ▲ 807 ▲ 834 41 ▲ 605 ▲8 33 ▲ 68 ▲ 216 ▲ 823 ▲ 1 656
1,656
Supply reserve rate％ -6.4% 0.3% -13.4% -10.4% 1.5% -19.3% -1.5% 2.7% -11.3% -12.3% -8.3% -9.2%

The Maximum Demand is Estimated at the FY 2011 Summertime Actual Demand
Eastern Japan 3 Power Utilities
Japan, Central and Western Japan, 6 Power Utilities
Japan
Total
Hokkaido Tohoku Tokyo Subtotal Chubu Kansai Hokuriku Chugoku Shikoku Kyusyu Subtotal
Maximum demand 485 1,246 4,922 6,653 2,520 2,784 533 1,083 544 1,544 9,008 15,661
Aug. Supply capabilities 474 1,485 5,193 7,152 2,750 2,533 565 1,234 529 1,534 9,145 16,297
2012 Supply reserve ▲ 11 239 271 499 230 ▲ 251 32 151 ▲ 15 ▲ 10 137 636
Supply reserve rate％ -2.3%
2 3% 19.2%
19 2% 5.5%
5 5% 7.5%
7 5% 9.1%
9 1% -9.0%
9 0% 5.9%
5 9% 13.9%
13 9% -2.7%
2 7% -0.6%
0 6% 1.5%
1 5% 4.1%
4 1%

 If the summer peak demand will revive like the extremely hot summer in 2010 while
nuclear power plants will not resume operation, there will be a supply deficit of as
much as 16.56 GW
 Assuming a demand level similar to the summer in 2011 when economic activities
were low reflecting the effects of earthquake and tsunami and conservation
measures were taken extensively, a capacity margin of 4.1% will be secured as a
nationwide average
 However, supply deficits are still anticipated in the service areas of Hokkaido,
Kansai,
Kansai Shikoku and Kyushu EPCs with high nuclear power ratios


Measures to Increase Electricity Supply
【Government 】
 Various deregulations
 Exemption of Environmental Impact Assessment Act when expanding capacity of thermal power plant
 Approve the delay of periodic inspection of thermal power plants
 Promotion of private and distributed electric power generation
 Encourage private generators to sell electricity support for installation and fuel cost
electricity,
【Electric Power Companies】
 Restore damaged thermal power plants
 Restart long-idled thermal power plants
 I t ll new power generator for emergency (gas turbine etc.)
Install t f ( t bi t )

Summer Winter Summer
（in GW） * Reserve rate: Index
2011 2011/12 2012
Maximum electricity demand 179.54
179 54 158.11
158 11 179.54
179 54 to show how the
Supply capabilities 174.71 156.98 162.97 supply capacity is in
Nuclear 11.76 4.09 0.00 excess of the demand.
Thermal 129.31 126.85 132.00 At least 3% and
Recovery of affected thermal p
y power p
plants 12.43 1.53 1.35 usually 8% or more is
y %
Adjustment of periodic inspection timing 2.20 4.87 1.94 required.
Resumption of long-term idle thermal power plants 1.96 0.22 0.00
Utilization of private power generation 2.85 2.06 1.64
New installation of emergency power sources 1.51 1.79 2.64
Hydro 12.87
12 87 10.24
10 24 12.96
12 96
Pumped-storage power generation 20.86 15.93 18.04
Geothermal, etc. 0.35 0.43 0.47
Electricity trades among power utilities, etc. (0.44) (0.57) (0.49)
(
(4.83)
) (
(1.13)
) (
(16.56))
Supply reserve rate
-2.7% -0.7% -9.2%


Measures to Increase Electricity Supply
【Electric Power Companies】
 Increase operation of natural gas and oil fired power plants

Fuel Consumption of Thermal Power Plant
600
Oil
TJ
Coal
500 LNG

400

300

200

100

0
Aug

Aug

Aug

Aug
Apr

Apr

Apr

Apr
May

Nov

May

Nov

May

Nov

May

Nov
Oct

Oct

Oct

Oct
Jan
Feb

Jun
Jul
Sep

Jan
Feb

Jun
Jul
Sep

Jan
Feb

Jun
Jul
Sep

Jan
Feb

Jun
Jul
Sep

Jan
Dec

Dec

Dec

Dec
Mar

Mar

Mar

Mar
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Oil Coal LNG
（TJ） Oil Coal LNG Total Mil. KL Mil. Ton Mil.Ton
2008 927 1,493 2,286 4,705 2008 22.99 53.30 41.81
2009 409 1,335 2,158 3,902 2009 10.10 47.66 39.48
2010 399 1,412 2,233 4,044 0 0
2010 98
9.87 50 0
50.40 40.86
0 86
2011 715 1,400 2,686 4,801 2011 17.77 49.98 49.13
（％） 79.3% -0.8% 20.3% 18.7% （％） 80.0% -0.8% 20.3%
Source : IEEJ

Increase in Energy Import
【Energy Import】
Petroleum Petroleum
Crude Oil LNG Coal
Products Total
×1000 KL ×1000 Ton
2005 248,822 58,046 306,868 58,014 180,808
2006 246,734 58,227 304,961 62,189 177,209
2007 239,608 55,246 294,854 66,816 186,486
2008 241,766
241 766 52,662
52 662 294,429
294 429 69,263 191,671
69 263 191 671
2009 213,000 48,233 261,233 64,552 161,811
2010 214,618 51,929 266,546 70,008 184,560
2011 208,872 56,579 265,451 78,532 175,223
（％） -2.7% 9.0% -0.4% 12.2% -5.1%

【Energy Import – Million US$】
Total Import Petroleum Petroleum Energy Share
Crude Oil LNG Coal
Trade Products Total Total ％
2005 518,634 79,997 19,741 99,731 18,076 13,748 131,555 25.4%
2006 579,305 99,237 24,161 123,398 22,882 13,872 160,152 27.6%
2007 621,080 104,608 25,277 129,885 26,704 14,778 171,368 27.6%
2008 756,098 154,975 34,149 189,123 44,717 29,331 263,172 34.8%
2009 552,261 81,278 18,644 99,922 30,412 22,020 152,353 27.6%
2010 691,453 106,906 26,970 133,876 39,454 24,049 197,379 28.5%
2011 ,
852,340 142,865
, 38,963
, 181,828
, 59,969
, 30,650
, 272,447
, 32.0%
（％） 23.3% 33.6% 44.5% 35.8% 52.0% 27.4% 38.0% -
Source : IEEJ

 In Jan. 2012, TEPCO announced an average 17% increases in electricity tariffs
for consumers due to rises in power plant feedstock supply costs following the
closure of nuclear power plants in Japan.
 Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has conditionally
approved in Feb. 2012 the release of 690 billion Yen (USD8.8 billion) in financial
support to TEPCO to help meet costs resulting from the accident at the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Basic Act on Energy Policy, Basic Energy Plan
Basic Act on Energy Policy （Enacted in June 2002）

The government must formulate a basic plan on energy supply
and demand in order to promote measures on energy supply and
p gy pp y
demand on a long-term, comprehensive and systematic basis.
【Three Basic Policies （3Es）】
① Energy - Securing stable supply,
② Environment - Environmental suitability,
③ Economy - Utilization of market mechanisms, which should be
coordinated with the first two basic policies.
p

Basic Energy Plan （Formulation : October 2003）
（Revision: March 2007）
○ Energy security （Revision: June 2010 as Strategic Energy Plan ）

○ Environmental protection
○ Efficient supply
○ Energy-based economic growth
○ Reform of the energy industrial structure


Strategic Energy Plan - Energy Mix
 Increase Energy Independence Ratio （Self-sufficiency + Self-development rate）
gy p （ y p ）
from 38% in 2007 to 70% in 2030
 Reduce CO2 Emission by 30% vs. 1990 level
× Million KL
700
632
600 592 Energy 13% Reduction
35 6% Saving
Nuclear,
Nuclear 60 517
500 10% Hydro, Renewables, Self- sufficiency:
13%
LNG, 105 18%
67 40%
400 Nuclear,
24%
122 Count Nuclear as
Coal,
Coal 130 22%
300 LNG, 81
’Semi-domestic
S
16%
LPG, 18 3%
production ‘
200 Coal, 88 17%
Petroleum, 41% LPG, 18 4%
100 240 Petroleum,
142 27%
0
FY2007 2030

 Build 14 new Nuclear Reactors and increase Utility Factor from 60% to 90%
 Introduce Renewables 2.4 times as much as in FY2007
 I
Increase Zero-emission Electricity f
Z i i El t i it from 34% t 70%
to


Operational Life of Nuclear Power Plant
5,000 60.0
MW 10 20 30 Capacity GW
4,500 Total Capacity
50.0
4,000
48.96
3,500
3 500
40.0
35.6
3,000

2,500 19.0 30.0
4
2,000 4
4
4 3 20.0
1,500 3
2 3
4.0 2 3
1,000
1 2 2 2 10.0
1 1 1 2 2
500 1
1 1 1 112
0 0.0
2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Years in Operation as of Feb. 2012 Source : IEEJ

 In January 2012, Government outlined amendments to the Atomic Energy Basic
Act and the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Law to impose a 40-year cap on the
operational life of a nuclear power plant
 As of Feb 2012, 3 nuclear plants with a total capacity of 1 157 GW are 40 years or
Feb. 2012 1.157
older
 18 units including the above with 13.406 GW in total capacity will exceed 40 years
within 2020
 By 2030, 16 more units or 14.328 GW will pass the 40 year mark, leaving only 20
units totaling 21.226 GW of capacity (43.4 % of total 48.96 GW in 2012)

Power Generation（2030）
Generated Power by Each Source
×100 TWh ×100 TWh
16,000 16,000

14,000 13,600 14,000 13,600
Energy Energy
12,000 12,000 Saving
10,305
10 305 Saving 10,305
10 305
10,199 3,400 10,199
10,000 884 9% 10,000 884 9% Hydro, Renewables,
Hydro, Renewables,
Nuclear, 2,140 Nuclear, 2,140 21%
21%
8,000 26% 8,000 2,638 26%
2,638
3,692 37%
6,000 Nuclear, 6,000 LNG,
LNG,
53% 27% ?
2,822 27% 5,366 2,822
4,000 4,000 Nuclear,
16%
Coal, Coal, 1,674
25% LNG, 2,605 25% LNG, 13%
2,000 2,605 13% 2,000
1,357 1,357 11%
Petroleum, 11% Petroleum,
13% 1,131 13% 1,131
1,356 2% 0 1,356 205 2%
0 205
FY2007 2030 FY2007 2030

Current Strategic Energy Plan Revised Strategic Energy Plan ?

 Imposing a cap on operational life of nuclear plants eventually calls for us to
restart constructing new nuclear plants or at least replacing aged ones
 If these are unacceptable, Japan will have to extensively promote (1)
renewable energies, (2) energy and power savings, and (3) fossil fuels
combined with CCS
bi d ith
 However, the present plan already factors in ambitious targets to
substantially enhance each of these measures


Cost of Power Plant
Capacity Operating Installation　Cost Operation Decomｍission
Capacity Factor % Cost (Wages) Cost
（FY 2009
Period Million Yen Billion Yen
Note
GW Yen/kW Billion Yen
Actual) Years US$/kW Billion US$ Million US$ Billion US$

Photovoltaic 480,000 1.92Million 0.10Million
Power Generation 4KW 12.0 25
（Residential) 5,600 0.022Million 0.001Million
Photovoltaic 350,000 420Million 3 21.0Million
Power Generation 1,200KW 12.0 25
（Mega-Solar) 4,100 4.90Million 0.04 0.25Million
Wind 200,000 4 56 0.20
Power Generation 0.02 20.0 25
(Onshore) 2,300 0.05 0.65 0.00
Wind 283,000 43 595 2.13
Power Generation 0.15
01 30.0
30 0 25
(Offshore) 3,300 0.50 6.9 0.03

Geothermal 700,000 21 2,370 1.05 The figure is calculated
0.03 80.0 50
Power Generation 8,200 0.2 27.6 0.01 based on a model nuclear
80.0 190,000 76 210 3.80 Energy Efficiency　39％ power plant using average
O
Oil-fired
ed 0.40
0 40 40
Power Generation (11.4) 2,200 0.9 2.4 0.04 Oil Cost 84.16US$/BBL
figures from four plants
fi f f l t
operating, with an output of
LNG-fired 80.0 120,000 162 730 8.10 Energy Efficiency　51％
1.35 40 LNG Cost
1200 MW and construction
Power Generation (52.8) 1,400 1.9 8.5 0.09 584.37US$/Ton costs of ¥420 billion.
Coal-fired 80.0 230,000 173 410 8.63 Energy Efficiency　42％
Power Generation
0.75
0 75 40 Coal Cost Costs were calculated
(72.3) 2,700 2.0 4.8 0.10 113.91US$/Ton assuming a discount rate of
Nuclear 70.0 350,000 420 2,370 68.0 3%, a capacity factor of 70%
1.20 40
Power Generation (65.7) 4,100 4.9 27.6 0.8 and a 40-year operating life.
(Source: Cost Verification Committee, Dec. 19, 2011)

 In the wake of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, a panel set up by
Japan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC), estimated the cost of nuclear power
generation include evacuation, compensation and decommissioning of reactors.
 JAEC does not include the costs of decontaminating land and the long term
storage of radioactive debris.

Cost of Power Plant
Capacit Capacity Power Generation Cost Total
Factor %
y （FY 2009 Capital
Operation ＆
Fuel
CO2 Additiona
Government
Accident Risk Yen/kWh
GW Maintenance Mitigation l Counter- USCents/kWh
Actual) Cost Cost Expense
Cost Cost Safety Measures Cost

Photovoltaic 26.6 6.8 33.4
Power Generation 4KW 12.0
（Residential) 34.1 8.7 42.8
Photovoltaic 21.3 8.8 30.1
Power Generation 1,200KW 12.0
（Mega-Solar) 27.3
27 3 11.3
11 3 38.6
38 6
Wind 7.3 2.6 9.9
Power Generation 0.02 20.0
(Onshore) 9.4 3.3 12.7
Wind 6.9 2.5 9.4
Power Generation 0.15 30.0
(Offshore) 8.8 3.2 12.1
Geothermal 4.1 4.1 8.3
0.03 80.0
Power Generation
5.3 5.3 10.6
Oil-fired 80.0 1.2 1.0 18.2 2.1 22.4
0.40
Power Generation
(11.4) 1.5 1.3 23.3 2.7 28.7
LNG-fired 80.0 0.7 0.7 8.6 1.1 11.1
1.35
Power Generation (52.8) 0.9 0.9 11.0 1.4 14.2
Coal-fired 80.0 1.4 1.3 4.5 2.5 9.7
0.75
Power Generation
(72.3) 1.8 1.7 5.8 3.2 12.4
Nuclear
N l 70.0
70 0 2.5
25 3.1
31 1.0～2.0
1 0～2 0 0.2
02 1.1
11 0.5
05 8.5～9.5
8 5～9 5
1.20
Power Generation
(65.7) 3.2 4.0 1.3～2.6 0.3 1.4 0.6 10.9～12.2
(Source: Cost Verification Committee, Dec. 19, 2011)

 Even incorporating the costs associated with an accident, nuclear power generation
costs at between 10.9 to 12 2 cents per kWh would still make nuclear cheaper than
10 9 12.2
other sources of energy
 The cost of solar power, currently estimated at between 38.6 and 42.8 cents per kWh,
is forecast to fall substantially over the next two decades through technological
innovation and the effects of mass production. By 2030 solar generation will cost at
best 12.7cents per kWh - still more than nuclear - and at most, 25.6cents per kWh

Administrative Organizations for Energy Policy
Cabinet Secretariat National Strategy Council
gy
Ministerial Meeting on Electric Energy and Environment Council
Power Sector Reform and TEPCO Cost Verification Committee
Undertake electricity-related measures in an  Analyze the comparative costs of all energy
integrated manner
i t t d sources
Discussion on compensation by TEPCO
Modality of nuclear safety measures

Professionally examine nuclear Coordination
development and utilization

Cabinet Office Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Japan Atomic Energy Commission Industry
“Nuclear Policy-Planning Council” Advisory Committee on Energy
Evaluate the costs of recycling nuclear fuel and Natural Resources
Formulates the Framework of Nuclear Energy
Policy
“Fundamental Issues Subcommittee”
Provide information about Japan’s energy
Estimates the government budget for
supply and demand structure in the future
implementing nuclear energy policy
Discuss plans for modification of the country's
p y
primary energy and installed capacity mixes
Provide cost estimates

 The revised Basic Energy Policy is set to be completed by Summer 2012 and will
determine the role of Japan's nuclear power sector in the installed capacity mix
over the coming two decades

Fundamental Issues Subcommittee
Discussions at the Fundamental Issues Subcommittee, Advisory Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources
 Quite a few members expressed the view that Japan should move away from nuclear
power as quickly as possible. Foundations for this view included the risk of
earthquakes and tsunami to which Japan is prone; the enormous cost and suffering
caused by the nuclear accident; destruction of regional economies and damage to
the environment; risk caused by insufficient safety and management technologies as
well as aging facilities; concerns for safety and security in people’s lives; the
g g ; y y p p ;
problem of handling nuclear waste, which remains unresolved and thus must be
passed on to future generations; and the opinions of many citizens.
 On the other hand, there were also many members who felt that, although Japan
needs to fundamentally review its nuclear power policy, it should make the strategic
d f d ll i i l li i h ld k h i
decision to continue giving a certain degree of importance to nuclear power.
 This view took into account the idea that Japan should maintain its technical
infrastructure and specialists in order to ensure its energy security while fulfilling its
international responsibility as a nation that utilizes nuclear power for peaceful
purposes.
 It was also based on the belief that Japan should contribute to nuclear power safety
p p y
in other countries, which has a direct bearing on Japan’s own safety, based on
awareness of our duty to civilization as human beings that have evolved together
with technology.
 There were also members who wondered whether it was wise for Japan—a country
with few natural resources—to so easily abandon nuclear power as an energy option.

Current Issues- Summary
 On 14 Jul 2011, Japanese former Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced that Japan
should aim for a society that does not depend on nuclear power.
 Present Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has also said that the country must aim to
reduce its reliance on nuclear power in the longer term.
 The Japanese government is still in the process of formulating its long-term energy
policy response as to how Japan would go about reducing dependence on nuclear
power
 Those opposing nuclear energy are strongly pushing for denuclearization
immediately
 However, it may be impractical or unacceptable for the society to overkill the
eco o y and bring down quality of life simply to press on reduction or elimination of
economy a d b g do qua ty o es py p ess o educt o o e at o o
nuclear energy
 Government decision to impose a cap on operational life of nuclear plants may
eventually call for us to restart constructing new nuclear plants or at least replacing
aged ones
 It is going to be a heavy and difficult task to form a national consensus on when and
how we should formulate Japan’s long-term energy policy

Thank you for your attention!

Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Mais de IPPAI

Mais de IPPAI (20)

Último

Último (20)

Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita