Fukushima Dai-Ichi -- Is it Still News?

I have heard two ACCJ (American Chamber of Commerce in Japan) guest speaker presentations in the past year where a foreign expert on the nuclear industry -- one primarily a regulator, the other a consultant/academic -- has complained about the approach the Japanese press has taken to reporting on the Fukushima nuclear accident.  Both speakers grumbled that as long as the press keeps dramatising events related to Fukushima, it will be difficult for the nuclear industry to regain trust of the Japanese people and for nuclear reactors to play a role in Japan's energy future.

Indeed, a recent public opinion poll suggests that 94% believe the Fukushima accident is not "under control", and yes, the press does report on some continued, very real, issues at the plant.

But my view is that the press coverage of Fukushima is not one-sided or anti-nuclear.  Instead, it largely reflects the editorial views of the particular media conglomerate.

Thus, the "progressive" Asahi Shimbun and Asahi TV are predictably happy to report about ugly goings on regarding Fukushima.

Meanwhile, the "conservative" Yomiuri seems to want to say the bare minimum about Fukushima. Stories about Fukushima get in the way of its effort to "accentuate the positive" and support the LDP government.  The Yomiuri seems to be completely aligned with the government program to restart the reactors.  Its editorials claim nuclear power is essential, and safe, and its news reporters seem to fall in line to the maximum extent possible.

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun, meanwhile, seems to be aligned with the leaders of the business community and the Keidanren (Japan Federation of Economic Organizations), who believe nuclear power is essential to the survival of the Japanese economy, at least over the near and medium-term.

Mainich Shimbun, Fuji-Sankei Group (conservative) -- I do not really know since I do not read or watch their news outlets regularly.

Just one example -- during last week's lead up to the House of Councillors election -- a very politically sensitive period -- a story comes out that up to 2000 workers for TEPCO and its subcontractors received high radiation doses (over 100 millisieverts) in their activities at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, and are thus at heightened risk of thyroid cancer.  This was ten times the number of workers who had previously been said to have received such doses.

According to Asahi Shimbun, TEPCO only released the news once it became clear that the World Health Organization questioned the company's method of calculating doses, and planned to release the information -- so that workers would be aware of the situation.  Also, TEPCO does not really know how large the doses were, since most of the workers did not have timely tests of their thyroid. Now, 28 months after the accident and much of the exposures, TEPCO has agreed to pay for regularly testing of workers exposed to 100 millisieverts or more.

This story got major coverage in the Asahi Shimbun.  It also got major coverage in the English language Japan Times.

In the Yomiuri?  Not so much, and only several days later via a wire service report, buried on a lower inside page, next to a much larger story about TEPCO's plans to file an application to restart the Kashiwazaki Kariba plant, reactors 6 and 7.  Here is a comparison of the degree of coverage in the Asahi and Yomiuri English language papers web sites (which reflects the offline English and original Japanese versions, in this case).

Asahi (July 19, 2013) online edition:

TEPCO now says 2,000 Fukushima workers exposed to high radiation doses

Estimated radiation doses in thyroid glands exceeded safe levels in nearly 2,000 people who worked at the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, more than 10 times the number previously announced, The Asahi Shimbun has learned.
The larger figure was deduced after doubts were raised both at home and abroad over the results of Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s belated first study on the workers’ health.
TEPCO, the nuclear plant’s operator, said in December that radiation doses topped 100 millisieverts--the widely accepted threshold for an increase in the risk of cancer--in 178 people, with a maximum reading of 11,800 millisieverts.
But that figure covered only a fraction of those who have braved the high radiation levels to try to bring the nuclear crisis under control.
The workers themselves say TEPCO has provided little or no information about radiation doses in their thyroid glands. Some have stopped working at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant.
The new figure is based on a review of an expanded number of study subjects.
TEPCO and its partner companies not only re-evaluated the readings from thyroid gland dose tests, but they also estimated doses when the amount of radioactive iodine that entered the body was unavailable. These estimates were based on cesium intake amounts, the airborne iodine-to-cesium ratio on the days they worked, and other data.
The latest study showed that doses topped the 100-millisievert mark in 1,973 workers. In one worker, the estimated thyroid gland dose increased by more than 1,000 millisieverts during the review.
A thyroid gland dose reflects the amount of internal exposure to radioactive iodine that has entered the body through inhalation and other processes. The thyroid gland doses received during the early stages of the nuclear disaster, which started in March 2011, account for most of the potential internal damage to the Fukushima plant workers.
Early on in the crisis, health experts warned about the risks of high radiation doses received by the workers. But TEPCO was late in opening a full-scale investigation into the thyroid gland doses.
The utility submitted data about the doses to the World Health Organization. However, TEPCO only released available data for some of the workers in December after it learned that the WHO was planning to disclose the information.
The data concerned 522 workers for whom thyroid gland dose test results were available.
It took TEPCO 28 months since the earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, caused the nuclear disaster to learn that so many workers have been exposed to cancer-inducing levels of radiation doses in their thyroid glands.

Its re-evaluation also came after the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, which received data from TEPCO, questioned the reliability of the company’s thyroid gland dose readings. Japan’s health ministry also ordered TEPCO and its partner companies to review the internal dose readings for the workers.
“We will provide and pay for annual, ultrasound thyroid gland tests to all workers with thyroid gland doses in excess of 100 millisieverts over their lifetimes,” a TEPCO public relations official said. “We have already notified those who are eligible for the checkups.”
But TEPCO said it does not know how many of those eligible workers have actually taken the tests. Sources said only about half of them have received the thyroid gland checkups.
In addition, the utility has not announced a schedule for the thyroid gland checkups for the workers and has yet to explain what it will do when it spots abnormalities during the tests.
Most of the study subjects with thyroid gland doses exceeding 100 millisieverts entered the Fukushima plant site early in the disaster and inhaled radioactive substances. TEPCO employees account for 976 of them, with the remainder employed by the utility’s main contractors and their subcontractors.
Several workers told The Asahi Shimbun that TEPCO has never provided a careful explanation about the risks of radiation exposure in thyroid glands. Some subcontractor workers have already quit their jobs, complaining that they were never told about the radiation doses or received any notification of thyroid gland tests.
The delay in the testing can be partly blamed on a health ministry policy, which says health control for nuclear plant workers should be based solely on whole-body doses.
The ministry has never taken the initiative to investigate thyroid gland doses in the Fukushima workers. It has left the task to TEPCO on a “voluntary” basis.
Some experts have emphasized that enhanced thyroid gland doses do raise the risk of cancer even if the whole-body doses remain modest. But the health ministry has maintained that whole-body dose control is sufficient.
The international consensus for the 100-millisievert threshold for an increased risk of cancer is based partly on studies following the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
The international standard for taking iodine tablets to block radiation exposure in thyroid glands, however, is 50 millisieverts.
Some health experts have said the cancer rate began increasing at the 50-millisievert level after the Chernobyl disaster.
Children are believed to be the highest at risk to thyroid gland doses. But a recent study showed the risk of cancer from thyroid gland doses rises even in people over 40, countering the previous belief that older people were far less susceptible to the cancer- inducing effects of radiation.

(This article was compiled from reports by Yuri Oiwa and Toshio Tada.) 
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN 

-----------------------------------------------------

Yomiuri (July 21, 2013) online edition:

Higher cancer risk at Fukushima plant

July 21, 2013
Jiji Press
Nearly 2,000 workers at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant face higher risks of thyroid cancer as their radiation exposure from the crisis that began at the plant in March 2011 exceeded a key threshold of 100 millisieverts, TEPCO officials have said.
Of all workers engaged in operations to contain the nuclear crisis triggered by the magnitude­9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, 1,973 are estimated to have received radiation doses of over 100 millisieverts in their thyroid glands, according to the officials. 

So to any nuclear industry proponent who thinks the Japanese press is hindering the comeback of the nuclear industry, I say -- just read the Yomiuri.  You will need to look very carefully to find any negative news.

-----------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:  Within a week after this post, continued and new water leakage at Fukushima, including leakage of highly radioactive water into the ocean, brought it back into the "mainstream" of Japanese news, with at least some coverage by ALL the major Japanese press.  Everyone seemed to acknowledge that this -- and the central government stepping in to assume control of some remediation operations from TEPCO -- constituted news worth reporting.

Market Forces Rising

Nikkei Shimbun carried an interesting story in mid-June about the evolving role of Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) with the "electric industry village" now that TEPCO is majority owned by the government's Fukushima accident compensation fund.

TEPCO was traditionally the leader of the 10 regional electric utilities.  It was the biggest by revenue, personnel, profit and visibility, and it took the lead on most matters of policy, with the other companies generally following behind and stepping into line.

Recently, however, TEPCO has been different.   It seems that one condition to the (first -- more to come) bailout was that TEPCO act as a positive force for change in the industry, in line with METI/government policies.  Initially, the group of electric utilities became leaderless.  Now, however, others are stepping up, and TEPCO is positively excluded from some of the discussions among the group presidents (which are commonplace, and are conducted via the Denki Jigyou Rengo Kai -- a group housed within the Keidanren Building and formed of the presidents of the utilities.  Needless to say, this group does not support major structural reforms of the industry, and so excludes TEPCO from some of its recent meetings.

How can TEPCO have an impact?  One recent example is through procurement reform.  From planning solar PV projects, we know that the prices we are told for construction of 66kV interconnect lines/towers in Japan is some significant multiple of what it would be in Europe, and the reason seems to be that the work has traditionally been doled out to affiliates/subsidiaries of the utilities (and their friends).

According to the Denki Shimbun July 4, 2013, TEPCO has recently announced that it has reformed its procurement of construction of transmission facilities, implementing a new competitive tender system.  In its first series of tenders, TEPCO saved 30-40% over the prices it would get previously.  Still higher pricing than elsewhere, but a big difference.  And a huge change if it carries over into the amount that we need to pay in planning larger solar PV projects.

Apparently, the other electric utilities are concerned they will be found out as not trying hard enough to obtain market-based pricing, and are struggling how to respond.  ...

Separation of Generation and Transmission

It is now election season in Japan, with an upcoming poll for the House of Councillors.  I happened to watch the leaders of the major (and minor) parties briefly on one of Japan's Sunday morning talk shows, and was pleasantly surprised to hear Prime Minister Abe specifically mention electricity reform and "separation of electricity generation and transmission" (発電、送電の分類) again as one of his growth measures.

Not only is this one of his list of Abenomics growth measures, but it is getting prominent attention.  It must play well as a counter to the chorus of voices that it is too early to restart the nukes, before the Fukushima accident has been cleaned up.

Offshore wind turbines ready for test

The press this week was full of this photo

showing the massive floating turbines being readied for a test off of Fukushima.

A few weeks ago we saw this picture of the massive chains that will be used for moorings.

The project sponsors and government certainly like the symbolism of a big offshore project near the Fukushima reactors.  They have named it "Fukushima Mirai" -- the future of Fukushima.

Let us hope that the project works out from both a technical and a cost/performance standpoint, and maybe even manages to utilize the 500kV transmission lines running between the Fukushima Daiichi reactors and the Tokyo region.

The Fukushima offshore wind project website is now accessible here.

Conservation and Efficiency

A big part of the solution to the world's energy problems lies in efficiency.  On this most people can agree.  A shift from incandescent to LED lights cuts direct electricity consumption by 85 percent or more.  7 watts instead of 60 watts.  The same amount of light, but less heat so this shift also reduces the need for air conditioning.  Insulated walls and ceilings, double/triple glazed windows -- can cut heating and cooling usage by 50%.  Fewer big SUVs and more automobiles with hybrid electric or high efficiency diesel engines -- cut gasoline consumption by 20%, 30% or more over 15 years as the auto fleet is replaced.

The U.S. has little to teach the world on these topics, being the biggest consumer of energy by far over the past century.  On the flip side, this means that the U.S. will have easier gains from energy efficiency increases than many other countries.  Japan ... is somewhere in the middle.  It used to be the most miserly developed country in terms of energy consumption, but now my understanding is that much of northern Europe surpasses it in terms of efficiency.  So there is plenty of room for efficiency gains.

How much is really possible to save from increased efficiency and conservation?  The Washington Post reports on e2e,  a new effort at MIT and UC Berkeley that will try to marshall the evidence.  The key is to find areas where investments get the most "bang for the buck."

Japan has a number of very successful efforts -- its electric appliances are extremely high efficiency compared with many in the U.S., and shopping for a TV or refrigerator allows one to compare anticipated electricity consumption easily, figures prominently displayed.  But Japan sometimes seems weak in the "bang for the buck" choices, pursuing ideas that have the most corporate backing, the most interesting technology, or that have caught a powerful individual or lobby's attention.

One area where Japan has "low hanging fruit" available from conservation and efficiency -- building standards.  As I understand it, Japan has none when it comes to energy efficiency.  This is one reason why Japanese houses (and smaller apartment buildings) are notoriously cold in winter and hot in summer.

Another suggestion -- when planning new roads, why not implement roundabouts (traffic circles) instead of traffic lights?  Europe has done so, to the extent you can travel very long distances on secondary roads without ever stopping at a traffic light. ... whereas in Japan one ends up sitting at what seems like empty intersection after empty intersection.

UPDATE:  For a good example of the "low hanging fruit" available in the U.S., which is well behind Japan in the rotation from incandescent to compact flourescent to LED lighting, see this article in the October 6, 2013 CS Monitor.  A factory saves more than 90% of its lighting bill (from over $50,000 to under $5,000 a month) by implementing an LED system with a sophisticated monitoring system that provides light in the right amount where and when needed.  2 year full payback on the investment.

First Electricity Reform Bill To Pass ... after Election

Japan's House of Representatives on June 13 2013 passed the first in a set of legislation intended to reform Japan's electricity system.  The legislation is headed to the House of Councillors, where it is also expected to pass.

The reform is to proceed in 3 arrows (just like the "three arrows" of Prime Minister Abe's economic policy, Abenomics).  I guess the LDP government is made up of archers.  The first "arrow" is as follows:

First, by the beginning of 2015, a new entity will be established that is responsible for the wide-area transmission grid.  This entity will be responsible for balancing demand across the country and will help to resolve the regional balkanization issues.  As I understand it, the existing transmission assets will remain under the ownership of the regional utilities, but the new entity will become the active player in running the grid, and will be tasked to address issues such as increasing the ability to transmit electricity in between east and west Japan (50 and 60 hz regions), as well as from areas such as Hokkaido that can support much greater renewables (wind and solar) generation than local demand requires.

There are lots of details to work out before we know whether this grid operator will be set up so as to function in a truly independent manner, or will just be a captive of the existing utilities, but at least the issues of independence are being highlighted.

Also, the law will place an obligation upon the utilities to provide access to their transmission/distribution grid, at regulated prices, for "self-consumption" of electricity.  This will allow a major industrial or commercial user to generate electricity at one location and consume it at a second, remote location.

Lastly, there is provision in the law for a more flexible system of demand control measures.  Apparently under current law the ministry can only issue "orders" to reduce consumption, violation of which involve serious penalties.  The new structure will allow more flexible arrangements, as companies have complained about the legal risk they face when they try, yet fail, to comply with a demand reduction request.

The second "arrow" is retail electricity competition, with electricity sales to small/residential users to be liberalized by 2016.  The third "arrow" is separation of generation and transmission functions by 2018 to 2020.  These last 2 arrows are not in the current legislation, as I understand it, but will be proposed in 2014 and 2015.  The utilities are still fighting a hard battle against the separation of generation and transmission, given its impact upon their current organization and financial structure.  The utilities hope that by 2015 they will have been able to restart substantial numbers of nuclear plants, there will be a comfortable margin of excess electricity supply and the demand for reform will dissipate.  We shall see.

There will be a difficult fight ahead, and the LDP's dominance if, as expected, they win a landslide in this summer's upper house election, will give the incumbent utilities a somewhat stronger hand politically.  But the utilities have failed to present a credible vision of what Japan's future electricity system would look like, of how it will respond to changes in technology, to a changing energy mix and a changing economic environment.  And like it or not, the utilities will not restart significant number of nuclear reactors over the next 12-18 months, and electricity rates will be going up, not down, the press will occasionally remind us all about problems at Fukushima, and this reform will be difficult to stop.

UPDATE 2013 6 27:

Yesterday, the Upper House of the Diet passed a non-binding censure motion against Prime Minister Abe, promoted by several small opposition parties and, at the last minute joined in by the DPJ, a last "in your face" gesture before the upcoming Upper House election.  The Upper House is still controlled by the DPJ and other opposition parties, and one result of this turn of events is the failure of the Upper House to act on the electricity reform bill.  This and other legislation will need to wait until later in the year, after the election in which the LDP is widely predicted to win in a landslide.

Disguised Bailouts – Evidence that Electricity Deregulation (and Re-regulation) is Going to Happen

As recently as March, there were growing concerns about whether the LDP government, heavily influenced by the business community in general and the electric utilities specifically, would follow through on plans to introduce retail electricity competition and, eventually, a degree of separation among electricity generation, transmission and distribution functions needed for an environment that will support the existence of competitive supply and distribution companies.  In other words, would the current system of dominant regional electric utilities fight off attempts at reform, as they did in the late 1990s when similar reforms went forward in Europe, North America, Australia and many other places?

Several announcements last week lead me to conclude that, this time, the system will end up being reformed.  These announcements represent massive potential transfers to the utilities, to help them solve the problems they will face if systemic reform goes ahead.  Thus, in Japan, reform of a powerful industry involves placing the costs of past mistakes upon the ratepayers and the taxpayers, rather than driving the utilities into insolvency, creating distress among their lenders (all major Japanese financial institutions), etc., etc.

First, and perhaps most important, METI has floated plans to revise the utility rate base accounting in order to allow utilities to avoid massive write-downs and instead recover, spread over a number of years (approximately 10 years) in their electricity charges, the cost of decommissioning reactors prior to conclusion of their 40-year planned operating life.  This sets the stage for the utilities to end the “kabuki” play of spending money trying to reopen reactors that, in fact, are very unlikely to meet the new regulatory standards.  Of course, in Japan, these things take time--too much time.  And this is a massive disguised bailout by the ratepayers, and one that does not require any direct pound of flesh, such as a change of utility management.  

That said, it is a necessary and welcome step.  And as between the ratepayers and the taxpayers, it is better that the ratepayers bear the burden, since high and increasing charges by incumbent utilities will actually make it easier for new entrants, for investment in conservation and renewables, etc.

Second, the Nikkei reported that METI is proposing legislation to make it easier to provide governmental aid to a retail electricity provider that faces financial difficulties, adding some “catch all” circumstances to what had been narrowly permitted aid.  This is reported as an effort to help assure continued retail service to customers in the event that retail distribution companies suffer financial difficulties after introduction of competition.  Again, a disguised bailout, on stand-by, which seems intended to assure the incumbent utilities and retail customers.

Third, Chubu Electric and TEPCO have announced plans for a large new thermal plant in the TEPCO service area.  Chubu Electric plans to use its share of the generated power to serve customers in Kanto – TEPCO’s service area.  This is the first sign of mutual competition at the wholesale level.  Of course, the regional utility structure in Japan is akin to the regional "baby bells" in the United States after AT&T was split up, so it is quite unlikely these companies will be the source of real competition in each other's service areas, except for limited large customers with whom they have existing relationships.

Fourth, the latest “Abenomics” announcements of government growth plans clearly mention the introduction of competition in the electricity area as part of Prime Minister Abe’s growth strategy.  This seems a stronger endorsement than anything I have seen in the past.

Lastly, I went to a seminar last month on the future of Japan’s electricity industry.  One of the speakers is an ex-utility executive who now leads a research center at Tokyo University on smart grid implementation in Japan.  He was very clear that while he had once thought the concept unrealistic, he now believes the smart grid is coming, along with distributed generation and separated generation, transmission and distribution functions.  There is no alternative.

  

Huge Storage Battery Planned for Hokkaido to support renewables

Hokkaido has the best wind resources in Japan.  It also has the most readily available land for solar PV projects.  Unfortunately, it has a population of only 5.4 million persons, less than 5% of Japan's total.  Like much of Japan, population is not growing.

There is a huge bottleneck now of potential solar PV projects in Hokkaido, far more than the demand at the local electric utility, Hokkaido Electric.  As of March end, 2013, Hokkaido Electric had authorized interconnection for 400MWp of large scale solar PV projects, against applications of 1.56GW peak.  

Thus, in late April, 2013, METI issued a request for public comments on a suggested modification to the curtailment rules that would, initially at least, affect only Hokkaido and would permit greater flexibility in curtailment, in order to make it possible for the utility to accommodate additional projects.  We hope that the resulting rules will encourage diversity in project design, rather than making Hokkaido projects uneconomic and unfinanceable.

As an additional step, METI announced a 20 billion yen ($200 million) subsidy for Hokkaido Electric to implement a massive storage battery.  The battery project will include 60MWh of electricity storage.

The kind of investments needed to transform the electric system in Japan will not be feasible using such one-off subsidies.  Nor will they be feasible if just added as a burden on the existing utilities without a real unbundling of generation, transmission and distribution.

Higher tariffs for offshore wind?

On May 6, 2013 it was reported that METI has indicated it will set a new tariff for offshore wind projects.  The government plans to collect data and set the tariff by early 2014, in order to promote the wide adoption of offshore wind projects.

The stated explanation is that offshore wind projects have a high cost and so will need to be higher than the 23.1 yen per kWh tariff generally available for larger wind generation.

Of course, in Europe offshore wind projects can offset their high cost with excellent revenue prospects, since the wind resources offshore are far better than on land, the wind both stronger and steadier.  The same is true offshore Japan.

Of course, a bigger concern with promoting wind as a renewable energy source in Japan is that NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) concerns make it extremely difficult to site sizeable wind projects onshore.  Whatever the truth of the matter, it is widely feared in Japan that vibrations from wind turbines result in headaches and generally create disturbance.

Much European offshore wind is in relatively shallow offshore waters.  On the other hand, Japanese projects may need to use floating installations, and the high cost could be justified for deep water, floating installations.

Goldman Sachs plans $2.9 billion in Japan renewables investments

It looks as if there is a lot of money available for renewable energy investments in Japan, thanks in large part to the Feed-in-Tariff.   Last week, the Japanese press carried reports that Goldman Sachs plans $2.9 billion in Japan renewables investments over the next five years.  GS has set up a subsidiary, Japan Renewable Energy, which has already lined up 40 megawatts of projects primarily in Ibaraki Prefecture.

Bloomberg noted that in fact GS only plans to invest around $500 million of equity, with the rest of the funding to come via bank loans and project financing.

Lots of other financial investors now have allocations available for renewables in Japan.  As long as the feed-in-tariff system continues to be implemented faithfully, as long as projects become available, the money will be there.

Enefarm -- fuel cell generator

I read an article last week in the Nikkei newspaper announcing a new Tokyo subsidy for the Enefarm residential fuel cell generators distributed by Tokyo Gas.  The products are manufactured by, among others, Panasonic.  A new model was released this winter -- both lower in price and smaller in size than before.  Could it be that a natural gas-powered fuel cell generator and hot water heater would finally be at a price that makes economic sense?

In previous years, the subsidies for Enefarm devices have been used up quickly, and we had been looking for ways, ANY ways, to reduce our electricity consumption, so we arranged for a consultation.

The system would cost 1.7 million yen, plus 50,000 for gas-related construction.  Then we would get a 400,000 yen subsidy back, for a total cost of 1.35 million yen.  How much would we save?  The advertisements said approximately 50,000 yen per year, but surely we would do better than that, given our large house and its electricity bills.

No.  Apparently the way the system works you do not generate electricity unless you are otherwise consuming gas to heat water.  We do not use much gas, ... and even worse, our gas consumption is split between two separate flash heaters, one on the roof (for 2nd and 3rd Floor) and another at ground level (for bath and 1st floor plumbing).  So the simulation shows we would save ....  20,000 yen a year.  Even with the subsidy, a 67.5 year payback schedule.  Apparently the system is designed to do best with a typical Japanese family of 4 or more, gas cooking, gas hot water (and daily bath -- instead of alternating bath and shower, as we do).

The gentleman who visited our house suggested that maybe we would want to do it even WITH the limited savings, to do our part to cut electricity consumption.  No thank you.

We will keep looking for other, higher cost-performance alternatives.   And, frankly, as a Tokyo taxpayer, I wish the government would spend it subsidy money on something a bit more low tech and higher bang for the buck -- incentives for insulation, double or triple glazed windows, replacing any remaining incandescent lighting, etc., etc.

End Global Warming in Two Easy Steps

As stated by Noah Smith in The Atlantic last fall.

1.  Transition with natural gas.

U.S. CO2 emissions are declining rapidly with a shift from coal to natural gas.  Down over 10% since 2007, and continuing to decline even as the U.S. economy has grown back since the financial crisis.  Shift from coal to gas is made possible as a result of the shale gas boom and massive new gas supplies coming on line.

2.  Solar (and other renewables)

Solar PV pricing is following its own sort of "Moore's Law" -- 7% annual decline in costs annually for MANY years past, and likely to continue at the same rate for the next 20 years at least.  Increasingly available and cheaper electricity from renewables will allow a transition to electric vehicles and gradual shift away from oil and coal entirely.

Short term -- shift from coal to gas.

Longer term -- shift entirely to renewables.

The Empire Strikes Back

What does the LDP's election victory in December 2012 mean for Japanese energy policy?

The LDP platform made a bow toward phasing out nuclear power (Japan should “strive to build an economy and society that does not rely on nuclear power”), but stated that any decision about future energy mix is only to be made “within the next ten years”.  Meanwhile, post-election, Prime Minister Abe made a number of statements that sound like a nuclear power booster, indicating that Japan should build new reactors, and the government should strive to obtain “public understanding” to do so.

How much of a change is this?  The official policy change is very subtle.  But Abe’s tone is far less reluctant.  He notes, rightly, that any new reactors to be built use an advanced design, and should be safer, more reliable, longer-lived and cheaper than old ones such as Fukushima Daiichi, and sounds almost eager to push ahead with nuclear power.

Then again, will the Japanese people really trust statements about nuclear safety … statements remarkably similar to what they were told in the past, but which were disproved by the Fukushima accident?  Prime Minister Abe seems to think that an election victory gives him a mandate to promote nuclear power.  But a pro- (or at least slightly less anti-) nuclear position was not why he won the election.  Indeed, the LDP’s platform on the issue was almost indistinguishable from the DPJ.  And the LDP’s coalition partner, Komeito, has a clear anti-nuclear stance.  Asahi Shimbun exit polls indicate that 78 percent of voters favor either an immediate or gradual move AWAY from nuclear power.  Only 15 percent oppose such a move.  And cabinet representatives have gotten some rough treatment on television and in other public venues when the discussion turns to nuclear's future.

My prediction is that Mr. Abe will have as much success in promoting nuclear power as George W. Bush did in privatizing social security using the “political capital” he felt he had accrued in defeating John Kerry in 2004.

And the government must work with the new, more independent Nuclear Regulatory Authority, which has recently discovered likely “active” seismic faults under two groups of reactors that otherwise would be top of the list for potential restart.

Fortunately, regardless of how the nuclear discussion plays out, everyone, including the LDP, supports a continued investment in renewable energy, and diversification of sources (and reduced cost) for fossil fuels.

As for other reforms of the electricity system -- we shall see.  There is some good news in that METI advisory committees are moving ahead with plans to split generation, transmission and distribution.  Apparently they are adopting a proposal to operate these functions in separate subsidiaries of the large utilities.

Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) draft rules make restarts look very expensive

On January 30 the NRA, Japan's new nuclear regulator (not to be confused with the U.S. pro gun lobby, the National Rifle Association), released an initial draft outline safety rules for Japan's existing, largely shut down fleet of nuclear reactors.  The detailed rule draft is expected in April, with final rules to be adopted by July 18, 2013.

According to press reports, the new rules will make it extremely time-consuming and expensive to restart reactors.  The rules are to consider not only natural disasters, but also potential terrorist attacks.

Some highlights:

1.  New cabling requirements.  Apparently Japanese reactors approved before 1975 have cabling that would not meet the NRA's proposed requirements for flame-resistant coating.  A complete recabling of these reactors is said to be prohibitively expensive, and if this rule becomes final, it might shut the door on any further efforts to restart older reactors.

2.  Radiation filters.  A new requirement that all have filtering vents that make it possible to discharge steam without releasing radioactive substances, to avoid the hydrogen explosions seen at Fukushima without releasing massive amounts of radiation into the surrounding area.  Apparently this is less of an issue for pressurized water reactors (PWRs), which have much more substantial concrete containment domes, than for boiling water reactors (BWRs) such as those at Fukushima Daiichi.  The Yomiuri reports that only two BWRs, at the TEPCO Kashiwazaki-Kariwa facility in Niigata, are expected to start work on installing these expensive filters in time for summer.  The PWR reactors are said likely to be given a grace period for this requirement.

3.  Higher seawalls.  Seawalls must be high enough for the largest "hypothetically possible" tsunami.  At the Hamaoka plant in Shizuoka -- number one suspect for tsunami damage, a new seawall has been under construction since 2011.  Initial reports mentioned an 18 meter height.  Now it is being built to 22 meters (72 feet) high, at a total cost of at least 150 billion yen (almost $2 billion).

4.  Duplicate control rooms.  The new rule outline requires construction of quake-proof crisis response building, including a second control room, that can take over plant operations in the event the main control room cannot be used because of quake damage, radiation release, terrorism, etc.

5.  Additional earthquake fault data analysis.  Finally, all plants are being required to undergo an additional, detailed survey to verify lack of any earthquake faults.  As seen at Tsuruga and Higashidori recently, if the burden of proof shifts onto the utility to prove lack of earthquake faults, it becomes very hard to satisfy the requirement in Japan.

The lead story in Friday morning's Nikkei Shimbun suggested that the cost for satisfying these requirements is likely to be well over a trillion yen ($11 billion), and perhaps much more.  A short English language summary of the Nikkei story is here.

Of course, both Hamaoka and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa are huge question marks in terms of seismic risk, so we could see hundreds of billions of yen spent at each location ... but neither ever restart.  According to Nikkei, the most likely reactor restarts, in fall of 2013, are Kyushu Electric's Kawauchi reactor in Kagoshima, and Shikoku Electric's Ikata reactor in Ehime.

One English report from the Asahi Shimbun is online here.

1GW Fukushima Offshore Wind Farm being planned

There were press reports over the past week about plans for a huge (world's largest) offshore wind farm along the coast of Fukushima Prefecture -- offshore from the damaged nuclear reactors -- targeting 2020.  You can read about it here, and it got repeated here and here.

Japan's offshore wind resources have enormous potential, but siting is very difficult, as with almost everything else in this country.  At least offshore Fukushima, the fishing industry is unlikely to oppose the project, given the damage they have already suffered from concerns over radioactivity and a need to keep well away from the damaged reactors when fishing.