Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita

1,661 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,661
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,081
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita

  1. 1. 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/
  2. 2. 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 gUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited
  3. 3. 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. 16.9Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 3
  4. 4. The Great East Japan Earthquake 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. 113,000Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 4
  5. 5. The Great East Japan Earthquake (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- ICRPUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 5
  6. 6. The Great East Japan Earthquake  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. 2012Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 6
  7. 7. 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 placeUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 7
  8. 8. 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 : IEEJUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 8
  9. 9. 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 GWUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 9
  10. 10. 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%)Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 10
  11. 11. 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 bUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 11
  12. 12. Nuclear Power Plant Operation 90 Nuclear Plant Operation Rate % 90 GWH (Right A i ) (Ri ht Axis) % 80 805.3% 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 Japans 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.Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 12
  13. 13. 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.Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 13
  14. 14. 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% (Source: Energy and Environment Council, July 29, 2011)  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 ratiosUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 14
  15. 15. 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% (Source: Energy and Environment Council, July 29, 2011)Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 15
  16. 16. 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 : IEEJUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 16
  17. 17. 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.  Japans 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 PlantUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 17
  18. 18. 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 structureUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 18
  19. 19. 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% toUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 19
  20. 20. 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)Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 20
  21. 21. 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 measuresUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 21
  22. 22. 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.Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 22
  23. 23. 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 kWhUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 23
  24. 24. 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 countrys 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 Japans nuclear power sector in the installed capacity mix over the coming two decadesUnauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 24
  25. 25. 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.Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited 25

×