Skip to main content

The Japanese Double Whammy

By
Hekinan

Haninonen, Japan's largest coal facility

A double whammy for energy companies in Japan: it’s really breathtaking:
Japan's new tax on carbon emissions will cost utilities about 80 billion yen ($1.02 billion) annually from 2016, adding to their already high costs of running power stations after the Fukushima crisis shut most of the country's nuclear plants, a government backed think-tank said.
Leaving aside the value of a carbon tax, about which reasonable minds can disagree, that’s a lot of money. For a country that has recently had to switch on some coal and oil plants to spell the nuclear energy shutdown, it just feels – mean. And as long as the companies pay the levy, it doesn’t actually help reduce carbon emissions.

Now, to be fair, the government wants to put the money into renewable energy sources. I don’t really understand well enough where the government’s interests intersects with those of industry. Furthermore, the story doesn’t explain whether this money will subsidize industry efforts in a public-private partnership or go forward as a government project. I read a report suggesting that the government could lower other taxes, but it was speculative. Other details just, um, detail the pain.
A nationwide safety shutdown of the country's nuclear power plants since last year has added an estimated 3.1 trillion yen to the cost of importing fuel for oil, gas and coal power stations in the 12 months through March next year.
And if a country is importing its energy resources, what’s the result? 

These rising costs may cause a trade deficit for the second straight year through March 2013, the institute said.

And ratepayers?
Utilities have mostly funded their energy purchases through debt, and have avoided passing on the cost to consumers, except for Tepco which was nationalized this year, but the new taxes could force a change of heart.
 That could be bluster on the part of the energy companies, but the money does have to come from somewhere. Again, there are some plausible relief notions mentioned here and there, but very vaguely. It’s really all bad all the way through.

Don’t get me wrong. Carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, even the flow of free enterprise can bring about carbon emission reductions while limiting the financial pain caused to ratepayers.

But Japan has a viable solution – not a total solution, but a good one. To paraphrase the sheriff in the John McCain ad a couple of years ago, Turn on the dang nuclear facilities.
Labels:

Comments

SteveK9 said…
I would guess this was part of a long-term plan that began when they still expected to increase nuclear's contribution to 50%. Now that they have shut down the reactors, this will be much more painful. I would expect a reversal, although they may have to admit they are abandoning all pretense of CO2 reductions.
October 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said…
Which is in itself quite ironic. This is the "home country" of the Kyoto agreements. The country whose city is the namesake of global CO2 emission reduction is abandoning the principle entirely.
October 11, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more