Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita

Japan’s Nuclear Energy Policy after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

Feb. 29, 2012

Yuji Morita

,

Yuji MoritaThe Institute of Energy Economics, Japan

（IEEJ）http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/en/

1 Short-Term ：Response to the electricity shortage

Issues1. 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 Plan2. Medium to Long Term : Review of the Strategic Energy Plan(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 M i h k M it d 9 0 Main shock : Magnitude : 9.0

• Hypocenter：130km off the coast of Miyagi Pref. （depth ； 24kmsource area ; more than 400km long, 200km wide）

■PWR■APWR

• Tsunami：Max. Height 40.5m at Miyako City, Iwate Pref.

Aftershocks : • Magnitude 7 or greater : 6 timesTohoku

Onagawa

■BWR■ABWR

• Magnitude 6 or greater : 96 times• Magnitude 5 or greater : 580

times Casualties

• Dead : over 15 700

TEPCOKashiwazaki Kariwa■No.１ 110.0■No.２ 110.0■No.３ 110.0■N ４ 110 0

Onagawa■No.１ 52.4■No.２ 82.5■No.３ 82.5

TEPCOFukushima Daiichi • Dead : over 15,700

• Missing: over 4,500• Injured: over 5,700 • Evacuees:Over 124,000

Damaged Stocks in Disaster

■No.４ 110.0■No.５ 110.0■No.６ 135.6■No.７ 135.6

■No.１ 46.0■No.２ 78.4■No.３ 78.4■No.４ 78.4■No.５ 78.4■No ６ 110 0 Damaged Stocks in Disaster

Areas• Buildings : approx. 10.4

trillion Yen• Lifeline Utilities : approx. 1.3

TEPCOFukushima Daini■No.１ 110.0■No.２ 110.0■No.３ 110.0■N ４ 110 0

■No.６ 110.0

(Source）The Japan Meteorological Agency

pptrillion Yen

• Social Infrastructure : approx. 2.2 trillion Yen

• Others : approx. 3.0 trillion Yen• Total : approx 16 9 trillion Yen

■No.４ 110.0

3

• Total : approx. 16.9 trillion Yen


The Great East Japan Earthquake

At 15:36 on March 12 an explosionRestricted Area, Deliberate Evacuation Area And Regions including Specific Spots Recommended for Evacuation (As of September 30, 2011) At 15:36 on March 12, an explosion

occurred in Unit 1 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS.

At 18:25 on March 12, the Nuclear Emergency Response Headquater-

p ( p , )

g y p qNERHQ 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 NPSthe Fukushima 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 Fukushimamore than 20km from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS.

On April 22, the NERHQ established deliberate evacuation zones and emergency evacuation preparation g y p pzones.

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

4Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited


On September 30 2011 Japanese(SOURCE) Fukushima Prefectural Government

On September 30, 2011, Japanese government decided to lift the Evacuation-Prepared Areas in Case of Emergency designation

Japanese government is taking Japanese government is taking measures to push ahead with decontamination work to eliminate radioactivity-related anxieties as early as possible in accordance with

i i f th I t ti l

0μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜1.0μSv/ｈ1.0μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜1.9μSv/ｈ1.9μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜3.8μSv/ｈ3.8μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜9.5μSv/ｈ9 5 S /ｈ≦Ob d D t ＜19 0 S /ｈ

5

opinions of the International Commission on Radiological Protection- ICRP


9.5μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data＜19.0μSv/ｈ19.0μSv/ｈ≦Observed Data

(SOURCE) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. 12 Sept. 2011


The Government will take the lead in efforts to engage in decontamination including as anengage in decontamination, including as an 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 processed and disposed as of 20 Feb. 2012(SOURCE) Miyagi Prefectural Government


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 ginspections by May 2012

The Japanese government released on July 11th 2011 their unified views that the nuclear plants must undergo “stress tests” before they arethat the nuclear plants must undergo stress tests before they are allowed to restart

The government further announced that primary and secondary stress tests should be carried out to determine whether a dormant reactor couldtests 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 If no nuclear power stations are to return from their routine 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 isthermal power s capacity to accommodate incremental requirements is limited

Thermal power stations will have to be kept operating at extremely high rates unless economic contractions or significant power savings take

7

rates unless economic contractions or significant power savings take place


Japan’s Nuclear Plants（Before Mar.11）■PWR■PWR■PWR■APWR■BWR■ABWR

KansaiTakahama

Japan Atomic Power Co.T

HokkaidoTomari■No.１ 57.9■No.２ 57.9■No.３ 91.2

Tohoku

■PWR■APWR■BWR■ABWR

KansaiTakahama


KansaiTakahama




TohokuTohoku

●Operation▲Inspection▼Trouble etc.

Kansai Japan Atomic Power Co

HokkaidoTomari●No.１ 57.9●No.２ 57.9●No.３ 91.2

●Operation▲Inspection▼Trouble etc.

Kansai Japan Atomic Power CoKansai Japan Atomic Power Co



HokurikuShika■No.１ 54.0■No.２ 120.6

TokyoKashiwazaki Kariwa

Takahama■No.１ 82.6■No.２ 82.6■No.３ 87.0■No.４ 87.0Mihama■No.１ 34.0■No.２ 50.0■No.３ 82.6Ohi

Tsuruga■No.１ 35.7■No.２116.0

Higashi-Dori■No.１ 110.0

Tohoku

HokurikuShika■No.１ 54.0■No.２ 120.6

TokyoKashiwazaki Kariwa






Tohoku


Tohoku

HokurikuShika▼No.１ 54.0●No.２ 120.6

Tokyo

KansaiTakahama▲No.１ 82.6●No.２ 82.6●No.３ 87.0●No.４ 87.0Mihama▲No.１ 34.0●No.２ 50.0●N ３ 82 6

Japan Atomic Power Co.Tsuruga▲No.１ 35.7●No.２116.0

TohokuHigashi-Dori▲No.１ 110.0

HokurikuShika▼No.１ 54.0●No.２ 120.6

Tokyo







Tokyo

■No.１ 110.0■No.２ 110.0■No.３ 110.0■No.４ 110.0■No.５ 110.0■No.６ 135.6■No.７ 135.6

Ohi■No.１ 117.5■No.２ 117.5■No.３ 118.0■No.４ 118.0

ChugokuShimane

TohokuOnagawa■No.１ 52.4■No.２ 82.5■No.３ 82.5

Tokyo

■No.１ 110.0■No.２ 110.0■No.３ 110.0■No.４ 110.0■No.５ 110.0■No.６ 135.6■No.７ 135.6

Ohi■No.１ 117.5■No.２ 117.5■No.３ 118.0■No.４ 118.0

Ohi■No.１ 117.5■No.２ 117.5■No.３ 118.0■No.４ 118.0

ChugokuShimane



Kashiwazaki Kariwa●No.１ 110.0▲No.２ 110.0▲No.３ 110.0▲No.４ 110.0●No.５ 110.0●No.６ 135.6●No.７ 135.6

●No.３ 82.6Ohi●No.１ 117.5●No.２ 117.5●No.３ 118.0●No.４ 118.0

Chugoku

TohokuOnagawa●No.１ 52.4▲No.２ 82.5●No.３ 82.5

Kashiwazaki Kariwa●No.１ 110.0▲No.２ 110.0▲No.３ 110.0▲No.４ 110.0●No.５ 110.0●No.６ 135.6●No.７ 135.6

●No.３ 82.6Ohi●No.１ 117.5●No.２ 117.5●No.３ 118.0●No.４ 118.0

●No.３ 82.6Ohi●No.１ 117.5●No.２ 117.5●No.３ 118.0●No.４ 118.0

Chugoku



Fukushima Daiichi■No.１ 46.0■No.２ 78.4■No.３ 78.4■No.４ 78.4■No.５ 78.4■No.６ 110.0

Japan Atomic Power Co.■Tokai Daini 110.0

■No.１ 46.0■No.２ 82.0

ChubuHamaoka

Fukushima Daiichi■No.１ 46.0■No.２ 78.4■No.３ 78.4■No.４ 78.4■No.５ 78.4■No.６ 110.0

Japan Atomic Power Co.■Tokai Daini 110.0

■No.１ 46.0■No.２ 82.0

ChubuHamaoka

TokyoFukushima Daiichi●No.１ 46.0●No.２ 78.4●No.３ 78.4▲No.４ 78.4▲No.５ 78.4▲No.６ 110.0

Japan Atomic Power Co.●Tokai Daini 110.0

gShimane▲No.１ 46.0●No.２ 82.0

Chubu

TokyoFukushima Daiichi●No.１ 46.0●No.２ 78.4●No.３ 78.4▲No.４ 78.4▲No.５ 78.4▲No.６ 110.0

Japan Atomic Power Co.●Tokai Daini 110.0

gShimane▲No.１ 46.0●No.２ 82.0

Chubu

TokyoFukushima Daini■No.１ 110.0■No.２ 110.0■No.３ 110.0■No.４ 110.0

■No.３ 110.0■No.４ 113.7■No.５ 138.0

ShikokuIkata■No.１ 56.6■No.２ 56.6■No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai■No.１ 55.9■No.２ 55.9■No.３118.0■N ４118 0

KyushuSendai

TokyoFukushima Daini■No.１ 110.0■No.２ 110.0■No.３ 110.0■No.４ 110.0

■No.３ 110.0■No.４ 113.7■No.５ 138.0

ShikokuIkata■No.１ 56.6■No.２ 56.6■No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai■No.１ 55.9■No.２ 55.9■No.３118.0■N ４118 0

KyushuSendai

TokyoFukushima Daini●No.１ 110.0●No.２ 110.0●No.３ 110.0●No.４ 110.0

C ubuHamaoka▲No.３ 110.0●No.４ 113.7●No.５ 138.0

ShikokuIkata●No.１ 56.6●No.２ 56.6●No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai●No.１ 55.9▲No.２ 55.9▲N ３118 0Kyushu

TokyoFukushima Daini●No.１ 110.0●No.２ 110.0●No.３ 110.0●No.４ 110.0

C ubuHamaoka▲No.３ 110.0●No.４ 113.7●No.５ 138.0

ShikokuIkata●No.１ 56.6●No.２ 56.6●No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai●No.１ 55.9▲No.２ 55.9▲N ３118 0Kyushu■No.４118.0Sendai

■No.１ 89.0■No.２ 89.0

■No.４118.0Sendai■No.１ 89.0■No.２ 89.0

▲No.３118.0●No.４118.0

KyushuSendai●No.１ 89.0●No.２ 89.0

▲No.３118.0●No.４118.0

KyushuSendai●No.１ 89.0●No.２ 89.0

54 Units, Total Capacity 48,960 MW f F b 2011

38 Units, Total Capacity 35,705 MW i ti f M 10 2011

8

as of Feb. 2011 were in operation as of Mar 10, 2011

Source : IEEJ


Japan’s Nuclear Plants（After Mar.11）●Operation▲Inspection▼Trouble etc.Hokkaido

●Operation▲Inspection▼Trouble etc.HokkaidoHokkaido

●Operation▲Inspection▼Trouble etc.Hokkaido

●Operation▲Inspection▼Trouble etc.HokkaidoHokkaido

×Damaged

Hokuriku

KansaiTakahama▲No.１ 82.6●No.２ 82.6

Japan Atomic Power Co.Tsuruga▲No.１ 35.7▼No.２116.0

HokkaidoTomari▲No.１ 57.9●No.２ 57.9●No.３ 91.2


×Damaged

Hokuriku









×Damaged

Hokuriku

KansaiTakahama▲No.１ 82.6▲No.２ 82.6▲No ３ 87 0


HokkaidoTomari▲No.１ 57.9▲No.２ 57.9●No.３ 91.2


×Damaged

Hokuriku









HokurikuShika▼No.１ 54.0▲No.２ 120.6

TokyoKashiwazaki Kariwa▲No.１ 110.0▲No.２ 110.0▲N ３ 110 0

●No.３ 87.0▲No.４ 87.0Mihama▲No.１ 34.0●No.２ 50.0▲No.３ 82.6Ohi▲No.１ 117.5●No ２ 117 5

TohokuOnagawa×No.１ 52.4

HokurikuShika▼No.１ 54.0▲No.２ 120.6

TokyoKashiwazaki Kariwa▲No.１ 110.0▲No.２ 110.0▲N ３ 110 0





Shika▼No.１ 54.0▲No.２ 120.6

TokyoKashiwazaki Kariwa▲No.１ 110.0▲No.２ 110.0▲No.３ 110.0

▲No.３ 87.0▲No.４ 87.0Mihama▲No.１ 34.0▲No.２ 50.0▲No.３ 82.6Ohi▲No.１ 117.5▲No.２ 117.5▲N ３ 118 0

TohokuOnagawa×No.１ 52.4×No.２ 82.5

Shika▼No.１ 54.0▲No.２ 120.6

TokyoKashiwazaki Kariwa▲No.１ 110.0▲No.２ 110.0▲No.３ 110.0





TokyoFukushima Daiichi×No.１ 46.0

N ２ 78 4

▲No.３ 110.0▲No.４ 110.0●No.５ 110.0●No.６ 135.6●No.７ 135.6

●No.２ 117.5▲No.３ 118.0▲No.４ 118.0

ChugokuShimane▲No.１ 46.0●No.２ 82.0

×No.２ 82.5×No.３ 82.5

TokyoFukushima Daiichi×No.１ 46.0

N ２ 78 4

▲No.３ 110.0▲No.４ 110.0●No.５ 110.0●No.６ 135.6●No.７ 135.6

●No.２ 117.5▲No.３ 118.0▲No.４ 118.0

●No.２ 117.5▲No.３ 118.0▲No.４ 118.0

ChugokuShimane▲No.１ 46.0●No.２ 82.0

×No.２ 82.5×No.３ 82.5×No.２ 82.5×No.３ 82.5

TokyoFukushima Daiichi×No.１ 46.0×No.２ 78.4×N ３ 78 4

▲No.４ 110.0▲No.５ 110.0●No.６ 135.6▲No.７ 135.6

▲No.３ 118.0▲No.４ 118.0

ChugokuShimane▲No.１ 46.0▲No.２ 82.0

×No.３ 82.5

TokyoFukushima Daiichi×No.１ 46.0×No.２ 78.4×N ３ 78 4

▲No.４ 110.0▲No.５ 110.0●No.６ 135.6▲No.７ 135.6

▲No.３ 118.0▲No.４ 118.0▲No.３ 118.0▲No.４ 118.0

ChugokuShimane▲No.１ 46.0▲No.２ 82.0

×No.３ 82.5×No.３ 82.5

×No.２ 78.4×No.３ 78.4×No.４ 78.4×No.５ 78.4×No.６ 110.0

Tokyo

Japan Atomic Power Co.×Tokai Daini 110.0

ChubuHamaoka▲No.３ 110.0▼No.４ 113.7Shikoku

×No.２ 78.4×No.３ 78.4×No.４ 78.4×No.５ 78.4×No.６ 110.0

Tokyo


ChubuHamaoka▲No.３ 110.0▼No.４ 113.7Shikoku

×No.３ 78.4×No.４ 78.4×No.５ 78.4×No.６ 110.0

TokyoFukushima Daini

１ 110 0


ChubuHamaoka▲No.３ 110.0▼No.４ 113.7▼No.５ 138.0

ShikokuIkata

×No.３ 78.4×No.４ 78.4×No.５ 78.4×No.６ 110.0

TokyoFukushima Daini

１ 110 0


ChubuHamaoka▲No.３ 110.0▼No.４ 113.7▼No.５ 138.0

ShikokuIkata

Source : IEEJ

yFukushima Daini×No.１ 110.0×No.２ 110.0×No.３ 110.0×No.４ 110.0

▼No. 113.7▼No.５ 138.0Ikata

●No.１ 56.6●No.２ 56.6▲No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai●No.１ 55.9▲No.２ 55.9▲No.３118.0●No.４118.0

KyushuSendai▲No.１ 89.0●N ２ 89 0

yFukushima Daini×No.１ 110.0×No.２ 110.0×No.３ 110.0×No.４ 110.0

▼No. 113.7▼No.５ 138.0Ikata

●No.１ 56.6●No.２ 56.6▲No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai●No.１ 55.9▲No.２ 55.9▲No.３118.0●No.４118.0

KyushuSendai▲No.１ 89.0●N ２ 89 0

×No.１ 110.0×No.２ 110.0×No.３ 110.0×No.４ 110.0

▲No.１ 56.6▲No.２ 56.6▲No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai▲No.１ 55.9▲No.２ 55.9▲No.３118.0▲No.４118.0

KyushuSendai▲No.１ 89.0▲No.２ 89.0

×No.１ 110.0×No.２ 110.0×No.３ 110.0×No.４ 110.0

▲No.１ 56.6▲No.２ 56.6▲No.３ 89.0

KyushuGenkai▲No.１ 55.9▲No.２ 55.9▲No.３118.0▲No.４118.0

KyushuSendai▲No.１ 89.0▲No.２ 89.0

15 Units, Total Capacity 13,255 MW Were in operation in Aug. 2011

2 Units, Total Capacity 2,268 MW are in operation as of Feb. 29, 2011

Of 54 nuclear power plants installed, only 2 nuclear power plants of total 2.268 GW

●No.２ 89.0●No.２ 89.0

9

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 Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited

Electricity Supply in Summer 201164 370.0 64.3

60.0

50.0

60.0GW

35.7℃

38.1℃During the record heatwaves in the summer 2010, Tepco saw the 59.99 GW power on July 23 as its highest power demand

49.2

30.0

40.0

24-Jul-01

36.1℃

highest power demand.

Hourly Electricity Demand in TEPCO Area10.0

20.0

24 Jul 0123-Jul-1018-Aug-11

Hourly Electricity Demand in TEPCO Area0.0

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)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 R t T k El t i P C (TEPCO) 10 3%

10

Estimated Reserve rate: Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO): -10.3% Tohoku Electric Power Company (Tohoku EPCO): -7.4%)


Electricity Saving Effort by Sector in Summer 2011Peak Electricity Demand in TEPCO Area

59.99

49.22

60.0

70.0GW

Large

40.0

50.0

14.5

20.5 ▲6.0GW（▲29％）

Enterprise≧500kW

SmallEnterprise

20.0

30.017.5

21.5 ▲4.0GW（▲19％）

▲1 0GW

p＜500kW

0.0

10.0

July 23, 2010 August 18, 2011

17.018.0▲1.0GW（▲6％）

Household

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)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 h d l d (S t b 22 h d t S t b 9)

11

scheduled (September 22 was changed to September 9)


Nuclear Power Plant Operation90 90Nuclear Plant Operation Rate %

(Ri ht A i )

70

80GWH

70

80％(Right Axis)

5.3%5.4%

N l

Hydro

50

60

50

60 Geothermal

Solar

Wind

28.1%8.0%Nuclear

20

30

40

20

30

40Hydro

Nuclear

Thermal66.6%

Thermal

86.6%

0

10

20

0

10

20

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ov Dec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ov Dec

2008 2009 2010 2011Source : 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.

12

cope with peak electricity demand in the Summer 2012. This will seriously affect industrial activity, etc.


Electricity Supply in Winter 2012

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 15,387Supply capabilities 627 1 279 5 494 7 400 2 387 2 563 548 1 070 537 1 463 8 568 15 968

TotalCentral and Western Japan, 6 Power UtilitiesEastern Japan, 3 Power Utilities

Dec. Supply capabilities 627 1,279 5,494 7,400 2,387 2,563 548 1,070 537 1,463 8,568 15,968Supply reserve 52 ▲ 71 344 325 153 14 39 52 17 ▲ 19 256 581Supply 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 15,781Supply capabilities 650 1,342 5,457 7,449 2,487 2,477 561 1,146 544 1,499 8,714 16,163Supply reserve 71 ▲ 48 307 330 145 ▲ 188 33 72 24 ▲ 34 52 382

Jan.2012

Dec.2011

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 15,686Supply capabilities 649 1,364 5,375 7,388 2,487 2,412 559 1,146 531 1,506 8,641 16,029Supply reserve 86 ▲ 6 225 305 145 ▲ 253 31 72 11 32 38 343Supply 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 5 023 6 838 2 175 2 459 496 984 469 1 377 7 960 14 798

Feb

Maximum demand 545 1,270 5,023 6,838 2,175 2,459 496 984 469 1,377 7,960 14,798Supply capabilities 581 1,357 5,205 7,143 2,343 2,265 533 1,083 530 1,437 8,190 15,334Supply reserve 36 87 182 305 168 ▲ 194 37 99 61 60 230 536Supply 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%

Mar

(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 2012Based on the Summertime Peak Demand (daily maximum demand) in FY 2010

Hokkaido Tohoku Tokyo Subtotal Chubu Kansai Hokuriku Chugoku Shikoku Kyusyu SubtotalMaximum demand 506 1,480 6,000 7,986 2,709 3,138 573 1,201 597 1,750 9,968 17,954Supply capabilities 474 1,485 5,193 7,152 2,750 2,533 565 1,234 529 1,534 9,145 16,297Supply reserve ▲ 32 5 ▲ 807 ▲ 834 41 ▲ 605 ▲ 8 33 ▲ 68 ▲ 216 ▲ 823 ▲ 1 656

Total

Aug.2012

Eastern Japan, 3 Power Utilities Central and Western Japan, 6 Power Utilities

Supply reserve ▲ 32 5 ▲ 807 ▲ 834 41 ▲ 605 ▲ 8 33 ▲ 68 ▲ 216 ▲ 823 ▲ 1,656Supply 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%

2012

Eastern Japan 3 Power Utilities Central and Western Japan 6 Power Utilities

The Maximum Demand is Estimated at the FY 2011 Summertime Actual Demand

Hokkaido Tohoku Tokyo Subtotal Chubu Kansai Hokuriku Chugoku Shikoku Kyusyu SubtotalMaximum demand 485 1,246 4,922 6,653 2,520 2,784 533 1,083 544 1,544 9,008 15,661Supply capabilities 474 1,485 5,193 7,152 2,750 2,533 565 1,234 529 1,534 9,145 16,297Supply reserve ▲ 11 239 271 499 230 ▲ 251 32 151 ▲ 15 ▲ 10 137 636Supply reserve rate％ 2 3% 19 2% 5 5% 7 5% 9 1% 9 0% 5 9% 13 9% 2 7% 0 6% 1 5% 4 1%

Eastern Japan, 3 Power Utilities Central and Western Japan, 6 Power Utilities Total

Aug.2012

If the summer peak demand will revive like the extremely hot summer in 2010 while

Supply reserve rate％ -2.3% 19.2% 5.5% 7.5% 9.1% -9.0% 5.9% 13.9% -2.7% -0.6% 1.5% 4.1%(Source: Energy and Environment Council, July 29, 2011)

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 conservationwere 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 Shikoku and Kyushu EPCs with high nuclear power ratios

14

Kansai, Shikoku and Kyushu EPCs with high nuclear power ratios


Measures to Increase Electricity Supply【Government 】 Various deregulations 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 Encourage private generators to sell electricity, support for installation and fuel cost

【Electric Power Companies】 Restore damaged thermal power plants Restart long-idled thermal power plants I t ll t f ( t bi t ) Install new power generator for emergency (gas turbine etc.)

* Reserve rate: Index to show how the

Summer2011

Winter2011/12

Summer2012

179 54 158 11 179 54

（in GW）

Maximum electricity demand to show how the supply capacity is in excess of the demand. At least 3% and usually 8% or more is

179.54 158.11 179.54174.71 156.98 162.97

11.76 4.09 0.00129.31 126.85 132.00

Recovery of affected thermal power plants 12.43 1.53 1.35

Maximum electricity demandSupply capabilities

NuclearThermal

y %required.

y p pAdjustment of periodic inspection timing 2.20 4.87 1.94Resumption of long-term idle thermal power plants 1.96 0.22 0.00Utilization of private power generation 2.85 2.06 1.64New installation of emergency power sources 1.51 1.79 2.64

12 87 10 24 12 96Hydro 12.87 10.24 12.9620.86 15.93 18.04

0.35 0.43 0.47(0.44) (0.57) (0.49)(4.83) (1.13) (16.56)

Electricity trades among power utilities, etc.

Supply reserve rate

HydroPumped-storage power generationGeothermal, etc.

15

( ) ( ) ( )-2.7% -0.7% -9.2%

Supply reserve rate


(Source: Energy and Environment Council, July 29, 2011)

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

Fuel Consumption of Thermal Power Plant600

400

500

TJ OilCoalLNG

300

400

100

200

0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ovD

ec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ovD

ec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ovD

ec Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug Se

pO

ctN

ovD

ec Jan

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

（TJ） Oil Coal LNG Total2008 927 1,493 2,286 4,7052009 409 1,335 2,158 3,9022010 399 1,412 2,233 4,044

Oil Coal LNGMil. KL Mil. Ton Mil.Ton

2008 22.99 53.30 41.812009 10.10 47.66 39.482010 9.87 50.40 40.86

16

2010 399 1,412 2,233 4,0442011 715 1,400 2,686 4,801（％） 79.3% -0.8% 20.3% 18.7%

0 0 9 8 50 0 0 862011 17.77 49.98 49.13（％） 80.0% -0.8% 20.3%


Source : IEEJ

Increase in Energy Import【Energy Import】

Petroleum PetroleumCrude Oil PetroleumProducts

PetroleumTotal LNG Coal

2005 248,822 58,046 306,868 58,014 180,8082006 246,734 58,227 304,961 62,189 177,2092007 239,608 55,246 294,854 66,816 186,4862008 241 766 52 662 294 429 69 263 191 671

×1000 KL ×1000 Ton

2008 241,766 52,662 294,429 69,263 191,6712009 213,000 48,233 261,233 64,552 161,8112010 214,618 51,929 266,546 70,008 184,5602011 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

Trade Crude Oil PetroleumProducts

PetroleumTotal LNG Coal Energy

TotalShare％

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%

【Energy Import – Million US$】

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% -

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

Source : IEEJ

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

17

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

The government must formulate a basic plan on energy supplyand demand in order to promote measures on energy supply andp gy pp ydemand on a long-term, comprehensive and systematic basis.

【Three Basic Policies （3Es）】① Energy - Securing stable supply,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.

（Formulation : October 2003）（Revision: March 2007）

Basic Energy Planp

○ Energy security○ Environmental protection○ Efficient supply

（Revision: June 2010 as Strategic Energy Plan ）

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

18

○ Reform of the energy industrial structure


Strategic Energy Plan - Energy Mix Increase Energy Independence Ratio （Self-sufficiency + Self-development rate）

× Million KL

gy p （ y p ）from 38% in 2007 to 70% in 2030

Reduce CO2 Emission by 30% vs. 1990 level

Nuclear 6035592

517600

700

6%

632EnergySaving

13% Reduction

Coal 130

LNG, 105

Nuclear, 60

Nuclear, 122

Hydro, Renewables,67

517

400

500

18%

22%

10%

24%

13%Self- sufficiency: 40%

Count Nuclear as S

LPG, 18

LPG, 18

Coal, 130

Coal, 88

LNG, 81

Petroleum,

200

300

41% 4%

16%22%

17% 3%

’Semi-domestic production ‘

240 Petroleum,142

0

100

FY2007 2030

27%

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

19

Increase Zero-emission Electricity from 34% to 70%


Operational Life of Nuclear Power Plant5,000 60.0

48.963 500

4,000

4,500MW

50.0

CapacityTotal Capacity

GW10 20 30

19.0

35.6

44

2,500

3,000

3,500

30.0

40.0

4.0

1

21

4

22

2

34

4

2

33

231,000

1,500

2,000

10.0

20.0

1 1 1 11

2

1 12

1 1 20

500

2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400.0

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 As of Feb. 2012, 3 nuclear plants with a total capacity of 1.157 GW are 40 years or older

18 units including the above with 13.406 GW in total capacity will exceed 40 years within 2020

20

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

10 30512,000

14,000

16,000×100 TWh

13,600EnergySaving 10 305

12,000

14,000

16,000×100 TWh

13,600EnergySaving

LNG,2,822

Nuclear,5,366

Nuclear,2,638

Hydro, Renewables, 2,140

88410,199

10,305

6,000

8,000

10,000

27%

26%

53%

9%

21%

Saving

LNG,2,822

Nuclear,2,638

Hydro, Renewables,2,140

8843,400 10,199

10,305

6,000

8,000

10,000

27%

26%

9%21%

37%?

3,692

205Petroleum,

1,356 1,131

Coal,2,605 LNG,

1,357

2,822 5,366

0

2,000

4,000

FY2007 2030

13% 2%

13%25%

11%205

Petroleum,1,356

1,131

Coal,2,605 LNG,

1,357

Nuclear,1,674

0

2,000

4,000

FY2007 2030

13% 2%

13%25%

11%

16%

Imposing a cap on operational life of nuclear plants eventually calls for us to

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

bi d ith CCScombined with CCS However, the present plan already factors in ambitious targets to

substantially enhance each of these measures


Cost of Power PlantDecomｍission

Cost Note

Installation　CostCapacity

CapacityFactor %

OperatingPeriod

OperationCost (Wages)

Yen/kWUS$/kW

Billion YenBillion US$

480,000 1.92Million 0.10Million

5,600 0.022Million 0.001Million

350,000 420Million 3 21.0Million

4KW Photovoltaic

Power Generation（Residential)

25

Photovoltaic

12.0

Billion YenBillion US$

NoteGW （FY 2009Actual)

PeriodYears

Million YenMillion US$

350,000 420Million 3 21.0Million

4,100 4.90Million 0.04 0.25Million

200,000 4 56 0.20

2,300 0.05 0.65 0.00

283,000 43 595 2.13

20.00.02

0 1

WindPower Generation

(Onshore)25

Wind30 0 25

Power Generation（Mega-Solar)

1,200KW 2512.0

The figure is calculated based on a model nuclear power plant using average fi f f l t

3,300 0.50 6.9 0.03

700,000 21 2,370 1.05

8,200 0.2 27.6 0.01

80.0 190,000 76 210 3.80 Energy Efficiency　39％

50

40

80.0

0 40Oil-fired

GeothermalPower Generation

0.15

0.03

Power Generation (Offshore)

30.0 25

figures from four plants operating, with an output of 1200 MW and construction costs of ¥420 billion.Costs were calculated

(11.4) 2,200 0.9 2.4 0.04 Oil Cost 84.16US$/BBL


(52.8) 1,400 1.9 8.5 0.09 LNG Cost584.37US$/Ton


40

40

40

0.40

1.35

0 75

O edPower Generation

LNG-firedPower Generation

Coal-fired

(Source: Cost Verification Committee, Dec. 19, 2011)

Costs were calculated assuming a discount rate of 3%, a capacity factor of 70% and a 40-year operating life.

(72.3) 2,700 2.0 4.8 0.10 Coal Cost113.91US$/Ton

70.0 350,000 420 2,370 68.0

(65.7) 4,100 4.9 27.6 0.840

40

NuclearPower Generation

0.75

1.20

Power Generation

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.

22

JAEC does not include the costs of decontaminating land and the long term storage of radioactive debris.


Cost of Power PlantCapital Operation ＆ Fuel CO2 Additiona Government Accident Risk

TotalYen/kWh

Capacity

CapacityFactor %（FY 2009

Power Generation CostCapital

Cost MaintenanceCost

FuelCost

MitigationCost

lSafety

GovernmentExpense Counter-

Measures Cost

26.6 6.8 33.434.1 8.7 42.821.3 8.8 30.127 3 11 3 38 6

PhotovoltaicPower Generation

（Residential)

PhotovoltaicPower Generation 1,200KW 12.0

USCents/kWhGW（FY 2009Actual)

4KW 12.0

27.3 11.3 38.67.3 2.6 9.99.4 3.3 12.76.9 2.5 9.48.8 3.2 12.1

0.15 30.0

（Mega-Solar)


(Onshore)


(Offshore)

20.00.02

8.8 3.2 12.14.1 4.1 8.35.3 5.3 10.6

80.0 1.2 1.0 18.2 2.1 22.4(11.4) 1.5 1.3 23.3 2.7 28.7

80.0GeothermalPower Generation

0.03

(Offshore)

0.40Oil-firedPower Generation

80.0 0.7 0.7 8.6 1.1 11.1(52.8) 0.9 0.9 11.0 1.4 14.280.0 1.4 1.3 4.5 2.5 9.7

(72.3) 1.8 1.7 5.8 3.2 12.470 0 2 5 3 1 1 0～2 0 0 2 1 1 0 5 8 5～9 5N l

1.35

0.75

LNG-firedPower Generation

Coal-firedPower Generation

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

(Source: Cost Verification Committee, Dec. 19, 2011)

70.0 2.5 3.1 1.0～2.0 0.2 1.1 0.5 8.5～9.5(65.7) 3.2 4.0 1.3～2.6 0.3 1.4 0.6 10.9～12.2

NuclearPower Generation

1.20

costs at between 10.9 to 12.2 cents per kWh would still make nuclear cheaper than 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

23

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 PolicyNational Strategy CouncilCabinet Secretariat gy

Energy and Environment CouncilCost Verification Committee

Analyze the comparative costs of all energy

Ministerial Meeting on Electric Power Sector Reform and TEPCOUndertake electricity-related measures in an i t t d sourcesintegrated mannerDiscussion on compensation by TEPCO Modality of nuclear safety measures

CoordinationProfessionally examine nuclear

Cabinet Office Ministry of Economy, Trade and

CoordinationProfessionally examine nuclear development and utilization

Japan Atomic Energy Commission“Nuclear Policy-Planning Council”

Evaluate the costs of recycling nuclear fuelFormulates the Framework of Nuclear Energy

Industry Advisory Committee on Energy

and Natural ResourcesFormulates the Framework of Nuclear Energy PolicyEstimates the government budget for implementing nuclear energy policy

“Fundamental Issues Subcommittee”Provide information about Japan’s energy supply and demand structure in the future Discuss plans for modification of the country's p yprimary energy and installed capacity mixes

Provide cost estimates

The revised Basic Energy Policy is set to be completed by Summer 2012 and will

24

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 SubcommitteeDiscussions 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 sufferingearthquakes 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 d f d ll i i l li i h ld k h ineeds to fundamentally review its nuclear power policy, it should make the strategic

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 itsinfrastructure 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 yin 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.

25

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 Those opposing nuclear energy are strongly pushing for denuclearization immediately

However, it may be impractical or unacceptable for the society to overkill the economy and bring down quality of life simply to press on reduction or elimination of eco o y a d b g do qua ty o e s p y to p ess o educt o o e at o onuclear 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!26Unauthorized Reproduction Prohibited

Thank you for your attention!

Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita

Technology

Transcript of Managing and harnessing safe nuclear yuji morita