The report will be formally approved by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) after being made available for public comments over a one-month period. With the latest approval, though, Japan’s discussions on the desired power-source composition — the heart of energy policy — are essentially complete.
The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the New Komeito Party, both part of the ruling coalition, have already approved the percentages endorsed by the report. The composition of power sources is the premise for determining targets for greenhouse gas emissions, to be taken up at the G7 summit in Germany in early June.
The original draft of the report presented by METI to the subcommittee on June 1 said that a 20% minimum for nuclear power’s share would be ensured by restarting those nuclear power plants whose safety is eventually confirmed.
It also said that the national government would take the initiative in trying to obtain understanding and cooperation from related parties in siting municipalities. Some people in the subcommittee, however, questioned that policy, saying essentially that it would be difficult to actually achieve.
The report also clearly sets the percentage of renewable energies at 22% to 24%, with the breakdown of that figure set at 8.8% to 9.2% for hydropower, 7.0% for solar power, 3.7% to 4.6% for biomass, 1.7% for wind power, and 1.0% to 1.1% for geothermal.
It also calls for revisions in the power supply system so as to simultaneously introduce the maximum amount of renewable energies while reducing the burden on ordinary people.
The draft report goes on to say that cutting power rates is an urgent issue in terms of preserving jobs and people’s way of life, given that Japan’s power rates have gone up substantially since the country’s NPPs were all shut down after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. It adds that the government will aim to lower overall power-generation costs.
The draft report also discusses the future power-source composition — the so-called “energy mix” — by the year 2030, based on the Strategic Energy Plan issued last year by the government. In line with revision of the Strategic Energy Plan every three years or so, it says that the power-source composition will be also “be reviewed as necessary.”
♦ ♦
Discussions of energy mix have been dominated by the numbers.
In the original energy policy, it was important to be ready to respond flexibly in uncertain situations. In contrast, when numerical values are determined – the percentages – securing that number is deemed good, and not securing it is deemed bad, both without further thought.
For example, there are no discussions of what would happen to Japan, or what kind of countermeasures could be taken, if there were no oil for three months. This is the kind of discussion the nation should have on acceptable costs for maintaining nuclear capacity.
Additionally, when the electric power market is fully liberalized in April of next year, the government will have no way to exert control. There will then not be much meaning to numerical target figures established by the government.
In the context of nuclear and power liberalization – nuclear and risk being two sides of a coin – unlike ordinary thermal power and renewables for which facilities can be easily built, nuclear requires a societal system to pool the huge volume of investment and personnel necessary, and to continue the technology for the next generations. In order to determine the use of nuclear power, an array of matters must be viewed strategically. Honestly, “unit generation costs” should not be the controlling factor.
When, in the midst of liberalization, private investment necessary to maintain nuclear power cannot be obtained, the government should make the decision to use tax money and should do so with determination.
The government will then have to convince the people of how much tax money should be used – how much will be necessary to maintain the human resources and technological capabilities. This is how the amount should be decided. Without this process, it is better not to think that a determination that “nuclear should be 20%” has been authorized by the people.
