Too much emphasis on coal power

One of the worrying directions in Japan’s energy policy is the emphasis on coal-fired thermal power plants — which are more cost efficient than natural gas-fired plants but emit roughly twice the amount of carbon dioxide. The government’s Basic Energy Plan calls coal-fired thermal power a key source of electricity supply that excels in terms of fuel supply stability and cost advantage.

The draft of its long-term energy mix forecast assumes that coal will account for 26 percent of the nation’s total electricity generation in 2030. Power companies are announcing plans to build one new coal-fired thermal power plant after another.

Such developments run counter to the moves in many other industrialized economies, which are seeking to cut back on coal-fired power generation as part of the fight against climate change. Japan’s financial aid for developing countries to buy Japanese coal-fired power generation technology may also expose the nation to growing international criticism. The government and the power industry should rethink the policy and the plans.

The anticipated 26 percent share of coal-fired thermal power in the draft 2030 energy mix is roughly on a par with the 27 percent forecast for natural gas-fired power plants. Since power companies have idled their nuclear reactors in the wake of the 2011 meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 plant, thermal power has accounted for a major part of the nation’s electricity supply. In fiscal 2012, the share of natural gas-fired thermal power hit 42.5 percent, while that of coal-fired plants was 27.6 percent.

In the 2030 energy mix, it appears that the government is seeking to reduce the share of natural gas — which like coal must be imported but is considerably more expensive — and retain coal-fired power generation roughly at the current level, despite the greater environmental strain it imposes, while putting nuclear power plants back online to cover the gap created by the reduction in natural gas-powered electricity output.

This policy direction is behind the utilities’ rush to build new coal-fired thermal power plants. According to research by an environmental organization, Japan’s power companies have plans to build 45 new coal-fired plants with a combined output capacity of 23.28 million kilowatts. If all of these plants are put in operation, their total annual carbon dioxide output will be an estimated 120 million tons — equivalent to about 10 percent of Japan’s overall emissions in 1990.

As the nation began to rely more heavily on imported fuel (which has become more expensive with the yen’s steep fall against the dollar) to run thermal power plants in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, electricity charges shot up about 20 percent for households and roughly 30 percent for businesses.

The Abe administration emphasizes cost factors in seeking to restart the idled nuclear reactors, while the business community says the increased cost of electricity dents the competitiveness of Japan’s industries and calls for restraint in the introduction of renewable energies on the grounds that they cost more. The government’s emphasis on coal-fired thermal power also dovetails with the argument by power firms in favor of coal because it is less expensive than natural gas.

But coal-fired power plants built now will likely be in operation for 40 years or longer — and emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases the entire time. Launching a large numbers of such plants today would appear to contradict the government’s long-term goal of reducing the nation’s emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 by 80 percent from current levels.

The United States and Britain have tightened regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, effectively making the construction of new coal-fired power plants impossible in those countries. Even China, which continues to rely heavily on coal as a key source of energy, is moving to cut back on coal-fired power generation as part of its fight against climate change and severe air pollution. It is doubtful that Japan’s policy of continuing to rely on coal-fired power plants will be acceptable to the international community, which is pushing efforts to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions.

Japan also stands out among the developed nations in continuing to extend financial aid to developing countries seeking to build coal-fired power plants. The World Bank as well as public financial institutions in the European Union and the United States have announced that they will in principle end lending to finance such projects, and private-sector lenders in these countries are beginning to follow suit.

The Abe administration, in its quest to boost infrastructure exports as a key to the nation’s economic growth, is pushing overseas sales of Japan’s coal-fired power plant technology, with the government-funded Japan Bank for International Cooperation extending large-scale loans for projects in such countries as Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.

The government reportedly says that replacing the old power plants in other countries with the latest, highly efficient coal-fired plants contributes to significantly reducing global emissions of greenhouse gases. But it should reconsider whether such a policy — along with its emphasis on coal-fired plants at home — will be internationally acceptable given the global trend of moving away from the use of coal to generate power.

  • Rockne O’Bannon

    Anyone who pays an electric bill in Japan does not need to read the article. If your utility uses coal, you pay less for electricity. It is that simple.

    Coal is not a “worrying direction” at all. Frankly, it is all Japan has left if it wants to maintain a competitive economy. The article explains it all. Nuclear hysteria rules out Japan’s go-to baseload provider. Oil was and still is prohibitively expensive and is supplied by sketchy regimes. Natural gas was a great idea, but it is too expensive, and who knows when the Russians will stop or be stopped from supplying it. Renewables? Just look at what renewables are doing to your electric bill. People are paying about 2 yen in surcharges for what little renewable energy is being produced now. Can we afford to triple or quadruple that? Can you? Can your employer?

    Coal? It is cheap and supplied reliably by Japan’s allies. Even Greenpeace would rather Japan use coal than nuclear. So hey, if this coal policy pleases Greenpeace, how can environmentalists complain?

  • Jeffrey

    ” Nuclear hysteria rules out Japan’s go-to baseload provider.”

    Japan’s nuclear plants are either beyond their mothballing date or fast approaching obsolescence. Japan has no plan for storing waste, it is the country more likely to have catastrophic earthquakes than any other in the world and, as shown by the Fukushima disaster, has little to no back-up or contingency plans in the event of an emergency.

    “Coal? It is cheap and supplied reliably by Japan’s allies. Even Greenpeace would rather Japan use coal than nuclear.”

    Can you document this?

    While no one contends that alternative, clean power alone can supply the needs of a nation the size of Japan, Japan makes less use of alternatives than any other OECD nation. While Japan ranks 4th in the world in solar use, it generates less power by wind than do a half dozen states in the U.S.

    “Natural gas was a great idea, but it is too expensive, . . . ”

    The price of natural gas is low and stable now and will be for the foreseeable future, regardless of the Russian supply, which Japan ought to resist buying in any case. The U.S. could easily supply Japan with its gas needs. While not as cheap as coal, particularly as LPG, Japan is already suffering from China’s current heavy dependence on the fuel of the 19th Century. No need to add to that domestically when there is a better, if only short term alternative.

    With regard to the larger issue of a “competitive economy,” Japan hasn’t had that since the yen was allowed to float. Japan has no comparative advantages and, certainly, no absolute advantages in anything it produces, a frustratingly inefficient agricultural sector and next to no natural resources. Restarting all the nuclear plants or burning coal isn’t going to remedy any of these.

    • Starviking

      Media exposure: Greenpeace certainly has no problem with Germany choosing coal over nuclear.

    • Sam Gilman

      Greenpeace has long prioritised exiting nuclear over coal. In Germany, they recommend exiting nuclear ASAP, lignite (very dirty coal) by 2030, and hard coal by 2040.

      It’s a tragic irony that much of the green movement, for so long dominated by the anti-nuclear movement (the militancy of which is a money spinner for the movement more generally), is poorly equipped for the climate change debate. James Hansen is highly critical of the main environmental groups, describing them as one of the biggest obstacles to action on climate change.

      By the way, you say

      While no one contends that alternative, clean power alone can supply the needs of a nation the size of Japan

      Actually, a fair few people do claim this. It’s ridiculous, but they do. The WWF and the Global Energy Network Institute are two examples. Just google [Japan 100% renewables] and you’ll see all sorts of claims. This is how the anti-nuclear movement obstructs climate change action. They want to say that we don’t need nuclear power as their number 1 priority above everything else, including climate change. As a result, they need to persuade people that 100% renewable scenarios are not a problem. Hence they flood the debate with all kinds of bogus plans, misleading people into believing that global warming is really easy to solve. Thus, the green movement ends up underplaying the seriousness of global warming. It’s a car crash.

    • Rockne O’Bannon

      Sam has better points below, but let me just say that the overall tone of your post is, “Japan needs to bear more burdens, and if it does not do what I want it does not deserve to have a competitive economy… etc. ”
      Come on. If you want to give up, go ahead, but real people are making tough decisions to meet the needs of 100 million people. Wouldn’t it be nice if it could please environmentalists? But hey. Been there and done that.
      Maybe you missed the memo, but Japan’s utilities have had not one, but about three rugs pulled out from under them. First nuclear, then oil, then gas. Cheap now you say? I don’t want to invest in natural gas futures and neither do you. And neither should Japan bet the farm on the glut lasting forever. Once things get stabilized, if ever, then environmental efforts can be a focus again.
      Japan’s utilities have done a stupendous job providing cheap reliable power. Have a look at what is happening in Australia. Grid strife, instability, rates doubled in the last 10 years, ratepayers in revolt. Looks like one major grid will be sold to the Chinese..
      In contrast, Japan has 10 and 20 year FIT contracts for renewables, rates are up maybe 50% despite the lack of nuclear power, and the grid is stable and well managed.

      A little too much coal for your tastes? Sheesh. Isn’t that the least of Japan’s worries at this point?

  • Liars N. Fools

    The home of the Kyoto Protocol is one of the greatest outliers. So when Tokyo bay is under water and big parts of the Inland Sea are not so inland, let us Japanese remember clearly that coal was cheaper.

    Of course, by then Japan may have evolved beyond having memory.