Japan’s nuclear renaissance
Japan is reversing its avowedly anti-nuclear stance, restarting idled plants and looking to develop a new generation of reactors, announced Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Wednesday. This major policy shift from the world’s third biggest economic power underlines both the seriousness of the global energy crisis and points to the most likely way ahead.
This announcement would have seemed unimaginable a decade ago in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which saw the plant flooded and led to three separate hydrogen explosions. Then prime minister Naoto ordered those living within a 12-mile radius of the plant to be evacuated as the Fukushima area was designated a contaminated wasteland. I well remember the widespread fear that we were days away from a radioactive cloud heading south to engulf us in Tokyo. Many fled, while others refused to venture outdoors. Iodine tablets were distributed and we hoped for the best.
The worst prophecies of disaster didn’t come true. The fact that it subsequently became apparent that the main problem with Fukushima was its ill thought through coastal location and poor plant design rather than any inherent problems with nuclear energy was immaterial. Voices of moderation and caution were drowned out by the shrill denunciations of the already powerful anti-nuclear lobby, who saw their apocalyptic warnings being fully justified.
Under pressure, prime minister Naoto pledged to ‘reduce and eventually eliminate [Japan’s] dependence on nuclear power’. He immediately closed the ageing Hamaoka plant and called for the abandonment of plans to build 14 new reactors. Japan now has just seven operating reactors (from a pre-Fukushima high of 50) with three offline due to maintenance. There are many others still in existence, but their operation is being held up by the strict licensing process imposed after Fukushima.
Around 80 per cent of the Japanese public opposed nuclear powerin aftermath of Fukushima. The most vocal opposition came from the Hidankyo group – made up of survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The group, who had 10,000 members at the time, called for the complete end of nuclear power generation in Japan back in 2012. Japan’s nuclear program seemed moribund.
But that was then and this is now. The ramifications of the war in Ukraine have made Japan, which imports 90 per cent of its energy, especially vulnerable. Then there is the post-lockdown financial crisis with its symptom: inflation, almost unheard of in Japan, is causing palpitations and focusing minds.
Then there is Kishida himself, whose views on energy have always seemed to favour the practical and achievable. He is one of the least vocal world leaders on anthropogenic climate change – does he really believe in it? This is the man who won the ‘fossil of the day’ award at COP26 for a speech deemed insufficiently zealous about the net-zero agenda. He has been diplomatically vague on the issue throughout his career, stressing the importance of energy security and technology as much as carbon emissions reductions.
Kishida’s announcement has surprised many, but it perhaps shouldn’t have done. He gave hints of his thinking on the matter in an important but underreported policy speech at the Mansion House in London in May (it was the same day Graham Brady announced the Tory leadership contest). He paid lip service to Japan’s 2030 emissions reduction targets (46 per cent by 2030 – as imagined in a ‘vision’ by jejune environment minister Shinjiro Koizumi) but since the target was set before he became PM and the end date will almost certainly fall outside Kishida’s tenure, it can’t be taken too seriously.
The key phrase he used in London was when he said Japan’s environmental policy must be compatible with ‘maintaining a stable energy supply’, a theme he developed by stressing the importance of nuclear energy while making only the briefest mention of renewables (no targets here). He didn’t even promise to phase out Japan’s remaining coal plants. It was strikingly equivocal language for a world leader at the time.
Kishida is even bolder now. He won a resounding victory in July’s upper house election and perhaps feels there will never have a better time to chart a new course. In any case, the fervent antipathy to all things nuclear is dissipating. Even though Kishida is from Hiroshima and has made a commitment to peace inspired by the bombing of his birthplace a theme in his public comments, the resonance of that event is slowly diminishing. The survivors of the two nuclear attacks are dwindling in number and the once regular anti-nuclear marches are seldom seen. The public mood has changed.
The question now is what impact Japan’s move will have on other countries. Most likely it will add some momentum to similar movements seen elsewhere. In the meantime, the message from Japan is this: we are heading back to what we told you once was the future, and then told you wasn’t; while not, of course, admitting that we shouldn’t have changed course in the first place.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/japans-nuclear-renaissance/
***********************************************CA lacks the transmission lines needed to use all the renewable power it generates, resulting in lots of wastage
California's precariously out-of-date hybrid power grid can't handle the state's growing amounts of solar and wind energy coming online, with system managers already forcing repeated cutbacks in renewables and a continued reliance on conventional energy to keep the grid stable, according to state data.
The shortcomings of the transmission grid, which energy consultants in this bellwether state have warned about for years, raise the prospect that marquee products of the growing battery economy such as electric vehicles – "emission free" on the road – will be recharged mainly from traditional electricity-generating power plants: energy from fossil fuels, some of it from out of state.
Writ large, the transmission problem threatens the zero-carbon future envisioned by green advocates nationwide. “We’re headed toward duplicate systems whose only benefit is to permit the occasional use of ‘clean power,’” said Grant Ellis, an independent electrical engineering consultant in Texas.
California, along with the rest of the desert Southwest, is adding solar and wind installations at a rapid pace. The state is projected to add four gigawatts of utility-scale solar energy this year alone, enough to power 2.8 million homes. The question is whether that’s going to be enough.
So-called "curtailments" of renewable power have become much more frequent for the state’s blackout-prone power grid because the state hasn't constructed enough transmission lines, transformers, poles, and other infrastructure to keep up. The amount of renewable energy curtailed in California tripled between 2018 and 2021, according to operator statistics.
On top of the conventional power often deployed in its stead, that renewable power was thus wasted, since there is no place yet to store it. The state curtailed 596,175 megawatt hours in April, or 596,175 million kilowatt hours, according to several calculators. With 10,715 kilowatt hours the average annual electric consumption of a home in the U.S. in 2020, as calculated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California’s curtailed wind and solar energy in April could power 55,000 homes for a year.
The cutbacks mean that electric power generation falls back on nuclear and hydroelectric power, natural gas, and other more traditional sources, which provided nearly 60% of California's electric generation last year.
The state also imported 30% of its electric energy last year from other states – 9.5% of it from coal, most of it from the Intermountain Power Project in Utah.
The curtailments come at a crucial time in what the Biden administration insists is a “transition” from a fossil fuel-driven country to one that relies on renewable energy to save the planet from what believers warn will be a climate-change disaster.
Eric O’Shaughnessy, a renewable energy consultant who has worked with the federally funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, blames a stalemate between renewable energy providers and electric system operators over who will pay for any infrastructure buildout.
Transmission Agency of Northern California
This California agency estimates at least 10-15 years to develop a publicly funded renewable-energy transmission project.
“The system operators say, ‘We need this huge investment, and you are going to have to pay it,’ and the solar developer believes everyone should pay,” O’Shaughnessy said. Then politics comes into play “and that project gets shelved.”
******************************************************
‘Fuel emissions standards’ just a costly leg-up for EVs
Judith Sloan
You have to hand it to the passenger motor vehicle industry – they are past masters at securing favours from governments. They have been doing it for decades – arguably it’s their core skill set.
When the US car companies got into trouble during the global financial crisis, the executives flew off to Washington in their private jets to plead with the Obama administration to be bailed out. Their request was granted.
Notwithstanding the fact that Volkswagen was involved in one of the largest corporate scandals ever – in relation to falsifying the emissions standards of their vehicles – the company remains a favourite of the German government as well as other governments around the world.
The reasons that the car industry holds sway with politicians are obvious. Most of us drive cars and car factories stand out and employ lots of people who are relatively well paid. There are both patriotic and masculinity aspects to cars – they need to be defended.
Car manufacturing in Australia lasted several decades in the context of extremely high rates of protection. Over time, the number of manufacturers shrank but at the end, the overseas-owned companies could not convince the federal government to continue to prop them up.
Australian consumers had paid dearly with high prices and a limited range of cars on offer. Some people might have loved their locally produced Holdens or Fords. But by dint of high tariffs and other measures (government-imposed quotas were favoured at one point), Australian drivers came off badly.
Just because we no longer produce cars here doesn’t mean that the multinational car companies have given up seeking to influence government policy to their benefit. And this is precisely what is happening with fuel emissions standards. Don’t think for a minute they are motivated by saving the planet; it’s all about ensuring that what is decided yields their company the best commercial result.
It’s why there is actually an all-mighty spat going on between the premium European car companies which are represented by the Electric Vehicle Council and the companies that supply the bulk of cars for income-constrained customers – Toyota and Mazda, in particular – which are represented by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.
The European car companies are led by VW – there’s an irony there. Their aim is to kill off the push to hybrid vehicles, preferring instead for government policy to leapfrog the hybrid phase and head straight to fully electric vehicles, something which they specialise in. (Mind you, given that VW is essentially paid by the German government to produce fully electric vehicles, it’s hardly surprising that the company made the switch away from internal combustion engine vehicles.)
FCAI, by contrast, sees hybrids as being a popular and convenient stepping-stone to accommodate lower net emissions arising from car transport. (It accounts for around 10 per cent of our total emissions.) According to its modelling, fully electric vehicles will make up less than 20 per cent of new car sales in 2030, with a further quarter internal combustion and the remaining hybrids.
The preferred government modelling and one also favoured by the EVC is that over 90 per cent of new cars sales will be fully EV by 2030. (In their dreams, by the way.) The EVC is lobbying to make sure that only plug-in hybrids are counted in this percentage, thereby serving the interests of its members. (Most hybrids at this stage are not plug-in.)
Where do fuel emissions standards come into this argument? Before answering this question, it needs to be pointed out that Labor rejected changing these standards as part of its election manifesto. That’s right – any changes were explicitly ruled out. But this has not stopped Climate Change Minister, Chris Bowen, from effectively reneging on this pledge and opening the issue up for discussion. In other words, expect changes to fuel standards very soon. (Didn’t I warn you about Bowen (and Burke)?)
The push is on from the EVC to insist that Australia comply with European emissions standards – referred to as Euro 6 – which, incidentally will provide a massive commercial boost to its members. The shift is opposed by the FCAI. This standard puts a maximum of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre driven by passenger motor vehicles. Most of Australia’s most popular current vehicles have emissions in excess of 200 grams per kilometre.
But here’s the important feature to note – the way these new emissions standards will work is that each manufacturer must comply with a Corporate Average Fuel Emissions figure. In this way, the manufacturers cross-subsidise the sales of their EVS while jacking up the price of popular cars on the Australian roads. This suits the premium European car manufacturers to a tee, but will hurt the average driver who requires an affordable vehicle combined with convenience.
When Bowen summarily rejected the idea that these new fuel emissions standards are the equivalent of a sector carbon tax, he was dead wrong. That’s what it is, that’s what its intention is.
There is another major complication to the insistence on Euro 6 in Australia and that is that our two remaining refineries are not in a position to comply at this point of time. There has been considerable progress with the sulphur issue and a solution is now likely by 2024. But the problem of aromatics has not been solved. Additions of ethanol would help but would also significantly add to the price of petrol, which wouldn’t be politically popular.
You might imagine the resulting closure of the refineries would weigh on Bowen’s thinking – on national security grounds, at the very least – but there is little doubt that some of his advisers and the bureaucrats will be telling him not to worry too much. Just think of the contribution to the reduction in our national emissions that their closure would involve!
So where do consumer preferences fit into this policy about-face? The reality is that very many Australians, particularly those living in outer metropolitan and regional areas, are quite rightly attached to their powerful ICE cars and spending five minutes max to fill them up. The last thing they want is to pay top dollar for an EV and wait hours to charge it up, having driven around to find an available charger.
But consumer preferences won’t count for much when Bowen thinks he is saving the planet but is actually being conned by lobbyists. More sighing.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/fuel-emissions-standards-just-a-costly-leg-up-for-evs
**************************************************************Coal mine would ‘improve’ Barrier reef, Australian mining company claims
Clive Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project would actually improve the quality of the Great Barrier Reef, would help retain Marlborough’s sole remaining paramedic and create “more jobs per hectare” than the reef does, the billionaire’s company claims in a surprising official response to mine’s rejection.
Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek earlier this month refused the coal mine on a number of reasons, including that it is only 10km from the Great Barrier Reef.
In its official objection to the mine’s refusal, obtained by The Courier-Mail, Mr Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project claims this reason is “emotive and misleading”.
“Singling out our Companies and Directors within our group is unfair treatment by the Government and in particular the Labour (sic) Governments within the Commonwealth and the State,” the document stated.
It stated that while the mine is 10km from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, it is 192km from the actual reef itself.
In a unique argument, it says that while the reef generates $6.4 billion a year to the economy of 64,000 jobs, the objection says this is spread out of 3.44 million ha.
“The CQC proposed mining lease extends over 1915ha and generates up to $3.1 billion per year and 500 full-time jobs,” the document stated.
“This equates to the Great Barrier Reef generating $1858 per ha, whereas CQC generates up to $1,618,799 per ha being an 871 times multiplier.
“Similar logic applied to jobs presents a 14 times multiplier.”
Levees to be constructed as part of the mine mean there will be less sediment run off and “the current Great Barrier Reef will be protected and water quality improved”, the document claimed.
Earlier this week, Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef Senator Nita Green said Mr Palmer had to pass the same environmental approvals as anyone else.
“I have not seen the reasons for the proposed decision, but I am fully aware that poor water quality is an ongoing risk to the Reef and the jobs it supports. It’s up to any proponent to show how they can mitigate such risks,” Senator Green said.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment