Breakthrough Blog
 
The Costs of Replacing Japan's Nuclear Power

Share

Post updated to include a geothermal power replacement scenario, adjust costs for coal-fired power plants, correct a land area figure, and outline major assumptions utilized in calculations.

Phasing out Japan's nuclear fleet would increase carbon emissions by at least 414 million tons, a 10% increase over current carbon emissions, as the country shifts electricity generation to more carbon-intensive LNG and coal-fired power plants. Replacing projected nuclear power generation in 2030 with power from coal or LNG would add at least 25% and as much as 37% of current emissions to the country's future carbon output.

As Japan struggles to resolve the ongoing crisis at its Fukushima Daichi nuclear complex, the implications of the crisis on the future of nuclear power remain unclear. Japan, a country with few domestic energy resources, relies heavily on nuclear power production to meet its electricity demands. In 2009, nuclear power was responsible for 27% of domestic electricity generation.

Before the crisis at Fukushima, Japan aimed to roughly double its nuclear capacity by 2030 to provide 50% of its total electricity generation. This expansion of nuclear power was a key component of the nation's climate change mitigation efforts, which include a targeted 25% reduction in CO2 emissions relative to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

Phasing Out Current Nuclear Generation

If Japan were to phase out its nuclear power fleet, it would likely ramp up production from its natural gas-fired and coal power plants. The country is already dependent on natural gas and coal for the majority of its electricity generation, as roughly 26 percent of the country's electricity comes from natural gas, and another 28 percent from coal. The number of natural gas plants in the country increases yearly, and Japan remains the world's largest importer of both liquefied natural gas and coal.

Below, we've estimated the impact on overall current carbon emissions if Japan were to completely phase out production of electricity from its current fleet of nuclear reactors. Three scenarios project the effect of replacing lost generation either entirely by coal generation, entirely by generation from liquefied natural gas, or by an equal split of both.

If nuclear power were to be completely taken out of Japan's power supply, the country's carbon emissions would rise by at least 414 million tons over current emissions. Carbon emissions would increase by at least 10% and as much as 17% across the entire economy, while power-sector emissions would soar by 29% to 49%, depending on the mix of replacement power.


Figure1.png
(For exact numbers, see Chart 1 at the end of this post)

These scenarios would have a profound impact not only on the country's carbon emissions, but also on its trade surplus. In 2009, Japan imported 182 million short tons of coal, mostly from Australia, and was the world's largest consumer of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), importing about 64.5 million tons. Scenario 1, which considers the replacement of nuclear with coal-fired generation, would cost Japan $11.2 billion dollars in imports, cutting the country's current trade surplus by 24 percent. The additional imports required under Scenario 2, which assumes the replacement of nuclear generation entirely through LNG-fueled natural gas plants, would cost the country an additional $17.5 billion dollars, decreasing Japan's trade surplus by 37.6 percent.

As well, construction costs for LNG and coal-fired plants to be able to generate this additional electricity would be substantial. Construction costs for new LNG plants would fall around $41 billion (using an estimate of $1,200/KWe) , while costs for new coal-fired power plants would amount to $101 billion dollars (using an estimate of $3000/KWe).

What About Replacement From Renewables?

Replacing the generation lost from a complete phase-out of nuclear power entirely with solar energy would require a more than a hundred-fold increase in solar's contribution to the national energy system, from the country's 2009 electricity generation of 2.1 billion kWh (0.2% of total electricity) to 267.8 billion kWh (27% of total electricity).

Furthermore, the 203 gigawatts (GW) of installed solar capacity required to replace Japan's current nuclear fleet would cover roughly 1.3 million acres, according to a land area calculator created by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the United States.

Using an estimate of $5 per watt of installed solar PV capacity, installing this 203 GW of solar capacity would cost the country at least $1.01 trillion dollars.

Alternatively, replacing the generation lost from a complete phase-out of nuclear power entirely with wind energy would require wind generation to increase from its current levels, 3.257 billion kWh (0.3% of total electricity), to 267 billion kWh (27% of total electricity).

This would require 152 GW of installed wind capacity, at a total installation cost of $375 billion (using an estimate of $2,466/KWe). According to NREL's wind farm area calculator, the installation of these wind turbines would require 38,000 acres taken out of production on a wind farm, and a total of 1.3 million acres for the entire wind farm.

Finally, replacing current nuclear generation with geothermal energy would require a nearly hundred-fold increase in geothermal's contribution to the country's energy supply, from the 2.75 billion kWh it currently generates, to 259.5 billion kWh annually.

Using an estimate of $4,100 kWh for construction costs of geothermal plants, this translates into about $175.5 billion dollars to construct the 42,804 MW of installed capacity necessary to generate the electricity lost from a complete nuclear phase-out.

Phasing Out Nuclear Generation by 2030

To meet its climate commitments, Japan has pledged to roughly double its nuclear capacity by 2030, with plans to derive 50% of total electricity generation from nuclear power by that date. Japan has one of the lowest projected annual electricity demand growth rates, estimated by the EIA at an average of 0.7 percent. Additionally, Japan is one of the only countries whose energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to decline, specifically by an average of 0.6 percent per year until 2035.

Below, we estimate the rise in carbon emissions that would accrue if the country's expected nuclear generation in 2030 were replaced by imports of coal, LNG, or an equal split of both.

Phasing out nuclear generation from the country's power supply and replacing it with either LNG or coal would present a significant setback as the nation strives to reduce overall CO2 emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. Instead, overall carbon dioxide emissions would increase by at least 270 million tons, 22 percent of Japan's current total emissions. If Japan replaced all of this lost generation with electricity from coal-fired power plants, the country's C02 emissions would rise by at least 452 million tons, 37 percent of current total emissions and an immense 109 percent of current power sector emissions.

Figure2.png
(For exact numbers, view Chart 2 at the end of this post)

The additional LNG imports required by Scenario 1 would cost the country $38.8 billion, which would represent an 83% decrease in Japan's current trade surplus, while the coal imports required by Scenario 2 are estimated to cost almost $25 billion dollars, which represents a 53% decrease in Japan's current trade surplus.

The cost of construction of enough new LNG-fired plants to power this electricity generation would total $86 billion, while the equivalent cost of construction of new coal-fired power plants would total $217 billion.

Replacement with Renewables

To avoid these emissions increases and replace lost generation through solar power, Japan would have to generate 568 million kWh of solar power annually. With an assumed capacity factor for the country of 15 percent, this would require an installed solar capacity of 432 GW, more than four times the country's planned goal of 53GW of solar PV capacity by 2030. Installation of this solar PV capacity would cost an estimated $2.16 trillion dollars, and cover roughly 2.77 million acres.

Replacing Japan's 2030 nuclear plans with generation from wind installations would require 568 million MWh of wind energy, a significant increase from the 3.57 million MWh currently generated by the country's wind installations.

The installation of this 324 GW of wind turbines would cost around $798 billion, and would require 81,141 acres. Again, this number represents the area taken out of production on a wind farm, but the wind farm itself would need to be as large as 2.8 million acres.

Finally, the replacement of the country's planned 2030 nuclear generation would require a geothermal power installed capacity of 94,857 MW, at a cost of about $388.9 billion.

Correction: the original post contained a total land area figure for Japan drawn from an erroneous source. The post was updated on April 11th to correct this error.

---------------------------

Chart1.png

Chart2.png

------------------------------------------
Major Assumptions

Calculating Carbon Emissions:
Emissions Factors
Coal: 0.795 tons C02 /MWh
LNG: Total: 0.474 tons/MWh
Combustion: 0.362 tons/MWh
Transportation: 0.106 tons/MWh (This includes both liquification and regasification of LNG)

These emissions factors were used to calculate the emissions that would result from switching production from Japan's total nuclear production in 2009-- 265.76 billion kWh-- to coal or LNG-fired power plants. Japan's total nuclear production in 2009 was calculated by summing yearly generation from each of Japan's reactors in 2009.

Japan's Current Total Carbon Emissions: 1,222 million metric tons

Calculating Construction Costs, Import Costs, and Trade Surplus:

Necessary kWh to replace Japan's nuclear generation were converted to equivalent in BTUs of either LNG or Coal. For LNG, a heat rate of 6,719 Btu/kWh was assumed. We also incorporated the assumption that 1.5% of LNG was retained by regasification facilities. For coal, an assumed a heat rate of 8,712 Btu/kWh was used.

Import Costs
Coal: $124/metric ton of Coal
LNG: $10/mmBTu

Trade Surplus
Japan had an average annual trade surplus between 2008-2010 of $46.6 billion.

Construction Costs
2009 nuclear generation was converted to installed capacity of both LNG and coal-fired power plants, using 90% capacity factors for both.

Installation Costs:
$1200 USD/kW for LNG
$3,000 USD/KW for Coal

Renewables Calculations:

Current generation from nuclear was converted to necessary installed capacity, using capacity factors of 20% for wind power, and 15% for solar power, and 69% for geothermal power.
Land area calculations using: http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/power_databook/calc_pv.php.

Solar Costs: 5$/w of installed capacity.
Wind Costs: $2466/kw

2030 Projection:

Electricity generation in 2030 was calculated using .07% demand growth scenario.
Necessary replacement generation for lost nuclear capacity was 50% of 2030 total estimated electricity generation.


   Like what you see? Subscribe to our RSS feed here...


Share


TrackBacks (0) 9 COMMENTS:

Very strong analysis. If only other groups would use arithmetic instead of ideology. Good work.

I agree that we need to see more analysis like this, but the presentation here is weakened by a couple of inconsistencies. The scenarios described in the text do not agree with the charts. Further, the text indicates a ten-fold increase in renewable power sources would be needed (which doesn't really sound impossible), but the numbers quoted indicate a hundred-fold increase is required (which really does sound impossible).

Thanks for calling that error to our attention. I've updated the text to reflect the numbers; a hundred-fold increase in solar and wind's contribution to Japan's electricity system is required to replace the electricity generation from Japan's nuclear fleet.

Hi Sara,

I have some problems with this article. Would you mind adding a PDF or something that shows your detailed calculations and assumptions? At present, it is really difficult to judge the accuracy of your work.

Also, I am a bit confused since you seem to be presenting solar and wind as either/or. Would it not be more likely that there would be a energy mix that optimizes all possibilities - wind and solar and geothermal and whatever else!

Further, you seem not to consider offshore wind farms.

It appears to me that the purpose of the article was to say we should stick with nuclear, rather that to explore what options now exist for Japan.

On nuclear, you do not refer to the current problems Japan is encountering with respect to nuclear wastes and the costs involved. I don't have figures for Japan to hand, but in the US an Argonne National Laboratory scientist recently estimated that the cost premium for reprocessing spent fuel would range from 0.4 to 0.6 cents per kilowatt-hour�corresponding to an extra $3 to $4.5 billion per year for the current U.S. nuclear reactor fleet. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/nuclear-reprocessing.html

If you have information on the above, I would appreciate you sharing. Thanks.

Japan has the third best geothermal resources in the world, so a thorough analysis should have included geothermal.
Also, Japan is often described as highly efficient, but there is still huge scope for efficiency improvements. The current shortages are making this an urgent priority, and I would be surprised if they didn't work it out.
The installation costs for wind and solar are also suspect, because the cost per unit (which is already falling) would fall even further if there was a serious attempt to ramp up renewable energy production.
I do believe that this kind of analysis is important, but it needs to be thorough.

Given that the calcs show that both solar and wind would require 3% of Japan's land area, then any combination of them would also require 3%. As for cost, just interpolate between his solar and wind cost for any combination.

It's possible that some optimum combination of renewable sources would help with intermittentcy, but it must be noted that the calculations above already give renewables a massive break on that front. While the calculations correctly adjust the required renewable capacities upward to account for renewables' low capacity factors, they still essentially assume the presence of a magical, huge capacity yet zero cost energy storage system that can even out the renewables' output.

The real truth is that meeting all of Japan's needs with renewables is completely impractical, due to intermittentcy (as well as the fact that it would require more land area that Japan even has). They could provide at most half (more like a third) with dispatchable gas/oil generation having to make up the rest. Also of note is the fact that most of Japan's land is not even useable (too mountainous and forested).

Yes, one option would be to cover a massive swath of the Pacific with wind turbines, but such a scheme would not only have a huge ecological impact, but it would be extremely expensive (several times what power costs today). Offshore wind costs ~3 times what onshore wind does.

One final thing. I have no idea where the $600/kW figure for coal could have possibly come from. A coal plant with state of the art pollution controls (but nothing fancy like coal gassification or sequestration) costs more like $2,500/kW. And that's before any CO2 charges.

[Editor's note: this comment has been edited to reflect updated figures RE land area in the post]

Thanks for your comments.

At present, Japan has little offshore wind, thus the focus of this post was on scaling up the domestic solar and wind capacities the country has today. The country has a limited shallow offshore shelf, unlike many European countries. This limits the country's potential for offshore wind development unless deepwater floating turbines are developed (which are not yet commercialized).

You can mix and match wind or solar to create the scenario you would like. This would include a blend of costs and equivalent land area requirements.

The point of this article is not to advocate any position, but to present a clear sense of the costs, in both climate and economic terms, of moving away from nuclear. At present, there is clearly a renewed focus on what Japan should do with its current reactor fleet and its plans for further nuclear expansion after Fukushima.

I've appended a summary of major assumptions and sources used for the post's calculations, and updated the assumption for coal plant construction costs as per JimHopf's comment above.

Sara Mansur,
Breakthrough Institute

Japan should gradually phase out its current generation of nuclear power plants, gradually replacing them with small underground nuclear power plants that would be substantially safer from natural disasters and potential terrorist attacks.

Japan should also start using some nuclear power plants to manufacture methanol through water electrolysis and CO2 extraction from the atmosphere or through biowaste. This carbon neutral methanol could then be used for peak-load electricity production.

Spent fuel is not waste! It is an extremely valuable energy resource-- even in the current generation of nuclear power plants. Utilizing next generation breeder technologies perhaps 20 or 30 years from now, spent fuel and depleted uranium may be able to provide at least 100 times more energy than once through uranium utilization. And if you add thorium to the mix then substantially more energy could be produced.

I think this kind of concrete analysis is really important, and all too rare, even (especially?) among environmentalists. (I write this as an eco-socialist myself!)

I would very much like to see a future article that takes into account the actually existing proposals and projections about improved conservations, efficiency, and other "demand-side" reductions. What serious proposals (by serious I don't mean "mainstream" but scientifically informed) for demand side reduction are out there, and how would they figure into this calculation?

For instance, how much conservation and use-reduction of what concrete kinds (agriculture? transport? housing? other?) would it take to cut the amount of power currently produced by Japan's nuclear energy system?

At simply the political, polemical level, many anti-nuclear folks accuse Monbiot and company of posing this debate as simply "coal vs. nuclear" and ignoring demand-side reductions. So we best figure in this side of things as well, for reasons of both truth and of politics.

[Editor's note: this comment has been edited to reflect updated typo in the post above. Thanks to our readers for noting it.]

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use basic HTML tags for style)
Use the <br> tag for line breaks (returns).

HTML is allowed, but in an effort to prevent SPAM if your entry contains URL's it will be held briefly for moderation.

Please email comments@thebreakthrough.org if you're experiencing problems when trying to comment.

Breakthrough Blog
RSS Subscribe to RSS Feed

twitter Follow the BTI on Twitter

twitter Join the BTI on Facebook

donate to Breakthrough

Recent Breakthrough Blog Posts

Mr. Jenkins Goes to Washington

While Japan turns away from nuclear power, South Korea sticks to its path

Where the Shale Gas Revolution Came From

Interview with Alex Crawley, Former Program Director for the Energy Research and Development Administration

National Journal Highlights "Beyond Boom and Bust" in Weekly Forum

Archives
Categories
Contributors

Blog advertisement
Nau Clothing
 
 
Privacy : Contact