Safety blunders fuel Japan’s mistrust of nuclear power

But keeping most reactors shut down in the wake of Fukushima is hampering efforts to cut carbon emissions

Fission impossible: recent mistakes mean the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa power plant is likely to remain mothballed as it has been since the Fukushima meltdown in 2011 © Hiroto Sekiguchi/Yomiuri Shimbun

Robin Harding JULY 22 2021

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is the biggest nuclear power station in the world. Tucked away on a remote Sea of Japan coastline, the plant can generate almost eight gigawatts of electricity from its seven reactor halls — about 5 per cent of Japan’s total demand.

In the past 10 years, however, this symbol of the atomic age has not generated enough power to turn on a lightbulb. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa shares the same owner, Tokyo Electric, and the same basic design as the three reactors that melted down in Fukushima after a tsunami knocked out their cooling systems in 2011.

Fukushima Daiichi was one of the worst nuclear accidents in history. In its wake, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa — along with all Japan’s other reactors — was shut down to review safety. Nine out of Japan’s 33 operable reactors have since restarted. But a decade later, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is still offline, with profound consequences for Japan’s carbon emissions, for its energy policy and for the financial stability of Tokyo Electric (usually known as Tepco).

“For Tepco’s management, nuclear restart is a very big issue,” says Norimasa Shinya, an analyst who follows the company at investment bank Mizuho Securities in Tokyo. “Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is very important for cash flow and profitability.”

Tepco refused requests to visit the plant or to make an executive available for interview.

Shinya estimates the restart of just two reactors at Kashiwazaki would be worth ¥30bn-40bn ($270m-360m) a year in profits to Tepco after five years. The cash flow benefit would be even larger — approximately ¥70bn-80bn — because Tepco would have less need to buy fossil fuels to burn in other plants.

Carbon or uranium?

With Tepco on the hook for billions of dollars in spending to decommission the stricken Fukushima site, and the company now majority owned by the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corporation, the company’s financial performance matters to Japan’s public purse.

It highlights one of the main dilemmas in Japanese energy policy over the past decade: the quickest, cheapest way to cut carbon emissions would be to restart the dozens of nuclear reactors that sit idle; doing so would also generate mountains of cash for the utility companies, making them reluctant to consider any other option.

In 2010, nuclear provided more than 11 per cent of Japan’s total energy, including transport and heating, and the country had ambitions to increase that figure further. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, nuclear fell to zero so Japan burnt coal, natural gas and fuel oil, instead.

Attitudes towards nuclear power may change. The atmosphere even now is shifting

Taishi Sugiyama, Canon Institute for Global Studies

However, tough new targets for carbon emissions in 2030 and 2050, combined with a freezing winter that brought parts of the country close to power cuts this year, have given fresh hope to the nuclear industry. “I think attitudes towards nuclear power may change,” says Taishi Sugiyama, research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies, a think-tank. “The atmosphere even now is shifting a bit.”

The public, though, remains firmly opposed to nuclear restarts — and Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is part of the reason why. Plagued by scandal throughout its operational existence, recent problems at the plant are emblematic of Tepco’s failure to regain public trust.

In 2002, the company confessed to “systematic and inappropriate management” of inspections at the plant, after it failed to report cracks in reactor components to its regulator. In 2007, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was struck by a magnitude 6.6 earthquake, more powerful than that allowed for in the plant’s design, but Tepco did not learn lessons that could have prevented the Fukushima disaster.

Since 2011, Tepco has been trying to convince regulators and the local community in Niigata prefecture that the giant plant is safe enough to restart. In 2017, the number six and seven reactors won clearance from the Nuclear Regulation Authority, but not from the prefectural government.

Credibility gap

Earlier this year, however, a sequence of events ended any chance of a restart in the near future. In January, Tepco announced it had completed safety renovations on the number seven reactor, which turned out to be incorrect.

It then emerged that security on the site was lax, with one Tepco employee using a colleague’s ID card to gain access to the main control room in 2020, and problems found with intruder detection equipment. In April, the regulator banned Tepco from moving nuclear fuel at the site.

Suga’s net-zero pledge sparks fierce debate

“Credibility is the key issue, I think,” says Shinya. “The current incident is very severe for lost credibility, especially with local residents and the local government.”

Tepco’s corporate culture was heavily criticised after Fukushima, with an independent report citing misplaced deference and reluctance to question authority within the company as root causes of the disaster, along with many other factors.

These constant failures to get a grip on its operations at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, or release reliable information, raise fears about whether the company has truly changed. One underlying cause of the ID card incident, the company said in a report, was a “corporate climate that hinders strict security measures”.

Hinting at the underlying issues, an independent monitoring committee, chaired by former US nuclear regulator Dale Klein, said Tepco should not forget the principle that “people will make mistakes”. “Tepco must not engage in abstract reflection about how ‘safety awareness was lacking’,” the independent monitors said, “but rather examine the extent to which safety culture has permeated throughout each layer of the organisation, from upper management to personnel in the field.”

Energy is the world’s indispensable business and Energy Source is its newsletter. Every Tuesday and Thursday, direct to your inbox, Energy Source brings you essential news, forward-thinking analysis and insider intelligence. Sign up here.

Contacted by the Financial Times, Tepco said it took the incidents at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa “very seriously” and would “use this opportunity to remember our regrets and the lessons learned from [Fukushima] as we aim to improve power station safety”.

Many energy experts, especially those who concentrate on geopolitics, believe that Japan will need nuclear power if it is to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining security of supply. But unless the country’s biggest power company shows it can be trusted to run the world’s biggest nuclear power plant, an atomic renaissance is unlikely.

WISHING DOES NOT MAKE IT SO

Elon Musk: It’s possible to make ‘extremely safe’ nuclear plants

Musk did not elaborate how nuclear could be made “extremely safe.”

Published Thu, Jul 22 2021
Catherine Clifford@CATCLIFFORD

SpaceX founder and Tesla CEO Elon Musk looks on as he visits the construction site of Tesla’s gigafactory in Gruenheide, near Berlin, Germany, May 17, 2021.
Michele Tantussi | Reuters


Elon Musk is “pro nuclear.”

So said Musk on Wednesday while talking about making bitcoin mining sustainable at The B-Word conference hosted by the Crypto Council for Innovation.

Nuclear energy is considered “clean energy” because generating nuclear energy does not release greenhouse gasses. But due to some high-profile accidents, legacy nuclear power plants can have a bad reputation.

“I think modern nuclear power plants are safe contrary to what people may think,” the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said.

“I really think it’s possible to make very, extremely safe nuclear.”

And “I’m talking about fission. You don’t need fusion,” Musk said.

Nuclear fission is the process used in conventional nuclear reactors. With a fission reaction, a neutron slams into a larger atom splitting it into two smaller atoms, which releases energy.

Fusion is the opposite reaction to fission. With fusion, smaller atoms slam together and join into a heavier atom, thereby releasing energy. Fusion is the process by which the sun generates energy.

“You’ve got that big fusion reactor in the sky called the sun. It comes up every day,” Musk said.

Some herald fusion as a safer way to generate nuclear energy, because fission generates radioactive waste that can remain dangerous for a very long time, while fusion does not generate long-lived radioactive waste (among other reasons).

The problem is, with present technology, fusion usurps all the energy it creates to sustain its reaction, leaving no “net energy” to power other things. Several companies are working to commercialize fusion energy, but so far, they have not been successful.


On Wednesday, Musk did not elaborate on how nuclear power plants could be made “extremely safe.” But Musk has publicly supported the use of nuclear energy for years.

“We should build more nuclear power plants,” Musk said in 2007 interview with PBS. “I think that’s a better way to generate energy than certainly a coal power plant or a natural gas power plant.”

Currently, about 20% of the energy generated in the United States is from nuclear, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Conventional nuclear energy technology using fission has evolved and improved over the years. For example, Bill Gates founded an advanced nuclear company, TerraPower, which is innovating on legacy power plant technology.

Still, there is strong opposition to the use of nuclear power.

Opponents to nuclear power say there are still risks associated with nuclear power, despite technological innovations, and the better solution is to focus on ramping up renewable energy sources, like wind and solar.



— CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed to this report.

EDF says it would shut Taishan reactor if it were in France

French nuclear operator says fuel-rod issues at China plant would lead it to close for maintenance

David Sheppard,

FT Energy Editor

 JULY 22 2021

French nuclear operator EDF said it would have shut down a reactor in southern China being investigated for a potential fuel rod issue if the facility were in France but that the decision to continue operating the joint venture was beyond its control.

The Taishan nuclear power plant, which is majority controlled and operated by China General Nuclear Power Corp, with EDF holding a 30 per cent stake, held an extraordinary board meeting on Thursday to review the latest data following reports of problems last month.

“On the basis of the analyses carried out, EDF’s operating procedures for the French nuclear fleet would lead EDF, in France, to shut down the reactor in order to accurately assess the situation in progress and stop its development,” EDF said in a statement following the meeting

“In Taishan, the corresponding decisions belong to TNPJVC [Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co].”

EDF said last month that a build-up of noble, or inert, gases in Taishan seemed to have occurred because of issues with the casing around some fuel rods, the first of three containment barriers at the reactor.

The company said it had been allowed to analyse data related to the “detection of unsealed assembly rods in reactor No 1 of the Taishan power plant”.

EDF said the data made available by CGN suggested the “radiochemical parameters” were still below regulatory thresholds in China, which it said were “consistent with international practices”. However, it added that the situation is “evolving”.

The French company has sought to play down the problem after a CNN report in June suggested the risk of a radiation leak. The company has said a leak outside the facility is not a danger and the build-up of noble gases had been contained.

A spokesperson for EDF told the FT on Thursday that the primary concern was to begin maintenance to resolve the issue.

“We want to prevent the fuel rods from deteriorating further, carry out investigations to figure out why the fuel rods lost their sealings, and we want the necessary maintenance to be as simple as possible,” the spokesperson said.

“This is not an emergency or an incident. It is a situation, that is covered by operating procedures, that is known and understood.”

Taishan is the first nuclear plant in the world to operate a European Pressurised Reactor, a Franco-German technology that for two decades was bedevilled by delays and cost overruns.

China’s handling of nuclear plant leak shows need for transparency

The Taishan plant’s first reactor began commercial operations in December 2018, and its second reactor came on stream in September 2019.

CGN and EDF are also collaborating on an EPR nuclear plant in the UK, under construction at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Citing unidentified sources and documents, CNN reported last month that Framatome, an EDF unit, had informed the US government of a potential “imminent radiological threat to the [Taishan] site and to the public”.

The news network said that Joe Biden’s National Security Council was monitoring the situation but did not think that a “crisis level” had been reached.

Nuclear power in China is central to President Xi Jinping’s ambitious environmental goals, which include achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2060. About 50 nuclear reactors operate in China, accounting for about 5 per cent of total power generation.

CGN did not respond to requests for comment outside normal business hours on Thursday.

https://www.ft.com/content/b3a5f59c-7603-4bc5-b1c6-6b39202f7b48

‘Advanced’ Nuclear Reactors? Don’t Hold Your Breath

With little hard evidence, their developers maintain they’ll be cheaper, safer and more secure than existing power plants

By Elliott Negin on July 23, 2021

CLIMATE | OPINION

Cooling tower for a conventional nuke. Credit: Getty Images

The U.S. nuclear power industry is at an impasse. Since 2003, 11 of the 104 light-water reactors in operation at the time have closed, mainly as a result of aging infrastructure and the inability to compete with natural gas, wind and solar, which are now the cheapest sources of electricity in the United States and most other countries worldwide.

In the early 2000s, the industry promoted a “renaissance” to try to stem its incipient decline, and in 2005, Congress provided nearly $20 billion in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. The result? Only two new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactors, still under construction in Georgia, which will cost at least $14 billion apiece—double their estimated price tags—and take more than twice as long as estimated to be completed. Another two partially built AP1000 reactors in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017 after a $9-billion investment.

Given the struggle to build these standard-sized, 1,000-megawatt light-water reactors, the industry has turned to two other gambits to secure a bigger market share: small, modular light-water reactors, which, because they lack the advantage of economies of scale, would produce even more expensive electricity than conventional reactors; and non-light-water “advanced” reactors, which are largely based on unproven concepts from more than 50 years ago.

Unlike light-water reactors, these non-light-water designs rely on materials other than water for cooling. Some developers contend that these reactors, still in the concept stage, will solve the problems that have plagued light-water reactors and be ready for prime time by the end of this decade.

The siren song of a cheap, safe and secure nuclear reactor on the horizon has attracted the attention of Biden administration officials and some key members of Congress, who are looking for any and all ways to curb carbon emissions. But will so-called advanced reactors provide a powerful tool to combat climate change? A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis of non-light-water reactor concepts in development suggests that outcome may be as likely as Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss’ famous 1954 prediction that electricity generated by nuclear energy would ultimately become “too cheap to meter.” Written by UCS physicist Edwin Lyman, the 140-page report found that these designs are no better—and in some respects significantly worse—than the light-water reactors in operation today.

Lyman took a close look at the claims developers have been making about the three main non-light-water designs: sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and molten salt–fueled reactors. With little hard evidence, many developers maintain they will be cheaper, safer and more secure than currently operating reactors; will burn uranium fuel more efficiently, produce less radioactive waste, and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation; and could be commercialized relatively soon. Those claims, however, do not hold up to scrutiny.

One of the sodium-cooled fast reactors, TerraPower’s 345-megawatt Natrium, received considerable media attention earlier this year when company founder Bill Gates touted it during interviews about his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. In mid-February, Gates told CBS’s 60 Minutes that the Natrium reactor will be safer and cheaper than a conventional light-water reactor and produce less nuclear waste.

According to the UCS report, however, sodium-cooled fast reactors such as Natrium would likely be less uranium-efficient and would not reduce the amount of waste that requires long-term isolation. They also could experience safety problems that are not an issue for light-water reactors. Sodium coolant, for example, can burn when exposed to air or water, and the Natrium’s design could experience uncontrollable power increases that result in rapid core melting.

In June, TerraPower announced that it would build the first Natrium reactor in Wyoming as part of a 50-50 cost-share program with the Department of Energy. The DOE program originally required TerraPower to have the reactor, still in its early design stage, up and running by 2027. The agency recently changed the target date for commercialization to 2028.

From concept to a commercial unit in seven years?

The new Westinghouse AP1000 light-water reactor provides a cautionary tale. It took more than 30 years of research, development and construction before the first one was built in China and began generating power in 2018. According to the UCS report, if federal regulators require the necessary safety demonstrations, it could take at least 20 years—and billions of dollars in additional costs—to commercialize non-light-water reactors, their associated fuel cycle facilities, and other related infrastructure.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may have to adapt some regulations when licensing reactor technologies that differ significantly in design from the current fleet. Lyman says that should not mean weakening public health and safety standards, finding no justification for the claim that “advanced” reactors will be so much safer and more secure that the NRC can exempt them from fundamental safeguards. On the contrary, because there are so many open questions about these reactors, he says they may need to meet even more stringent requirements.

The report recommends that the DOE suspend its advanced reactor demonstration program until the NRC determines whether it will require full-scale prototype tests before any designs are licensed for commercial deployment, which the report argues are essential. The report also calls on Congress to require the DOE to convene an independent commission to review the technical merits of non-light-water reactors and approve only those projects that have a high likelihood of commercialization and are clearly safer and more secure than the current fleet.

Finally, it recommends that the DOE and Congress consider spending more research and development dollars on improving the safety and security of light-water reactors, rather than on commercializing immature, overhyped non-light-water reactor designs.

“Unfortunately, proponents of these non-light-water reactor designs are hyping them as a climate solution and downplaying their safety risks,” says Lyman. “Given that it should take at least two decades to commercialize any new nuclear reactor technology if done properly, the non-light-water concepts we reviewed do not offer a near-term solution and could only offer a long-term one if their safety and security risks are adequately addressed.” Any federal appropriations for research, development and deployment of these reactor designs, he says, “should be guided by a realistic assessment of the likely societal benefits that would result from investing billions of taxpayer dollars, not based on wishful thinking.”

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Recent Articles by Elliott Negin
It's Time to Rein in Inflated Military Budgets

"THEORETICAL"

China is gearing up to activate the world's first 'clean' commercial nuclear reactor


By Ben Turner - Staff Writer 1 day ago

Plans include building up to 30 reactors in partnered nations.

A top down view of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's 1960s molten salt reactor experiment, an early precursor to the Chinese reactor. (Image credit: Oak Ridge National Laboratory/US Department of Energy)

Chinese government scientists have unveiled plans for a first-of-its-kind, experimental nuclear reactor that does not need water for cooling.

The molten-salt nuclear reactor, which runs on liquid thorium rather than uranium, is expected to be safer than traditional reactors because the molten salt cools and solidifies quickly when exposed to the air, insulating the thorium, so that any potential leak would spill much less radiation into the surrounding environment compared with leaks from traditional reactors.

The prototype reactor is expected to be completed next month, with the first tests beginning as early as September. This will pave the way for the building of the first commercial reactor, slated for construction by 2030.

As this type of reactor doesn't require water, it will be able to operate in desert regions. The location of the first commercial reactor will be in the desert city of Wuwei, and the Chinese government has plans to build more across the sparsely populated deserts and plains of western China, as well as up to 30 in countries involved in China's "Belt and Road" initiative — a global investment program that will see China invest in the infrastructure of 70 countries.

Chinese government officials view nuclear energy exports to be a key part of the Belt and Road program.

"'Going out' with nuclear power has already become a state strategy, and nuclear exports will help optimize our export trade and free up domestic high-end manufacturing capacity," Wang Shoujun, a standing committee member of the China People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — a political advisory body which acts as a link between the Chinese government and business interests, said in a report on the CPPCC's website.

Thorium — a silvery, radioactive metal named after the Norse god of thunder — is much cheaper and more abundant than uranium, and cannot easily be used to create nuclear weapons. The new reactor is a part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's drive to make China carbon-neutral by 2060, according to the team at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics that developed the prototype. China currently contributes 27% towards total global carbon emissions, the largest amount from any individual country and more than the entire developed world combined, according to a 2019 report by the US-based Rhodium Group.


"Small-scale reactors have significant advantages in terms of efficiency, flexibility and economy," Yan Rui, a physics professor at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, and colleagues wrote in a paper about the project published July 15 in the journal Nuclear Techniques. "They can play a key role in the future transition to clean energy. It is expected that small-scale reactors will be widely deployed in the next few years."


Taklamakan desert, nicknamed the "The Sea of Death", is the second largest shifting sand desert in the world, and a potential site for the waterless reactors. (Image credit: Que Hure/VCG via Getty Images)

Instead of using fuel rods, molten-salt reactors work by dissolving thorium into liquid fluoride salt before sending it into the reactor chamber at temperatures above 1,112 Fahrenheit (600 degrees Celsius). When bombarded with high energy neutrons, thorium atoms transform into uranium-233, an isotope of uranium which can then split, releasing energy and even more neutrons through a process called nuclear fission. This starts a chain reaction, releasing heat into the thorium-salt mixture, which is then sent through a second chamber where the excess energy is extracted and transformed into electricity.

Thorium reactors have long held an elusive appeal for nuclear scientists. Sitting just two positions to the left of uranium on the periodic table of chemical elements, nearly all mined thorium is thorium-232, the isotope used in nuclear reactions. In contrast, only 0.72% of total mined uranium is the fissile uranium-235 used in traditional nuclear reactors. This makes thorium a much more abundant source of energy.

Thorium’s advantages don’t stop there. The waste products of uranium-235 nuclear reactions remain highly radioactive for up to 10,000 years and include plutonium-239, the key ingredient in nuclear weapons. Traditional nuclear waste has to be housed in lead containers, isolated in secure facilities, and subject to rigorous checks to ensure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. In contrast, the main byproducts of a thorium nuclear reaction are uranium-233, which can be recycled in other reactions, and a number of other byproducts with an average “half-life” (the time it takes for half of a substance’s radioactive atoms to decay to a non-radioactive state) of just 500 years.


After the 2 gigawatt prototype has undergone tests in September, China plans to build its first commercial thorium reactor. Measuring only 10 feet (3 meters) tall and 8 feet (2.5 m) wide, the researchers claim it will be capable of generating 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to provide power for 100,000 people. Still, it must be paired with other equipment, like steam turbines, to make usable electricity.

The molten-salt reactor concept was first devised back in 1946 as part of a plan by the predecessor to the U.S. Air Force to create a nuclear-powered supersonic jet.

However, the experiment and the many others which followed — including an experimental reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee which operated for many years — ran into problems. Corrosion caused by the hot salt cracked pipes and the weak radioactivity of thorium makes it very difficult for fission reactions to build up to sustainable levels without adding uranium. The investigations into thorium stopped.

It is not yet clear how, sixty years later, Chinese researchers have solved these technical problems.

China's effort is the furthest developed of many other fresh attempts to create thorium reactors, including one called Natrium, which plans to build a pilot plant in Wyoming and enjoys the financial backing of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Nuclear reactors aren't the only technology China is investing in as a part of its effort to become carbon-neutral. The Baihetan Dam, the second-largest hydroelectric facility in the world after China's Three Gorges Dam, went online in June and has an energy-generating capacity of 16 gigawatts. The U.K.-based energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie estimates that China will add 430 gigawatts of new solar and wind power capacity in the next five years.

Even as China positions itself as a global leader in the fight against climate change, the country is already under acute strain from extreme weather events. Severe flooding in the province of Henan this week displaced around 100,000 people and killed at least 33, CNN reported. The weather bureau in Zhengzhou, the capital of the region, said the three days of rain matched levels seen only "once in 1,000 years."

Originally published on Live Science.

Plans for largest U.S. solar field north of Vegas scrapped

OVERTON, NEVADA
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
PUBLISHED  JULY 23, 2021

The push to transition from carbon-emitting fuel sources to renewable energy is hitting a roadblock in Nevada, where solar power developers are abandoning plans to build what would have been the United States’ largest array of solar panels in the desert north of Las Vegas.

“Battle Born Solar Project” developers this week withdrew their application with the federal Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the Moapa Valley hilltop where the panels were planned, KLAS-TV Las Vegas reported.

California-based Arevia Power told the television station that its solar panels would be set far enough back on Mormon Mesa to not be visible from the valley. But a group of residents organized as “Save Our Mesa” argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and could curtail the area’s popular recreational activities – biking, ATVs and skydiving – and deter tourists from visiting sculptor Michael Heizer’s land installation, “Double Negative.”

Solar Partners VII LLC, another California firm involved in the project, submitted a letter to the Bureau of Land Management saying it intended to withdraw its application “in response to recent communication” with the agency, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

The proposed plant would have spanned more than 14 square miles (37 square kilometres) atop the scenic mesa and had an 850 megawatt capacity – roughly one-tenth of Nevada’s total capacity and enough to provide daytime energy to 500,000 homes, according to the company.

The stalled project presents a setback for the Western state, which aims to transition to 50% renewable energy by 2030 and currently generates roughly 28% of its utility-scale electricity from renewables.

Gov. Steve Sisolak sent a letter to federal officials in 2020 requesting they fast-track the project.

Although a majority of the state’s voters approved an energy transition ballot question last year, large-scale projects like Battle Born Solar have drawn backlash from conservationists, endangered species advocates and local businesses that cater to tourists.

Nevada fulfills most of its energy needs using natural gas plants or through importing power produced elsewhere. But developers have rapidly scaled up their investments in solar and geothermal in the windswept lands north of Las Vegas, where sunshine and open land are abundant.

Subsidies for India’s renewable sector are falling, needs renewed support, says study

 Even though the government is pushing for the rapid adoption of clean energy, it also continues to support the industry based on fossil fuels. 

by Mayank Aggarwal on 22 July 2021

As India’s renewable energy sector is showcased as evidence of efforts to combat climate change, the government’s subsidy support to the clean energy sector has fallen over the past few years, a study has found.

The research shows that while the subsidy support for renewable energy has fallen, it has increased for the oil and gas sector and support for coal has continued despite the health impact on citizens.

Meanwhile, subsidy for electric vehicles has increased, highlighted the report and recommended that the government continue to provide financial and non-financial support for the growth of the sector.

The government’s push for renewable energy has been one of its main defence against criticism for using fossil fuels. However, government subsidies to the renewable sector have fallen by nearly 45 percent since their peak in (financial year) 2017, according to a latest study, which states that support for the sector needs a revival.

The study, “Mapping India’s Energy Subsidies 2021: Time for renewed support to clean energy”, by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) found that subsidies to renewable energy fell from Rs. 154 billion (15,470 crore) in (FY) 2017 to Rs. 85.77 billion (Rs. 8,577 crore) in (FY) 2020.

It argued that to ensure India’s clean energy transition is smooth it is crucial that the financial support for the renewable energy sector continues. It explained that the renewable energy subsidies are at a standstill due to a combination of factors including grid-scale solar and wind achieving market parity, lower deployment levels, and subsidy schemes nearing the end of their allocation period.

The report said India’s public sector units make massive annual investments in the energy sector as it is noted that over the last six years from (FY) 2014 to (FY) 2020, the seven energy-related units invested Rs. 2.5 trillion (Rs. 2.5 lakh crore) in 183 projects.

“Overall, this is still heavily skewed toward fossil fuels, which were the focus of 11 times more investment than clean energy in (FY) 2020. An assessment of these seven PSUs found relatively low ambition on clean energy and no planning on how to manage the stranded asset risk of fossil-intensive asset portfolios,” said the study.

Balasubramanian Viswanathan of the IISD, who is one of the co-authors of the study, said it is time for a new wave of support measures that are focused on emerging technologies such as grid integration and storage, decentralised renewable energy, green hydrogen, and offshore wind. Viswanathan explained to Mongabay-India that one of the primary reasons for the decreasing subsidy support is the maturity of the grid-scale solar and wind combined with market forces.

“Also, the first big wave of the subsidy support under the country’s solar mission has come to an end. Moreover, policy uncertainties such as the renegotiation of tariff in the renewable energy projects and introduction of safeguard duty on the modules being imported have led to a decrease in investments,” he said.

He pointed out that to reach 450 GW by 2030, India would need to deploy “historic levels of about 39 GW every year” and that is “hard to imagine without the right support policies.”

“For India to go near the 2030 target of 450 GW, the sector needs a strong push not just in terms of subsidies but also through ramping up of ambition by state-owned companies and an increase in the electric mobility infrastructure, battery storage and grid storage, and other emerging clean technologies,” Viswanathan said.

The study recommended that under its flagship Aatmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) programme, the government should “develop more nuanced subsidies as part of a broader strategy for green industrial policy that considers both the central and state levels and prioritises integrated solar PV manufacturing, electric vehicles, and storage solutions.”

Read more: [Charts] A long road to 2030 for India’s import-heavy solar power sector

Subsidies to the oil and gas sector increased

The study also revealed that oil and gas subsidies jumped by about 16 percent in (FY) 2020 and reached Rs. 553.47 billion (Rs. 55,347 crore) compared to (FY) 2019 due to financial support for household consumption of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

However, in a statement released along with the study, experts note that the LPG subsidies were suspended during the (FY) 2021 oil price crash and have not yet been reintroduced. They emphasise that this may reduce oil and gas subsidies in future years, but has led to new concerns around clean energy access, as no alternative support for clean cooking has been provided.

The study said that the support for fossil fuels has increased as of the latest year of comprehensive data, hitting Rs. 705.78 billion (Rs. 70,578 crore) in (FY) 2020 – which is over seven times the sum of subsidies to clean energy.

The installation of solar power systems in the country is yet to achieve the desired pace. Photo by Jitendra Parihar (Thomson Reuters Foundation)/Flickr.

It highlighted the support for coal continued. “Concessional tax benefits continue to be the largest subsidy for the (coal) sector, at Rs. 131.54 billion (Rs. 13,154 crore), 87 percent of all coal support. In (FY) 2021, several non-subsidy measures were implemented to incentivise domestic coal production, such as withdrawing or pushing back environmental regulations, despite health impacts for citizens,” it said.

The report stressed that reforming fossil fuel subsidies can generate valuable additional resources for economic recovery from COVID-19 and investments in clean energy.

It further stressed that the “falling prices of grid-scale solar and a drop in demand during COVID-19 have created economic challenges for coal power” and “while coal makes significant contributions to government revenue and rail cross-subsidies, its full social cost is much higher than its net contributions.”

“Such decisions will simply exacerbate pollution-related health problems in a context where major Indian cities have already topped global charts on air pollution, pushing costs onto citizens and the health system. Low GST rates should be reformed, and green taxes such as the coal cess should continue to periodically increase so that the full social costs of coal are reflected in prices,” it said.

Prateek Aggarwal of the CEEW, who is the co-author of the study, in a statement, said: “Redirecting a share of coal tax revenues to clean energy and supporting communities, regions, and livelihoods impacted by the transition will help ensure a just and equitable energy transition. The government should encourage public sector undertakings, which are currently investing more in fossil fuels, to set ambitious targets for high levels of investment in clean energy and establish national capacity in manufacturing.”

Read more: About 40 percent of India’s districts have some form of coal dependency

Support for electric mobility is a positive trend

The report also said that since (FY) 2019, subsidies for electric vehicles have risen more than 2.3 times, reaching Rs. 11.41 billion (Rs. 1,141 crore) in (FY) 2020, mainly driven by growing sales and further support is needed for manufacturing capacity.

It explained that many of the subsidies have been driven by the increase in sales of two-wheeler electric vehicles, up by around 21 percent from (FY) 2019 to 2020 but the sale of four-wheel electric vehicles, however, dropped by 200 units.

“Various states and union territories also support the adoption of the EVs through subsidies for manufacturers, consumers, and charging infrastructure or through government procurement,” it said.

The report also highlighted the need for non-financial incentives for the EVs such as “priority lanes and reserved parking spaces.”

“An estimated investment of Rs. 205.8 billion (Rs. 20,580 crore) will be required toward charging infrastructure development alone. The government is also actively working to support the EV manufacturing industry by framing favourable industrial policies,” it said

.

India is close to achieving about 100 GW installed capacity of renewable energy. Photo by Zorori47/Flickr.

According to the report, going forward what is required is an increase in support measures to ensure the “production of cheaper and more efficient EVs” to tackle the current low demand.

“As EV subsidies grow, all efforts must be made to ensure that sustainability remains at the helm of this transition to EVs on all fronts: clean energy supply, prioritising a sustainable supply chain for manufacturing, choosing battery components, and designing a recycling plan,” it said.

Chandra Bhushan, who is president and chief executive officer (CEO) of the International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology (iForest), a think-tank working on environmental and sustainability issues, said that a recent global survey of EVs shows that 39 percent of buses and 44 percent of two-three wheelers sold globally are EVs while in case of vans/trucks and passenger cars, the number is about one percent and four percent respectively.

“Frankly, if India wants to speed up adoption of EVs, it should focus on buses and two/three-wheelers as they are already commercialised. This segment is market-ready and won’t require much subsidy push. However, in the case of electric four-wheelers, there might be a case of subsidies for a limited time. But most importantly, the mainstreaming of EVs requires the government to facilitate the transition through standards, infrastructure and policies like public procurement,” Bhushan told Mongabay-India.


Read more: A large scale shift to electric vehicles may not be as environment friendly as it seems

Article published by mayank

Australia’s reliance on gas exports questioned as Japan winds down fossil fuel power

Government urged to speed up transition to green energy as Australia’s biggest market shifts away from LNG and coal

Is Japan’s shift away from fossil fuel electricity generation a signal for Australia’s LNG export industry? Photograph: Dazman/Getty Images/iStock 

Adam Morton Climate and environment editor

@adamlmorton

Thu 22 Jul 2021 

A Japanese pledge to wind down gas and coal-fired electricity much faster than previously planned has sparked warnings Australia needs to speed up a transition away from fossil fuel exports.

A draft revised energy mix released by Japanese officials on Wednesday said the country – Australia’s biggest market for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and thermal coal – would cut gas-fired electricity generation nearly in half and reduce coal power by more than a third by 2030.

The plan, devised to help the country ramp up emissions cuts by 2030, would require renewable energy to provide up to 38% of generation. Coal, LNG and nuclear energy would each provide about 20%.

While a shift away from coal has been widely forecast, the expected fall in Japanese gas-fired electricity is at odds with claims by the Australian government and the $36bn LNG export industry that its product would displace coal and help reduce global emissions.

Llewelyn Hughes, an associate professor at the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy, said the Japanese announcement was a “big deal” for Australia and consistent with the country’s target of having 45GW of offshore wind energy capacity – nearly equivalent to Australia’s current power grid – by 2040.

Australia has huge potential to develop offshore windfarms near existing substations, report says

Read more

He said some thought it would be challenging for Japan to meet its revised targets, but the commitment showed the country was on a trajectory to using fewer fossil fuels. “It indicates a long-term decline in coal and gas,” Hughes said.

Over the past year, the Japanese prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, has set national targets of net zero emissions by 2050 and a 46% cut by 2030 compared with 2013 levels. The 2030 target had previously been a 26% cut.

Rebecca Mikula-Wright, the chief executive of the Investor Group on Climate Change, said the draft energy mix was “a clear signal of the country’s intent to speed up its decarbonisation”. Australia’s other major customers in Asia – China and South Korea – were also heading towards net zero emissions and would reduce demand over the coming decade, she said.

“To remain competitive in global export markets, Australia needs to quickly put in place the right climate policy and investment signals to help ensure we are producing the green energy and other products that our major trading partners will increasingly demand,” she said.

The country’s oil and gas lobby group, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, rejected suggestions Japan’s shift meant gas would play a declining role.

‘We are in the same boat’: Japan urges Australia to join forces to address challenge of China

Read more

Its chief executive, Andrew McConville, said Australian LNG was “an important part of a cleaner energy future” and would “still be needed in Japan to power their large manufacturing industry”. He said demand for gas in Asia had been forecast to grow significantly by 2040 and that gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS) was “a pathway to a large-scale clean hydrogen industry”.

Gas is used not only in electricity generation but also manufacturing industries, heating and cooking. It is often said to have about half the emissions of coal when burned, but studies have suggested this is an underestimate once leakage of methane – a potent greenhouse gas – during extraction and transportation is counted.

A recent major IEA report suggested the world should not open any new oil or gas fields or coal plants if it was to have a chance of limiting global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels

But the prime minister, Scott Morrison, recently told the oil and industry it would “always” be a major contributor to Australia’s prosperity. It has committed $224m to to develop new gas fields in the Northern Territory’s Beetaloo Basin. Labor also supports opening up new gas reserves.

On Thursday, the resources minister, Keith Pitt, said the government would continue to “prioritise unlocking new sources of gas supply”. He said Japan was only one of Australia’s customers and demand from other Asian countries was set to rise. “Fast-growing nations such as India, China, Vietnam, Pakistan, Thailand and Bangladesh will likely take more Australian LNG,” he said.

Australia’s gas export industry has grown exponentially in northern Western Australia and Queensland since 2014. A June summary of resources and energy data published by the federal industry department showed Japan bought 37.9% of Australia’s LNG and 36.5% of thermal coal exports over the past year. Together, they were worth $22bn.

‘A shocking failure’: Chevron criticised for missing carbon capture target at WA gas project

Read more

The extraction and processing of the gas have been responsible for a significant rise in Australia’s industrial emissions that, according to government reports, has effectively replaced some of the reduction in carbon dioxide caused by an influx of solar and wind into the electricity grid.

The government and industry justify the LNG industry’s local emissions by arguing Australian LNG has the potential to reduce global emissions by about 170m tonnes a year by displacing coal. Neither has produced evidence to show this is happening.

The federal Greens leader, Adam Bandt, said the Japanese announcement showed the major parties were giving communities “false hope” about coal and gas continuing for decades. The bipartisan political support to open the Beetaloo Basin was “economic and environmental madness”, he said.

“It’s time to face facts and tell workers in Queensland and New South Wales the truth. Coal and gas are now on borrowed time and we need to support workers and communities to transition,” Bandt said.

Japan To Cut LNG, Coal In Power Sector As It Bets On Renewables

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Jul 22, 2021, 10:30 AM CDT

The world's largest importer of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and one of the biggest importers of coal, Japan, aims to significantly raise the share of renewable power in its electricity sector and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, according to a draft energy policy plan through 2030.

Japan, like many other developed nations, aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, or as Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) said last month "a carbon neutral society by 2050."

Under the draft new policy, Japan will target to have renewable energy sources make up between 36 percent and 38 percent of the country's power generation by the end of this decade. The previous target was to have renewable energy generate between 22 percent and 24 percent of Japan's electricity mix by 2030.

The new plan hasn't changed the target for nuclear power generation, which was left at 20-22 percent of electricity generation. But the share of coal is now targeted to drop to 19 percent by 2030, from 26 percent now, while the share of LNG is planned to decline to 41 percent from 56 percent.

The world's top LNG importer aiming to reduce the use of the super-chilled fuel for power generation is likely to rattle the market.

According to estimates from Lloyd's List Intelligence, Japan was the single largest importer of LNG in the world in the first half of 2021, holding a 20.49-percent share of all LNG imports globally. To compare, all 27 members of the European Union (EU), plus the UK, combined, accounted for 20.94 percent of global LNG imports.

The fastest-growing market for LNG, China—which is expected to soon surpass Japan as the largest LNG importer—accounted for 18.22 percent of LNG imports in the first half this year, Lloyd's List Intelligence data showed.

Reduced future use of coal and LNG in Japan is set to create disturbances in the Asian markets of those fossil fuels, especially for Australia, which supplies two-thirds of Japan's thermal coal and is Japan's top LNG supplier, too, Reuters columnist Clyde Russell notes. 

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com