translated from Japanese

常識的な内容を評価－第7次エネ基の原案を分析

The draft of Japan’s Seventh Basic Energy Plan is a realistic recognition of nuclear power’s role, but without the political will to enact concrete measures, it may remain little more than a paper policy.

International Environment and Economy Institute · By 石井孝明 · 9 January 2025 · read the original in Japanese →

The government is moving ahead with the formulation of the Seventh Basic Energy Plan, which sets the objectives of energy policy. On December 17 last year, the Basic Policy Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Natural Resources and Energy, an advisory body to the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, presented a “draft” of the plan. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy are expected to finalize the proposal within the year and have it approved by the Cabinet before the end of fiscal 2024.

In principle, this Basic Energy Plan is revised every three years. Since the 2011 accident at the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima nuclear power plant, the handling of nuclear power has drawn close attention. Amid a range of views on nuclear power, debate has centered on the share of nuclear use needed to realize the fundamentals of energy policy: stable supply, competitively priced power, and measures against global warming.

The points of the draft and their evaluation. I consider the main points of the present draft to be as follows.

- 1.

- The phrase “reduce dependence on nuclear power as much as possible,” which appeared in the Sixth Basic Energy Plan, has been deleted.

- 2.

- As a basis for the examination, an outlook for energy supply and demand as of fiscal 2040 was presented together with the Basic Energy Plan for the first time. Until now, projections had extended only to 2030. Total electricity generation was put at around 1.1 to 1.2 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh), compared with 985.4 billion kWh in fiscal 2023. The projected generation mix in fiscal 2040 is roughly 40 to 50 percent renewable energy, about 20 percent nuclear power, and about 30 to 40 percent thermal power.

- 3.

- The power generation costs that form the premise of the plan were also shown. Per-kWh costs are estimated at 20.2 to 22.2 yen for LNG-fired thermal power, currently the largest source of generation; 16.4 to 18.9 yen for nuclear power; 15.3 to 36.9 yen for utility-scale solar power; and 18.9 to 23.9 yen for offshore wind. Renewable energy costs were given as ranges according to the state of deployment. Forecasts of market prices and the like in 2040, however, were not factored in.

Deleting “reduction” with respect to nuclear power is only natural.原子力について「逓減」削除は当然

Some media outlets, anti-nuclear activists, and political forces have criticized the draft for deleting the language on the “reduction” of nuclear power. I regard this draft, however, as reasonable.

It was possible to anticipate in advance that the language on reducing nuclear power would disappear from the draft. At the end of 2020, the Kishida administration set out its “GX policy” (GX: green transformation, the shift to a decarbonized economy), and this became a pillar of the nation’s energy and economic policy. It indicated that nuclear power would be utilized. It was only natural that this thinking would be reflected in the draft as well.

The selection of members for the council also appears appropriate, and the direction of the draft could be foreseen. The chair of the Working Group on Verification of Power Generation Costs under the subcommittee was Keigo Akimoto, chief researcher at the Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE). He is an accomplished and respected researcher.

The cost figures that emerged, as well as the increase in electricity demand, do not feel out of line when considered against the realities of energy demand. In previous Basic Energy Plans, the figures prepared within the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy had served as the basis. Numbers favorable to renewable energy had been put forward in a way that looked somewhat politically contrived.

The estimate that the cost of nuclear power is not high compared with other power sources is also one that accords with common sense. Until now, long-term forecasts had indicated that Japan’s electricity supply and demand would decline because of industrial hollowing-out and the aging population combined with a low birthrate. This time, however, the possibility of an increase has been shown. Over the past year or two, research institutions in Japan and around the world have published projections that the development of AI (artificial intelligence) and the spread of electrification will require vast amounts of electricity in the near future; the draft has likely incorporated that knowledge.

Regarding nuclear power, the draft emphasizes its advantages, stating that it “has excellent stability of supply and a high rate of technological self-sufficiency, is at a cost level not inferior to other power sources with little fluctuation, and can generate electricity stably at a constant output.” It says the public and private sectors will work together on coexistence with host communities, deepening and enriching communication with all layers of the public, accelerating the back-end process, and speeding up restarts. As for the construction of new or additional nuclear power plants and the replacement of existing ones, the draft states that “with respect to replacement with next-generation innovative reactors at nuclear power plant sites of operators that have decided to decommission nuclear reactors, [omission] concrete steps will be advanced.” This, too, is an appropriate view at present.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party has also advocated diversification of power sources and a realistic renewable energy policy. It calls for the use of nuclear power and a balanced composition of energy sources. For that reason, the ruling parties will probably approve this draft as well. (“Recommendations Toward the Formulation of the Seventh Basic Energy Plan,” December 10, Liberal Democratic Party Policy Research Council.)

Even among opposition parties that previously advocated a nuclear phaseout or reduction, some have now begun to call for the promotion of nuclear power.

The challenge is to flesh out the policy. Yet even if the Basic Energy Plan changes, it is doubtful whether a corresponding and realistic policy shift can be made.

The Kishida administration moved energy policy. After the Great East Japan Earthquake, successive LDP administrations left nuclear policy unattended, and as a result Japan ended up drifting toward a “nuclear phaseout.” By linking the issue to GX, the Kishida administration made a policy shift that reevaluated nuclear power as an important source of electricity. I had hoped that the administration would continue in this vein and normalize energy policy. What followed, however, was strange. On issues in energy policy that required political judgment, the Kishida administration did not respond actively. The result was such that it would be no surprise if the policy shift were dismissed as “all talk.”

In the House of Representatives election of October 2024, the ruling coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito lost its majority. The Basic Energy Plan is a document decided by the Cabinet, so it is not greatly affected by the situation in the Diet. But the passage of bills needed to carry it out is heavily influenced by parliamentary conditions. Depending on the political situation, the plan may become meaningless, like “pie in the sky.” And there is little sign that the Ishiba administration attaches much importance to energy as a policy issue.

Among people connected with energy, there are also voices of expectation toward the Democratic Party for the People, which increased its strength in this election and advocates a realistic energy policy. But considering the effect on this July’s House of Councillors election, it will likely be difficult for the party simply to enter the government or compromise with the ruling parties. Nor do issues on which it can easily compromise with the LDP-Komeito government seem likely to serve as bargaining chips.

The concern is that important political judgments will be postponed.重要な政治判断が見送られる懸念

Looking at the policies set out in the draft, they are all issues that require major political decisions: verifying the merits and demerits brought about by energy liberalization and correcting the problems; accelerating international technological cooperation and development for advanced nuclear reactors; and rebuilding crisis-management systems to respond to an opaque international situation. Moreover, all of them are complex issues on which one cannot expect simple, easily understood answers that the public would welcome.

For that reason, until before the House of Councillors election, the administration will likely be unable to submit bills that divide the ruling and opposition parties, and the same will probably be true on energy issues. Even if a realistic Basic Energy Plan is finally formulated, its impact will be limited. In the meantime, I am worried that major changes in the international environment surrounding energy will occur, and that domestic problems left unattended will worsen.