Group items tagged

Energy costs keep Japan's focus on nuclear, despite risks and use of renewables

other plants remained closed for intensified safety checks

The issue is cost, and to a lesser extent, concern over a resurgence in climate-changing carbon emissions due to increased use of coal and oil to generate power. Clean energy still only accounts for 10 percent of total consumption — most of it hydropower. Much of the new capacity approved has yet to come online.

nuclear power remains essential, even with a surge in generation capacity from solar, wind and other renewable sources, and that the world's No. 3 economy cannot afford the mounting costs from importing gas and oil.

Japan has managed to avoid power rationing and blackouts. Industries have moved aggressively to avoid disruptions by installing backup generators and shifting to new sources, such as solar power.

households no

paying 30 percent more for electricity than before, with more rate hikes to come.

prompted a rethink of plans to raise nuclear capacity from one-third to over half of total demand.

Reliance on imported oil and gas has surged from about 60 percent of energy consumption to about 85 percent.

The recent weakening of the Japanese yen has added to the burden on the economy from oil and gas imports.

Abe and others in favor of resuming nuclear power contend that renewable energy is too expensive and unreliable — wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.

Apart from those issues, national security requires that Japan retain some self-sufficiency

Local communities are divided: many have relied heavily on nuclear plants for jobs and tax revenues, but worry over potential risks.

hat there's a huge opportunity in power

We're also seeing radical efficiency gains.

he disposal and security of nuclear waste are issues yet to be resolved.

For now, however, it appears any phase-out of nuclear power will be very gradual.

"In the long term if we can create new resources that are more efficient than the current oil-based system, then we can rely less on nuclear power, that's quite possible," Adachi said. "But it will take quite a long time."

Surprisingly, a carbon tax would operate much like a diamond tax, for reasons both of demand and supply.

Demand: The wealthy actually consume a disproportionate amount of carbon. Discussions of a carbon tax usually focus on the price of gasoline. One gallon of gas produces about 17 pounds of CO2. One metric ton is 2,204 pounds. So a $100 tax on a ton of CO2 comes to $0.77 per gallon -- a significant cost to low-income commuters and small truckers.

But the very poor don't drive or travel or occupy much space; the rich fly planes, including private jets; drive to low-density suburbs; occupy and heat multiple houses and hotels; and buy lots of stuff. Clearly the rich consume much more carbon per capita than the poor.

Demand elasticity for oil is low, about 0.5; so a 1 percent increase in oil price would cause a 0.5 percent decrease in consumption. That makes sense, since in the short run, it's hard for people to cut energy consumption, especially if they must drive to work. But, though numbers are hard to come by, elasticity of supply is much, much lower, for two reasons. First, oil production takes decades and billions in capital investment; producers cannot quickly increase or decrease supply. Second, oil producers form an international cartel, an organized mega-monopoly, which holds down production to drive up prices. Since they're already charging what the traffic will bear, they can't much raise prices to cover a tax.

As economists long ago figured out, buyers and sellers share a tax in inverse proportion to elasticity. Therefore, if supply elasticity of carbon is, say, 0.1, while demand elasticity is 0.5, the suppliers will pay five times as much of the tax as consumers. That reduces that $0.77 per gallon gas tax to only $0.13. Moreover, precisely because most of the tax falls on suppliers, it will generate plenty of revenue to help those unfortunate long-distance commuters and small truckers, to build more public transportation, to invest in renewable energy, and even to cut super-regressive taxes like the payroll tax.

According to Edward Wolff, in 2007, the top 1 percent in the U.S. owned 43 percent of non-home wealth, mostly securities, including of course energy company stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent of wealth holders owned 83 percent.

A May 2013 federal study of the Social Cost of Carbon estimated costs of additional CO2 emissions for 2010 to 2050 ranging from $27 to $221 per metric ton in 2050, depending on assumptions.

So we have good news and bad news. Good news: The cost of reducing carbon emissions will fall hardest on the 1 percent, who consume the most energy and own the energy companies. Bad news: Ditto. Expect a fight!