＜prologue＞
I started a blog called “The Baby Boomer Generation’s Miscellaneous Blog”（Dankai-sedai no garakutatyou:団塊世代の我楽多（がらくた）帳） in July 2018, about a year before I fully retired. More than six years have passed since then, and the number of articles has increased considerably.
So, in order to make them accessible to people who don’t understand Japanese, I decided to translate my past articles into English and publish them.
It may sound a bit exaggerated, but I would like to make this my life’s work.
It should be noted that haiku and waka （Japanese short fixed form poems） are quite difficult to translate into English, so some parts are written in Japanese.
If you are interested in haiku or waka and would like to know more, please read introductory or specialized books on haiku or waka written in English.
I also write many articles about the Japanese language. I would be happy if these inspire more people to want to learn Japanese.
my blog’s URL:団塊世代の我楽多（がらくた）帳 | 団塊世代が雑学や面白い話を発信しています
my X’s URL:団塊世代の我楽多帳（@historia49) on X
(Reference) Original article in Japanese
・新エネルギー基本計画は高い発電コストで国民負担が増大し日本経済をダメにする
<Added 2024/5/28> The terrifying reality of “mega solar fires” beginning to occur across Japan. Risks of electric shock and leakage of hazardous materials!
In the past month or so, there have been a series of fires at mega solar (large-scale solar power generation facilities) in Kagoshima, Hokkaido, and Miyagi prefectures.
These fires are more difficult to deal with than typical fires because of the risk of electric shock, making it difficult to spray water, and there is also a risk of hazardous materials leaking due to damage to the solar panels.
Following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident caused by the Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, renewable energy has gained attention amidst rising public opposition to nuclear power.
Following this trend, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry recently published a draft of its “New Energy Basic Plan.”
The plan sets a target of significantly increasing renewable energy to 36-38% of the power generation mix by 2030. Going forward, the focus will likely be on formulating policies to further expand the introduction of solar power.
However, if renewable energy, which has many disadvantages such as high costs and unstable supply, is to be used as the main power source to ensure a stable power supply, backup from thermal power and nuclear power is essential, but the countermeasures for this are not yet clear.
1. “Renewable Energy”
(1) What is “Renewable Energy”?
Renewable energy is energy derived from the sun and geophysical/biological sources, which is replenished by nature at a rate exceeding its utilization.
Solar power and wind power are already familiar, but there are also other forms of power generation, such as geothermal, biomass, wave power, tidal power, water flow, and tides.
(2) Advantages and Disadvantages of “Renewable Energy”
① Advantages
– No greenhouse gas emissions
– Energy self-sufficiency
② Disadvantages
– Unstable power supply
– High power generation costs
– Low energy conversion efficiency
– Can lead to environmental destruction
2. What is the “New Basic Energy Plan”?
(1) What is the “New Basic Energy Plan”?
A draft revision of the “Basic Energy Plan,” which serves as a guideline for Japan’s energy policy, was announced on July 21, 2021, at an expert panel meeting (Comprehensive Resources and Energy Research Council, Basic Policy Subcommittee) held by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
The “Power Source Mix in 2030” proposes a significant expansion of “renewable energy” to 36-38%, and aims to meet approximately 60% of the power source mix with “non-fossil fuel power sources that do not emit greenhouse gases,” including nuclear power and hydrogen.
The Basic Energy Plan is reviewed every 3-4 years, but this time the focus is on the path to achieving a “46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to FY2013.”
The draft outlines two major pillars of the strategy: “thorough energy conservation” and “expanding the introduction of non-fossil energy (decarbonized power sources).”
Regarding energy conservation, by incorporating economic growth rates and population changes, and through “ambitious and in-depth energy conservation,” it is assumed that energy demand will be reduced from 363 million KL in FY2013 to approximately 280 million KL in FY2030.
Of this, 30% is to be covered by electricity, which is 5 percentage points more than in FY2013. In other words, the aim is to promote the “electrification” of energy demand while simultaneously promoting the de-fossilization of power sources.
3. Problems with the “New Basic Energy Plan”
I believe that the “New Basic Energy Plan” announced this time is an unattainable and foolish policy that will increase the burden on the public due to high power generation costs and risk ruining the Japanese economy.
It is comparable to the “Imphal Operation” during the Pacific War, which was a reckless and disastrous failure and called “the worst operation in history.”
(1) Reducing greenhouse gases is something that China and the United States should do first
Recently, there’s a trend towards taking “climate change countermeasures” and “decarbonization (carbon neutrality)” for granted, but I believe that “climate change countermeasures,” which are a massive waste of taxpayer money, are unnecessary.
Even if “climate change countermeasures” are necessary, I think it’s not something Japan should take the lead on; rather, it should be China and the United States, which emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, that should be made to drastically reduce their emissions first.
(2) Backup power sources are needed for renewable energy, which has an unstable supply.
Even with “solar power generation,” electricity cannot be generated on rainy or cloudy days, including typhoons, or at night. Similarly, “wind power generation” cannot be generated on windless or weak winds. Therefore, it is impossible to provide a stable supply 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
For this reason, “thermal power generation” and “nuclear power generation” are indispensable as backup power sources. However, many “nuclear power plants” are currently shut down, and their actual power generation mix in 2019 was only 6%. This plan targets 20-22% for “nuclear power generation,” but it doesn’t specify new construction, expansion, or replacement. How will they achieve this 20-22% target?
This means “thermal power generation” will play a crucial role, but thermal power plants cannot immediately respond to electricity supply shortages.
(3) High generation costs will be passed on to the public through increases in Japan’s electricity rates.
The government, riding the wave of global trends such as “climate change countermeasures” and “decarbonization,” is promoting “renewable energy” but is failing to properly explain the inevitable increase in the burden on citizens. This is a way of deceiving the public.
In Europe, too, there is growing concern about the dangers of inflation stemming from climate change countermeasures, the so-called “greenflation.”
(4) The installation of solar panels for “solar power generation” and wind turbines for “wind power generation” is environmental destruction.
While “renewable energy” is strongly associated with “clean energy,” installing solar panels for “solar power generation” involves clearing mountainsides, posing risks such as landslides, and there’s also the risk of harmful substance leakage if panels are left abandoned after their lifespan ends.
(5) Suitable locations for land-intensive mega solar power plants and wind turbines are scarce, and opposition movements are hindering progress.
(6) Achieving the target for the proportion of nuclear power in the energy mix is virtually impossible.
To achieve the target of 20-22% for “nuclear power,” all 27 reactors, including those currently shut down, would need to be operational, and their 40-year lifespan extended to 60 years to achieve 80% operation. This is virtually impossible.
(7) Further reducing energy demand by 18% in Japan, a country that has already thoroughly implemented energy conservation measures, is difficult.
This plan aims to return Japan’s energy demand to around 1980 levels.
Given that Japan has already thoroughly implemented energy conservation measures to reduce costs, and with an expected increase in energy demand due to economic recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic, this is extremely difficult to achieve.
It’s like trying to wring out a dry rag—an impossible task.
(8) The 46% reduction target was calculated theoretically by working backward from the “2050 carbon neutrality” goal.
Last year, Prime Minister Suga declared “carbon neutrality by 2050,” and at the Climate Change Summit in April of this year, he promised to “reduce CO2 emissions by 46% by 2030.” This necessitated creating a calculation problem with a predetermined answer.
The goal of stopping global warming at 1.5°C was set, and from there, the targets of net-zero by 2050 and 46% by 2030 were determined.
This is a case of “putting the cart before the horse,” where a target was set first, without careful consideration of feasibility, and then what was needed to achieve it was considered.
This is the result of Prime Minister Suga’s unfocused performance.
(9) The cost of carbon neutrality is not specified.
The IEA (International Energy Agency)’s “net-zero scenario” explicitly states the cost of a “carbon tax of $250/ton by 2050.”
However, Japan’s “New Energy Basic Plan” makes absolutely no mention of costs. To reduce energy consumption by 18% in the next nine years, a carbon tax of $130 per ton would be necessary by 2030.
This translates to approximately 10% in sales tax. Unless fossil fuels like gasoline are taxed at over 100%, consumption cannot be reduced by 18%.
This is a plan that offers no incentive to reduce CO2 emissions.
(10) As it is a non-legally binding aspirational target, there is a possibility that no one will follow it.
This “New Energy Basic Plan” is a non-legally binding aspirational target, and from an economic rationality standpoint, it is like the “Imphal Operation,” an impossible and unrealistic plan that no one will follow.