Nuclear Power in Japan
Chapter 7

Hector Pollitt, Cambridge Econometrics

September 2014

Outline of the presentation• Background – the previous paper• Results from E3ME
• Comparison with CGE modelling

Overview of the Chapter• The chapter builds on thepaper that was published inEnergy Policy:
Pollitt, H, Soocheol Lee, Seung-Joon
Park and Kazuhiro Ueta (2014) ‘An
Economic and Environmental
Assessment of Future Electricity
Generation Mixes in Japan - Anassessment using the E3MG macroeconometric model’, Energy Policy,
Volume 67 (2014), pp 243-254.

Comparison with the CGE Analysis• Previously 4 CGE models were applied toassess the scenarios• E3ME was applied to assess the same
scenarios, and also the interaction with different
carbon targets

2010

2030
15% NPP

0% NPP
beforemeasures
Compositionof NPP share
Electricity Generation
Renewables

NPP
Energy Security

0% (-25%)0% (-25%)

15% (-10%)

20-25% (-5%--1%)

10%30% (+20%)

35% (+25%)

30% (+20%)

30-25% (+20-+15%)

Coal
LNG
Oil
Electricity Generation
End Energy Consumption

63%
24%
29%
10%
1.1 trn kWh0.39 bn kL

70% (+5%)
28% (+4%)
36% (+7%)
6% (-4%)
1.0 trn kWh0.31 bn kL

65% (+0%)
21% (-3%)
38% (+9%)
6% (-4%)
1.0 trn kWh0.30 bn kL

55% (-10%)
20% (-4%)
29% (+0%)
5% (-5%)
1.0 trn kWh0.31 bn kL

50% (-15%)
18% (-6%)
27% (-2%)
5% (-5%)
1.0 trn kWh0.31 bn kL

Dependence on NPP
Dependence on Fossil Fuels

26%
63%

0% (-25%)70% (+5%)

0% (-25%)65% (+0%)

15% (-10%)
55% (-10%)

20-25% (-5%-1%)
50% (-15%)

17 trn yen
16 trn Yen
Promoting stronger shift to gas

16 trn yen

15 trn yen

17 trn yen

Importedfuelvalues(total primary energy supply)
Climate Policy

20-25% NPP

after
additionalmeasures

26%Combustion

Energy Conservation

additional

Renewable Energy Share

10%30% (+20%)

35% (+25%)

30% (+20%)

30-25% (+20-+15%)

Non-Fossil Energy Share
Coal to Gas in combustion power
plants including CHP

37%
1: 1.230% (-5%)
1:1.3

35% (+0%)
1: 1.845% (+10%)
1: 1.550% (+15%)
1: 1.5--16%+0% (0%NPP),-5% (14% NPP)

-23%
-0% (0% NPP)
-7%(14%NPP)-23%-9%(21% NPP)

-25%
-10-11%(23-26% NPP)

8.6

-15.1 (+6.5)

14.1 (+5.5)

14.1 (+5.5)

3.4

5.2

3.4

3.4-2.7

100(saving 70)

80(saving 60)

80(saving 60)

1.4
1.5
2.1
2.0

1.4
1.4
1.8
1.8

1.4
1.2
1.8
1.8

628

634

634

608
609
564

611
616
579

614
617
581

GHG emission

2030
2020

Generation Costs (yen/kWh)
Transmission Investment(trn yen, accumulated to 2030)
Energy Saving Investment(trn yen, accumulated to 2030)--

Household electricity price in 2030 (10 thousand yen/month)
NIES
1.0
Osaka Univ.
Keio Univ.
RITEReal GDP in 2030 (trn yen)
NIES
511
Osaka Univ.
Keio Univ.
RITE80(saving 60)

636(2030 BAU)
624(2030 BAU)
625(2030 BAU)
609(2030 BAU)

E3ME Results – GDP% frombase

carbon target

E3ME Results – Carbon Prices
Nuclear2030

sharein CO2 emissions in 2020 Carbon tax rate (yen / tcompared to 1990 (%)CO2) in 2020

N25Cn

25%

-3.8

0

N15Cn

10%

-2.7

00%

-1.1

025%

-10.0

5,582

10%

-10.0

7,462

0%

-10.0

9,285

25%

-15.0

14,77310%-15.0

17,2920%-15.0

20,26225%-25.0

45,03410%-25.0

49,8010%-25.0

56,838

N00Cn
N25C10
N15C10
N00C10
N25C15
N15C15
N00C15
N25C25
N15C25
N00C25

Conclusions• The CGE models predict that a lower nuclear
share leads to a small loss of GDP compared tobase• E3ME predicts virtually no change• E3ME suggests that a higher carbon target
could lead to a positive GDP effect, but withvery high carbon prices required – especiallywith a low nuclear share