The 419th Forum on Research Work, 16 January 2015

Toward Choosing Energy Mix
YANAGISAWA Akira, M. Aoshima and K. Ito

IEEJ © 2015

The Energy Data and Modelling Center
The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan

Contact: report@tky.ieej.or.jp

Future picture heavily depends on energy mix
 “Basic Energy Plan” without target energy mix
The Cabinet approved a new Basic Energy Plan in April 2014 after the plan wasrevised with no quantitative energy mix being depicted.
The absence of quantitative energy mix picture hinders proper energy investments
and causes grave concern regarding sustainable economic growth.
We would like to appreciate the establishment of the Subcommittee on Long-term
Energy Supply-demand Outlook to specify energy mix and deliberate energy supply
and demand balance structure in the future.

 Long-term strategy is important for resource-poor JapanJapan features an extremely low self-sufficiency ratio in energy supply and depends
almost fully on imports for fossil fuel supply.
Japan must build an appropriate long-term energy strategy to maintain a stablesociety without being shaken by growing international turmoil.

 Utilisation both of renewables and of nuclear is essential

We conducted quantitative analyses of pictures that Japan can strategically selectfor 2030 with some uncertainties taken into account. Four scenarios are developedwith attention paid to a power generation mix influenced strongly by policies.
All of renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels must be applied in a balanced mannerconsidering comprehensively quantitative impacts on economy, environment andenergy security. The Scenario III, in which renewables, thermal and nuclear accountfor 25%, 50% and 25%, respectively, can be regarded as the closest to what to be
aimed.
21.0

19.0

20

14.8



JPY/kWh

15
10

16.4

14.8

8.6

5

Support for renewables
Butteries
Grid
Output curtailment
Backup by thermal
Power generation

0

ScenarioScenarioScenarioScenario
I
II
III
IV

IEEJ © 2015

2010

2013

2030

2

Power generation mix assumptions= scenario driver Developing four scenarios according to power generation mix assumptions for2030.
 Assessing impacts of power generation mix assumptions on not only electricity
supply but also overall energy supply and demand, economy and environment.

Scenarios and power generation mix pictures (2030)
Scenario I

Scenario II

Scenario III

Scenario IV

35%

30%

25%

20%

Thermal

65%

55%

50%

50%

Nuclear

0%

15%

25%

30%

Total electricity generation

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.2

Renewables(of which: variable power sources)

IEEJ © 2015

[PWh]

(17%)

(14%)

(10%)

(7%)

All estimates are rounded.
Variable electricity sources represent solar photovoltaics and wind.
Total power generation covers electric utilities and autoproducers of electricity.

3Promising renewables-based power generation
 Various renewable energy sources are diffusing rapidly. Installed capacity for nonresidential solar photovoltaic, though decelerating its present explosive growth,
may expand six-to-13-fold from the present level.
 Installation through 2030 will be limited for offshore wind now under
demonstration tests and geothermal with a lead time of a decade.

Installed capacity and electricity generation assumptions for renewables
Capacity (GW)
2030

2013
Installed Approved

Total

29

69

IEEJ © 2015

(growth from 2013 [times])

Electricity generation (TWh)
2013
2030

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
I
II
III
IV

185

157

121

86

(6.3)

(5.4)

(4.1)

(2.9)

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
I
II
III
IV

76

315

274

217

163

(4.1)

(3.6)

(2.9)

(2.1)

Non-residential solar PV

7

63

93

78

65

43

8

98

82

68

45

Residential solar PV

7

3

34

30

20

16

7

36

31

21

17

Onshore wind

3

1

28

23

13

8

5

49

40

23

15

Offshore wind

-

-

6

4

3

1

-

15

9

7

3

Geothermal

1

0

2

2

1

1

3

12

11

9

7

Small and medium hydro

10

0

14

13

12

11

38

54

51

47

42

Biomass

3

2

8

8

7

6

16

51

49

43

34

4

Reality check | Impacts of renewables-based
power generation
 The cost problem may be coupled with a need for massive capacity and personnel
expansion and a later reactionary deceleration in installation if renewables’ share of
power generation is raised hastily.
2013
Installed

Non-residential Area [Ratio to area of
Manhattan]
solar PV
(Ratio to total land area of Japan)
Penetration ratio todetached houses

Residential solar (household penetration)
PV
Annual installation[1,000 houses]

Area [Ratio to area of
Onshore wind

IEEJ © 2015

Offshore wind

Scenario III Scenario IV

34%

30%

20%

16%

120

-

410

340

200

140

(3%)

(2000-2013)

190

[MW]

Scenario II

7%

Annual installation

Annual installation

Scenario I

7%

5 times[MW]

Approved

times 24 times 20 times 13 times
2 times 19 times 29(0.4%)(0.4%)(0.3%)(0.2%)

Manhattan](Ratio to total land area of Japan)

2030(2000-2013)

-

(3%)

(16%)

(14%)

(9%)

(7%)

times 38 times 22 times 14 times
2 times 47(0.7%)(0.6%)(0.3%)(0.2%)- 1,480 1,170

-

330

210

600

340

150

70
5

Nuclear as “important base-load electricity
source” No nuclear power plant will be in operation in the Scenario I. Plants underconstruction will not operate.
 Nuclear power plants meeting the regulatory standards will operate for 40 years in
the Scenario II. Plants passing the special inspection extend their operating periodsin the Scenarios III and IV.

Assumed nuclear power generation shares and image
2010

2030
Scenario I

0%Electricity generation [TWh]

288

0

169

292

353

-

Immediate
shutdown

Decommissioning in

Decommissioning in

Decommissioning in

67%

-

80%

80%

90%

Construction completion-

0 unit2 units

3 units

5 units

Installed capacity [GW]

49

0

24

42

45

Capacity factor

40 years

About

25%

Scenario IV

25%

About

15%

Scenario III

Generation share

Operating periods

IEEJ © 2015

Scenario II

60 years

About

30%

60 years

6

Power generation mix
 The thermal power generation share decline toward 2030 in all of the Scenarios
from 90% following the Earthquake. The LNG-fired power generation share,
however, remain unchanged from 2013 in the Scenario I.
 The zero-emission power generation share will be one-third, slipping below the2010 level in the Scenario I. CO2-free energy sources will account for 50% of total
electricity generation in the Scenarios III and IV.
Base load power source
Power generation mix [electric utilities and autoproducers]

38%

7%

26%

22%

19%

4%

15%

25%

4%

36%

25%

20%
22%

28%

26%

4%

22%

6%
14%

30%
4%
25%

25%

25%

23%

21%

IEEJ © 2015

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
I
II
III
IV
2013

New energies,
etc.
NuclearOil, etc.
LNG

0%

2010

Others(mainly thermal)
Hydro

2030

Coal
The FY2010 power generation
breakdown covers electricity generated
and purchased by general electricutilities. Others include power producers
and suppliers, and autoproducers.
Cogeneration (included into thermal
power generation)
FY2013: 4%
FY2030: 15% (common to all scenarios)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

20102013

2030

Scenario IV

25%
7%

40%

22%

8%

Scenario III

60%

7%

9%

Scenario II

80%

13%

8%
3%

Scenario I

100%

7

Image of electricity supply and demandbalance Thermal power generation must makeup for supply shortages whengeneration by variable renewables
including solar PV and wind, are low.
Those thermal power plants, however,are not utilised efficiently.

Balance [night in early autumn]

 Excessive power supply is also a problem.
Adjustment is required when electricity
generation by variable renewables is high. It
will become more difficult to secure goodelectricity quality since thermal power
generation for such adjustment is reduced.

Balance [daytime in spring]

IEEJ © 2015

Variable renewables(solar PV and wind)

Variable renewables(solar PV and wind)

ThermalThermalNuclearCoveringlow
Otherrenewables
operatingrenewables
DemandNuclear

GW

GW

Subject to charging or output curtailment

Variablerenewables Low High Low High Low High Low High
operation

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
I
II
III
IV

Other renewables
DemandVariablerenewables Low High Low High Low High Low High
operation

Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
I
II
III
IV

8

Continuous energy conservation equivalent tothat just after the oil crises
 Each sector is assumed to promotesteadily powerful energy conservation
to save energy by an additional 7% (or11% from the Stagnant Energy
Conservation).

 Energy efficiency is assumed to reverse
the trend for the past two decades andcontinuously improve at a pacecomparable to that just after the oilcrises.

Final energy consumption

Final energy consumption per GDP

380

110

360

Stagnant
EnergyConservation
Continuous
EnergyConservation
Scenarios I - IV

Mtoe

350
340

330
320

310

IEEJ © 2015

300

Transport
Commercial
Residential
Industry

290
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Additionalsavings: 7%

100 for starting point370

1990-2010:
Round ofenergyconservation

100
90

2010-2030:
Scenarios I - IV

80
70
60
0
5
10 15 20Years after staring point

1970-1990:
Energyconservation
progress after
oil crises

The Scenarios I – IV in the figure is represented by the Scenario I.

9Examples of additional energy conservation
measures
Present

2030
Before additionalenergy conservation

Industry

Energy efficiency

Trendy improvement
Top runner complianceElectrical appliance efficiency(in stock basis)

Equivalent to a 10% improvementfrom present levels

Best available technology
penetration rate at 50%
Best levels at present

Equivalent to a 30% improvementfrom present levels

Housing insulation

50-60% attain standards

All attain standardsAll attain 10% excess overstandards

High-efficiency water heater

20%

60%



90%

LED lighting

15%

75%



90%

Home energy
management systems

LittleLittle

10%

Building performance

90% attain standards

All attain standardsAll attain 10% excess overstandards

LED lighting

2%

30%



90%

Building energy
management systems

60%

60%



Next-generation vehicles

17%

49%



(new housing)Residential

After additionalenergy conservation(household penetration rate)(penetration rate)(new housing penetration rate)(new buildings)

Commercial(penetration rate)

IEEJ © 2015

(new buildings penetration rate)

Transport(share in new vehicle sales)

100% for large buildings

70%

100% for large buildings

84%

10

Electrification will make further progress evenamid energy conservation efforts
 While the economic size will expand 30% from 2013 to 2030, additional electricity
saving measures will limit electricity consumption growth to 7% (or 2% from 2010).
 <Memo.> In the New Policies Scenario, the central scenario in the IEA “World
Energy Outlook 2014,” electricity consumption will increase by some 10% over theperiod 2012-2030.

Final electricity consumption

Additional electricity saving by sector

1,200

450

300

700
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

2030

IEEJ © 2015

200

2013

250

2030

800

Additionalsavings
Scenarios
I - IV

2013

900

350

2030

Stagnating
Electricity
SavingContinuous
Electricity
SavingScenarios
I - IV

2013

1,000

400

TWh

Additionalsavings: 5%

TWh

1,100

Industry Residential Commercial

The Scenarios I – IV in the figure is represented by the Scenario I.

11

Power costs As high-cost renewables-based power generation expands its share of total
electricity generation, average power generation cost, support for renewables andgrid adjustment costs increase.
 Whilst power cost rises by JPY1.6/kWh from FY2013 in the Scenario III, the cost rises
by JPY6.2/kWh to JPY21.0/kWh in the Scenario I.

Power generation-related costs
21.0

14.8

JPY/kWh

15
10

Fossil fuel import prices [$2013]
 Oil: $175/bbl [$123/bbl]
 Natural gas: $1,035/t [$844/t]
 Steam coal: $194/t [$158/t]

19.0

20

16.4

14.8
Support for renewables Renewables
 Output curtailment and storage
Butteries
batteries are assumed to deal withsurplus electricity.
Grid Backup thermal generation cost
Output curtailment
represents an increase in fuel input
accompanying a power generation
Backup by thermal
efficiency decline through a drop in
the capacity factor.
Power generation

8.6

5

IEEJ © 2015

0
ScenarioScenarioScenarioScenario
I
II
III
IV
2010

Assumptions (2030)

2013

2030

 The fixed feed-in tariff system isassumed to remain until 2030. For
solar photovoltaics and wind, feed-in
tariff drops through system prices
decline accompanying learning
effects are taken into account.

Data for FY2010 and 2013 are for general and wholesale electric utilities.
The actual increase in electric rates from FY2010 to 2013 was JPY3.9/kWh.

12

Comparing impacts
 The Scenario III (renewables: 25%, thermal: 50% and nuclear 25%) can be regarded
as the closest to what should be aimed considering comprehensively economy,
environment, energy security and hurdles to overcome.
2010

Scenario I

Scenario II

Scenario III

Scenario IV

14.8

21.0

19.0

16.4

14.8

Real GDP [JPY2005 trillion]

512

531

684

690

693

694

Fossil fuel import spending [JPY trillion]

17.8

28.1

33.7

32.2

31.6

32.0

1,123 1,224

959

917

892

887

(JPY2013/kWh)

Energy-related CO2 emissions [Mt]
Environment

2030

8.6

Power generation-related cost [JPY/kWh]Economy2013(compared with FY2005)(8.3)(14.8)(17.1)(-20%)(15.5)(-24%)(13.4)(-26%)(12.1)

(-7%)

(2%)

(-26%)

Electric utilities’ NOx emissions [kt]

170

254

136

122

110

106

Self-sufficiency ratio

18%

7%

19%

25%

28%

28%

LNG import volume [Mt]

70.6

87.7

84.4

69.7

65.3

70.0

Cumulative nuclear fuelconsumption [ktU]

25

26

26

34

37

39

IEEJ © 2015

Security

Waste

FY2010 and 2013 power generation costs are for general electric utilities and wholesale electric utilities.
Electric utilities’ NOx emissions exclude those for electricity purchased.

13

Economy  Fossil fuel imports and tradebalance Fossil fuel import spending in the
Scenario III will be JPY2.1 trillion less thanin the Scenario I. The spending in 2030
will increase by JPY6 trillion to JPY34 trillion
in the Scenario I.

Fossil fuel import spending (2030)

Balance of Trade (2030)
2

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV

1.3

0.0

1.5

1

-0.5

0.2
JPY trillion

JPY trillion, compared with Scenario I

IEEJ © 20150.0

 In the Scenarios II, III and IV, a decline
in fossil fuel imports and an increase inexports will eliminate a trade deficit.

-1.0

-1.5

-1

-1.5
-1.8

-2.0
-2.1
-2.5

0

-2
-2.3

-3

Scenario I

Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV 14

Economy  Real GDP and gross national
income Increases in energy import spending
and electric rate will bring about the
maximum real GDP gap of JPY10 trillion
between the Scenarios. In the
Scenario I, 5% of economic growth in
the Scenario III will be lost.

IEEJ © 2015

GNI per capita (2030)
+9.8

+10

+8
+6

+8.1
<Memo>
Steel industry GDP (2012)
JPY6.1 trillion

+5.2

+4
+2

0

0.0
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV

JPY thousand, compared with Scenario I

JPY2005 trillion, compared with Scenario I

Real GDP (2030)

 Gross national income (GNI) per capita
in the Scenario I will be JPY84 thousandless than in the Scenario III in 2030.
The cumulative gap between the two
Scenarios through 2030 will reach
JPY820 thousand.

+97

+100

+84
+80
+57

+60

+40
+20

0

0
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV 15

Economy  Employment and labour Increased fossil fuel import spending
and weaker international
competitiveness will deteriorate theemployment situation harming thenation’s macro economy.

Unemployment (2030)

Wages (2030)

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV

0

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500

-188

-285
<Memo>
Decline in unemployment
since "Abenomics" (Nov 2012 - Nov 2014)
420 thousand-341

JPY thousand, compared with Scenario I

Thousand, compared with Scenario I

IEEJ © 20150

 Workers and households free fromunemployment will be affected bylower wages. Coincident rises inelectricity rate will exert the greatest
pressure on household budgets in the
Scenario I.

+49

+50
+38

+40
+30

+24
+20
+10

0

0
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV 16

Environment  Climate change and air
pollution
 CO2 and local pollutants emissions in the Scenario IV, in which coal is reduced, areless than in the Scenario III despite of the same non-thermal power generation
share of 50%.
 Economic costs will increase if carbon prices are imposed to hold down the greater
CO2 emissions in the Scenario I.

Electric utilities’ NOx emissions (2030)

Energy-related CO2 emissions (2030)

IEEJ © 2015-10(-20%)

-20

-30
-40
-41

-50
-60
-70

(-24%)<Memo>
GHG emissions
3.8% of FY2005
51 Mt

-67
(-26%)-8000kt, compared with Scenario I

Mt, compared with Scenario I

0Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV-72(-26%)

Numbers in parentheses are changes from FY2005

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV

0

-5
-10

-15
-20

-14

<Memo>
Tokyo's vehicle-emitted
reduction target (2010-2020)
15 kt

-25
-30
-35

-27

-30
Excluding power purchased

17Energy security  Self-sufficiency ratio and
LNG imports
 The energy self-sufficiency ratio will
improve most in the Scenarios III and
IV where the collective share forrenewables and nuclear deemed(quasi-) domestic energy sources willbe the highest.

 LNG imports will decrease in all of the
Scenarios where the dependence on
thermal power generation will decline.
LNG imports in the Scenario I, however,will be 14 Mt more than before theGreat East Japan Earthquake.

Energy self-sufficiency ratio

LNG import volume

30%

28%
25%

18%

19%
Scenario IV
Scenario III
Scenario II
Scenario I

15%
10%
7%

5%
IEEJ © 2015

0.0

25%
Mt, compared with Scenario I

20%

0

28%

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV

-5

-10

-15

<Memo>
Import from
Russia (FY2013)
8.6 Mt

-14.4

-14.6

0%
2010

2013

2030

-20

-19.1

18

Beyond scenarios through 2030
 While energy consumption andimports will decline gradually, ensuringphysically and economically secureenergy supply will remain a challenge.

 New technology developments such as
artificial photosynthesis areindispensable for attaining the Basic
Environment Plan based on an
ambitious GHG emission reduction
target (reductions by 80% in 2050).

Energy supply

GHG emissions

600

1.5

500
1.0
Net imports

300

Domestic
production

200

Gt-CO2

Mtoe

400

Energy-related
CO2 emissions(Extension of
Scenario III)GHG emission
reduction
target (COP19
and 4th Basic
Environment
Plan)

0.5

IEEJ © 2015

100
0
1990

2010

2030

2050

Extending the Scenario III

0.0
1990

2010

2030

2050

The emission target for2050 is computed as
representing an 80%
decline from 2005.

19

Methane hydrate | Attention-attracting
domestic resource Methane hydrate contains methane as a main
component of natural gas.
 Methane hydrate exists in a low-temperature andhigh-pressure environment. There are two types ofmethane hydrate in offshore of Japan: shallowtype and pore-filling sand-layer type.

BSR area = about 122,000 km2
BSR (Bottom Simulating Reflector):
The reflector from seismic data
indicates the presence of methane
hydrate.

Eastern Nankai Trough(From waters off Shizuoka Prefecture to those off Wakayama Prefecture)

Concentrated zones (767 km ): 573.9 billion m3 (20 Tcf)
Other zones (3,920 km ): 567.6 billion m3 (20 Tcf)
Total: 1,141.5 billion m3 (40 Tcf), equivalent to Japan’s natural gas
2

2

consumption for about ten years

BSR (A detailed survey found concentrated zones insome parts of the waters)
About 5,000 km2
BSR (Some parts of the waters have signs indicating
concentrated zones)
About 61,000 km2
BSR (Without any sign indicating concentrated zones)
About 20,000 km2
BSR (Survey data are limited) About 36,000 km2

 Test production through the decompression procedure* took place at a depth of 8571,405 m in waters 70-80 km south-southeast of the Atsumi Peninsula in March 2013.
Gas output over some six days totalled about 120,000 m3.

IEEJ © 2015

* The procedure reduces pressure within layers to decompose methane hydrate into water and gas.

 Reconnaissance geological surveys for shallow methane hydrate was conducted
between April and June 2014 in the offshore areas around the Oki Islands, the Joetsu
region, the Akita and Yamagata prefectures, and the Hidaka region. These surveys
revealed 746 newly discovered gas chimney structures which are potential sites formethane hydrate accumulation. The number of gas chimney structures which havebeen confirmed over the past two years totals 971.
Source: Research Consortium for Methane Hydrate Resources in Japan (MH21 Research Consortium)

20

Methane hydrate production should follow suitof shale revolution“Basic Energy Plan” (April 2014)

IEEJ © 2015

The government will develop technology to realise commercial methane hydrate
production by FY2018. While watching the international situation, the government will
promote technology development so as to allow a private sector-led project forcommercial methane hydrate production to start between 2023 and 2027.

Advantages

Challenges

 Drilling costs and time arelimited as methane hydrate
layers are shallow.
 Given that methane hydrate
resource locations are close
to consumption areas, gas
may be supplied via
pipelines if they can be laid.
 Natural gas supply sources
can be dispersed.

 While oil and natural gas flow automatically, a process isrequired to decompose methane hydrate into water and gas.
 Daily methane gas production through the decompression
procedure is limited to some 50,000 m3, one digit less thannatural gas field output (more than several hundreds ofthousands of cubic metres on average).
 As decomposition represents endoergic reaction, prolonged
production may lower layer temperatures, resulting in declining
production. Well drilling costs will increase as a large number
of wells are required.
 Sand inflow may be serious as methane hydrate exists in loose
layers frequently. Earth slides could occur to affect production.

Methane hydrate production technology is still under development. Given a long periodof time required for establishing technology, securing economic efficiency, constructing
pipelines and other shipment facilities and gaining users’ understanding, commercial
methane hydrate production in full scale is expected to come in the 2030s.
Source: Research Consortium for Methane Hydrate Resources in Japan (MH21 Research Consortium)

21

Hydrogen | Key future option
 Japan launched stationary fuel cells for household in 2011 for the first time in theworld. Fuel cell vehicles have been put on sale in 2014. Large-scale hydrogen-fired
power generation will start in 2015.
 The use of hydrogen will be limited due to infrastructure, technological, cost andother problems. From the long-term viewpoint, however, hydrogen could become
one of the key energy sources.

Example of hydrogen demand projections

2050

Power
generation

Stationary
VehiclesHigh Demand
ScenarioMedian Demand
Scenario

2030

Power
generation
Stationary

IEEJ © 2015

VehiclesExcluding stationary fuel cells that reform oil or city gas to extracthydrogen without direct hydrogen supply.

0

100
GNm3

200

Source: “Position of and Outlook for Hydrogen Energy toward a Lowcarbon Society in 2050”

22

Requirements for energy policy Desirable energy mixAn energy mix set by the government is requested to be a target backed
by policy measures.
The government should work out a feasible energy mix by taking into
account long lead times and lifetimes peculiar to energy andenvironment technologies, technological innovation, and physical, socialand political constraints on the introduction of these technologies.
The government should regularly review policy progress and timely revise
the target energy mix in consideration of domestic and global energy,
economic and environmental situations.

IEEJ © 2015

 Direction required for energy policyThe principle of “Three Es and S” (energy security, environment,
economic efficiency and safety) for energy policy is an everlastingevaluation standard.

Energy security and climate change measures should be continuously
enhanced. Fossil fuel conservation and the expansion of the selfmotivating energy ratio will be indispensable.

The government should timely implement an appropriate policy forachieving goals in a manner to minimise burdens on society.
23Annex | Major indicators
Primary energy supply
400

514
18
61
96

487

489

17
117

Mtoe

463

62
22

54
22
36

46
20
61

114

300
200

455

468

212

100
119

94

88

470
35
17
74
94

214

125

0

155

155

155

102

102

99

156

2013

Nuclear

1,157

1,000

86

800

288

600

75

Natural gas

400

Oil

200

Coal

0

94

BeforeScenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV
additionalenergyconservation
2010

Other
renewables
Hydro

1,200

TWh

500

Electricity generation mix

2030

200

100

IEEJ © 2015

0

89

34

85
34

322

300
8

303
8

304
8

90

92

93

94

39

177

36

166

36

39

39

2013

Others

40

129

129

129

129

33

33

33

33

BeforeScenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV
additionalenergyconservation
2010

300

Electricity

2030

City andnatural gases
Oil
Coal

50
411

410

Hydro

New energies,
etc.
Nuclear

353

169
51

290

49

48

296

261

298

288

270

246

Oil, etc.

LNG
251

309

287

Before Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV
additionalenergyconservation

339
302
8

244

Others1,148 1,158 1,173 1,186
72
85
95
103
169
218
259
297

2013

2030

Coal
The FY2010 electricity
generation breakdown by
source covers generated andpurchased by general electricutilities. The others cover power
producers and suppliers, andautoproducers.

Final consumption by sector
83
43

Mtoe

Mtoe

300

323
3

1,090
85

295

2010

Final consumption by energy source
339
3

1,209

200

100

55

159

323

322

300

302

303

304

81

58

58

58

58

41

39

40

40

40

51

46

46

46

46

147

157

158

159

159

0

BeforeScenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV
additionalenergyconservation
2010

2013

2030

Transport
Commercial
Residential
Industry
Industry includes
consumption for
non-energy use.

24