A controversy continues regarding the future energy mix in Japan. It was Tokyo that was hard hit by a power shortage last summer. It is Osaka's turn to expect a power shortage in the coming summer. TEPCO, which serves the Tokyo area, lost four nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the big quake and immediately initiated rolling blackouts. However, TEPCO pulled through last summer by imposing strict power usage controls. It also threw in as many thermal plants as possible, whether they were online or offline (due to their age), to compensate for the lack of the nuclear reactors.

KEPCO, which serves the Osaka area, did not prepare another source of power as TEPCO did, and has been warning that the Osaka area will suffer from a power shortage this summer. There are several players in this game:

1. Central government

2. Governor and assembly where the nuclear reactors reside

3. Local government that hosts the nuclear power plants

4. Governors and assemblies of surrounding area

5. Public at large

6. KEPCO

It was clear from the beginning that the central government and KEPCO would like to restart the nuclear reactors. Recently, the local government (both the village master and the assembly) indicated that they approved the restart. The biggest opposition to the restart was a group of governors of the surrounding prefectures (a prefecture is similar to a state in the US).

KEPCO and the governors of the surrounding area have been in discussions for some time. As summer comes closer, the deadline for restarting the two reactors is within days. It takes three weeks to restart one reactor. Because two reactors share some structure, they cannot be restarted at the same time. So it will take six weeks to get full power. If the restart takes place next week, it would be around July 15 when full power is restored. Setting the deadline seems to have worked: the governors have compromised, although they still insist the restart is temporary and only for the summer.

With the compromise, Prime Minister Noda indicated that he would call the shot as early as next week. This writer is puzzled. In spite of these discussions and heated debates, there was no involvement from the technical experts on the security of the reactors. PM Noda said he would take all the responsibility for the restart, but he is not an expert. How can he take responsibility in case of a disaster? If the restart was used to revitalize the nuclear business, what was the significance of the Fukushima disaster? The four reactors in the Fukushima nuclear power plants still need time and care to get them fully decommissioned for the next 50 years or so.

Personally, I think the restart is necessary to cope with the power shortage. But the process of restarting and the discussion of it seem flawed. It seems like more reactors will be restarted before long.

A few days ago, the four reactors that were badly damaged at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant were officially decommissioned. That makes the official nuclear reactor count in Japan 50, down from 54. Out of those 50 reactors, only one is currently in operation. A big, ongoing controversy is the issue of restarting some of the reactors that were halted after a checkup.

The Japanese government is now clearly pushing for restarting nuclear reactors to secure enough power for the country. The very two reactors in question now are in the KEPCO territory, which includes the big cities of Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe, and Nara. The government performed stress tests on those reactors and abruptly concluded them safe. They did it by creating a safety checklist for the nuclear reactors in a few days. Then they held a meeting to conclude that the reactors were safe because they satisfied all the items in the list.

This did not convince the local people. It appeared that the government had already decided to restart the reactors no matter what and held a meeting to make it official. The surrounding communities and local governors are very much against this decision, and the government has yet to move this matter to the next stage. The Fukui prefecture (similar to a state in the US) is a small and not very populous one, and its industries and employment opportunities are limited. With the nuclear industry in their prefecture, they received a large sum of money in grants from the government, and employment opportunities opened up. They need workers at the reactors, and the surrounding restaurants and inns benefit from the people pouring into their community. The local people are in a dilemma. They are worried and afraid of potential disasters. But with the reactors halted, the local economy is also halted, and they cannot sustain their lives as before.

The Asahi Shimbun, one of the leading newspapers, published a nationwide survey of the government decision to restart the reactors. Only 28% supported the restart, while 55% opposed it. As for whether people believed the government’s assurance of safety, only 17% trust the government assurance, while 70% do not. Also, only 18% believe the government's power-shortage data, while 66% do not. As for whose consent is necessary for the restart, 88% answered that the local community needs to approve it, while 8% said the government could decide by itself. Finally, people who were surveyed felt that the government was not moving away from using nuclear reactors (61% vs. 19%).

The strong argument from the government is that, without nuclear energy, Japan will not have enough power. But the majority of people do not believe that. It appears this standoff will continue into summer, which requires the most power during the year. With the current administration's approval rate at 25% and still sinking, a general election may take place sometime soon. The discussion about energy policy and power supply may be delayed substantially. It is too late to take action when power cannot be supplied adequately when needed.

As of March 25 (Japan time), the 53rd nuclear reactor has been halted for a checkup. That reactor was in the TEPCO territory. The 54th and last remaining operational reactor is in Hokkaido, in the Hokkaido Electric Power Co. (HEPCO) territory, and it is due to be halted on May 5th (Japan time) for a checkup. So as of early May, no nuclear reactors will be running to provide power in Japan. The hot summer usually starts in mid-July, and Japan must go through another summer with an inadequate power supply. Remember that TEPCO suffered the most last summer because of the loss of the power generated by the four reactors of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

To recap, the reason for stopping the nuclear reactors is not out of fear that they aren’t safe but because utilities companies do not want to restart them, even though they were deemed to be fine after their checkups. The former administration required a stress test to make sure the existing nuclear reactors can withstand more severe earthquakes and tsunamis before they can be restarted. The details of the stress test have not been publicly available, but bits and pieces of information from the media reveal the following.

The first level of the stress test is to simulate even more severe earthquakes and tsunami, to see whether the current infrastructure holds. That is the first level. It is only simulation. The second level is to enumerate all the possible ways for the nuclear reactors to get into trouble and provide remedies for them.

These conditions are rather silly because:

1. The halted nuclear reactors are not safer than the running reactors, because reactor cores require constant cooling. Until this problem of supplying power for cooling when there are major quakes or tsunamis is solved, nuclear reactors will not be safe.

2. It was OK not to test operational reactors, while the halted reactors were tested. In spite of #1, operational reactors are possibly more dangerous than halted reactors.

3. The first level of the stress test does not test physically to see whether the outer containment can really withstand severe quakes. Therefore, passing the test does not guarantee any real physical integrity. If we take the condition for the second level literally, we can’t restart any reactors. Instead, we need some kind of rating system to decide whether each nuclear reactor can be restarted.

Right now, KEPCO, which serves Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, and Kobe, is trying to restart two out of eleven reactors as early as April. Up to now, the central government and local governments that host nuclear plants were ducking the issue of nuclear power plants for fear of a public outcry. The current administration seems to have decided to restart nuclear reactors no matter what. When you look at my three reasons that the conditions are silly, # 2 does not apply, because every reactor will be halted soon. But #1 and #3 still hold. KEPCO got a clearance on level one of the stress test in an open meeting of the Nuclear Safety Commission. It took only five minutes to certify level one, in spite of questions and opposition. They are now at level two and likely to pass it some time soon, so that two reactors can be restarted as early as April.

Under the guidance of Toru Hashimoto, maverick mayor of Osaka, the City of Osaka will suggest getting rid of nuclear reactors in an upcoming KEPCO shareholder meeting. The City of Osaka, along with the Cities of Kyoto and Kobe, holds about 13% of KEPCO's stock. KEPCO reported that the district it serves would be short of power this summer without nuclear power. What they want is to restart their nuclear reactors to remedy this. The stock owned by the Cities of Osaka, Kyoto, and Kobe does not constitute a majority but is big enough. Their demand is that all the nuclear power plants be abandoned.

I wish they had had a rational discussion of this. KEPCO should publish detailed information about its power supply and demand. How much does it lack at the peak times, as opposed to non–peak times? If peak times are the only problem, there are a lot of ways to avoid that. Some people wonder whether last summer’s power shortage in the TEPCO territory was real. Some people are skeptical that KEPCO really has a power shortage problem without nuclear power.

If there is a reasonably priced way not to use nuclear reactors without hurting individuals and businesses, it should be considered. But one thing remains to be addressed. Simply halting nuclear reactors does not guarantee safety, because fuel rods need constant cooling, which requires power.

Recently, I participated in Agrion's panel discussion, "Japan's Clean Technologies and Collaboration Opportunities”, as a panelist.

Many views were expressed from different perspectives—of a journalist with intense familiarity with Japanese culture, of an investor with Japanese funds, and of a large Japanese trading company. Most of all, Mike Kanellos did an excellent job of moderating. It was a pleasure to spend one and a half hours discussing this matter.

As I prepared for the panel, I went over my notes and read many more articles in Japanese newspapers. Whether or not Japan adopts more renewable energies, with 52 out of 54 of its nuclear reactors halted and the remaining two to be shut down come April, and with current renewable energies far short of the capacity to compensate for the loss of nuclear power, a power shortage should be imminent.

Before the disastrous quake last March, nuclear reactors generated about 30% of the total power produced in Japan. When you lose 30%, you gotta do something about it. What Japan did last summer was to:

• Mandate energy savings of 15% from the previous year at manufacturing facilities and businesses.

• Restart thermal and hydro power plants.

Power saving went very well. Average consumers were not ordered to save power by law, but people pitched in. Large factories shut down on Thursdays and Fridays and operated on weekends instead. Most businesses started early in the day and stopped early to save power. Small factories started their day late at night when power demand is not severe. People were working in offices in 86°F conditions. Parents with small kids had a hard time finding a caregiver on weekends because child-care facilities were usually closed on weekends. Small restaurants around factories were forced to change business hours because they had very little business on Thursdays and Fridays. On the weekends, workers at factories could not find restaurants open for lunch nearby. Although this worked, people are now fed up with hardship. Don't believe everything you read in the media. The US and Western media praised Japan for its calm reactions to the disasters and the hardships that came after. However, there is always a breaking point for anything. If that point is passed, people may snap.

Restarting old, dormant thermal and hydro power plants did not go so well. Far more thermal than hydro plants were restarted. Those thermal plants were old and very inefficient and were to be demolished. It was only because of the emergency that they were brought back into service. But they had been neglected for some time, and some of them broke when restarted. Even the plants that did not break have been shaky.

With the two methods mentioned above, Japan survived the power shortage last summer. This winter is going relatively OK, except in the Osaka area served by Kansai Electric Power Co. (KEPCO), which has more than a 45% dependence on nuclear power. As of now, all 14 of its nuclear plants are shut down. Even though 45% of its power supply is gone, the Osaka area (including Kobe, Kyoto, and Nara) appears to be holding out. I exchanged email with one of my friends in Osaka who works at a subsidiary of KEPCO. He wrote that because KEPCO wanted to show that they were saving power, his company set thermostats at 50°F throughout the facility. He had to work in a heavy jacket and a blanket.

As you know, TEPCO lost four nuclear reactors in Fukushima and is required to pay compensation to the people who evacuated from the region. It is clear that TEPCO alone cannot pay all the claims. The loss of land and houses, though very costly, might not be too much. But the people who lost their jobs because radiation is preventing them from going back to their places of work need money every day and every month. This amount keeps rising. TEPCO is on the brink of bankruptcy, and there is talk of nationalization.

TEPCO is proposing to hike its fee for electricity by 17%. People in the TEPCO region are furious. Even though everyone is angry, one individual cannot do much about it. The vice governor of the Tokyo Metropolitan government tried to send a strong message to TEPCO to request power from Chubu Electric Power Co. (CEPCO), which serves the Nagoya region, as reported here.

The Tokyo government uses about 11 MW, roughly the power required by several good-sized data centers. The local utility for the Tokyo government is TEPCO, and if they import power from CEPCO, they need to:

1. Find a way to bypass the TEPCO distribution infrastructure or get an agreement to use TEPCO's and reconcile later.

2. Convert power from 60 Hz (CEPCO territory) to 50 Hz (TEPCO territory). Conversion capacity is limited to 1,100 MW.

Because it is not possible to lay a transmission line to connect the CEPCO side and the Tokyo government, CEPCO needs to connect to the transmission line owned by TEPCO. They can lay a set of distribution lines from one or more substations to the Tokyo government facilities. Or they can cut a deal with TEPCO to use all of their infrastructure and reconcile later.

CEPCO turned down this offer by citing their need to help their western utilities, especially KEPCO, which desperately needs power. Both KEPCO and CEPCO use 60 Hz, and they are adjacent to each other for easy sharing of power. (See the figure below.) It is speculated that Tokyo's attempt was a bluff to force TEPCO to reconsider the price hike.

Utility company territories.

The current administration seems to be coping with the power loss by:

1. Restarting as many thermal and hydro plants as possible.

2. Restarting selected nuclear plants.

The thermal plants use mostly natural gas, which Japan must import. They seem to have an agreement to import natural gas from the US. It is an exceptional gesture because US policy is to use natural gas as a strategic means for energy security and to embargo any exports of the fuel. This surely will increase GHG emissions.

Restarting some nuclear plants is much more controversial. It appears that the central government is running out of options to compensate for the power shortage. It is likely that some nuclear reactors will be restarted before summer.

Is the US ready for a power shortage? Before the disaster, Japanese utilities executives fended off my questions about the long-range energy policy by saying that Japan's power infrastructure was solid and there was plenty of power available. Are we saying the same thing in the US now?

When I started looking into smart grid, I asked an expert in the field whether vehicle to grid (V2G) made any sense. He told me that it was a bogus idea from some crazy college professor. The idea of V2G is to use electricity stored in car batteries to compensate for the shortage of power in the grid when necessary.

I had a few questions about this idea.

1. An EV requires about the same amount of power as the home itself. Do we have enough power even to support EVs in the first place?

2. The battery capacity is very limited. Can we afford to send electricity in the battery back to the grid?

3. The battery’s life depends upon how many cycles it goes through. Won’t using it to support the grid impose extra cycles and shorten its life?

In Japan, Toyota and others are getting serious about vehicle to home (V2H). In Japan, even before the major quake and the resultant power shortage, PV, in the form of solar panels on rooftops, and EVs were popular. These two were considered examples of what smart grid was all about. Now that the power shortage that began in the TEPCO (Tokyo – Yokohama) area has spread to other service areas—CEPCO (Nagoya) and KEPCO (Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe-Nara)—how has this perception changed?

Toyota, located in CEPCO’s service area, has been actively experimenting with V2H with manufacturers like Panasonic and Hitachi and with a wind power company to maximize power use at home. PV may be put into the mix for self-sustaining power generation and consumption. I am still somewhat skeptical about V2H, much less V2G, because of those three questions of mine.

I am not very familiar with PV’s total generation capacity, but I do not think it is enough to charge an EV fully. The battery capacity and the number of cycles must be improved substantially to support V2H. The second and third problems are concerned with batteries. So I am still skeptical.

Still, Japan is in a real power shortage. Its market and people’s mentality are completely changed since March 11. When real needs arise, technologies and processes dismissed before may be deemed reasonable and break into the mainstream. What about the US? I am not sure whether there is a driver here like the one Japan suffered from.

Regardless of V2G or V2H, improvement in battery technologies is important for stabilizing power demand and supply and exploiting variable renewable energy sources like sun and wind.