International Energy Agency Gives Japan Its Blessing
IEA Head Fatih Birol Visits Tokyo
“I believe nuclear power should play an important role for Japan to provide secure energy, affordable energy, and also address climate change issues” — IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol (Source: Screenshot by the author from the Government of Japan Public Relations Office)Hey Power Japan readers.
How can Japan be jolted to become more proactive in the collective effort to address climate change? How can its political and corporate leaders be nudged to be more aggressive in pursuing a genuine clean energy transition?
These are the questions I ask myself.
When you inquire into how systems change happens in Japan, one of the often-heard factors is external pressure (外圧 — gaiatsu), whether from international investors, diplomatic persuasion (like when former US climate envoy John Kerry criticized some of Japan’s energy policy), name and shame, deteriorating trade prospects, what have you. This is a view that I also subscribe to in the domain of energy policy. After all, I think one of the main reasons why Japan committed to carbon neutrality at all is the global movement to address climate change.
But a recent visit to Japan by Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) showed that 外圧 won’t be coming from that particular intergovernmental organization.
Why? In short, Birol endorsed virtually all aspects of Japan’s energy strategy.
A Packed Schedule
Birol followed a tight schedule during his visit to Japan in late March. He traveled to Niigata Prefecture to tour the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (”KK”) Nuclear Power Plant, the world's biggest nuclear energy facility.
Back in Tokyo, he met with the Foreign Affairs Minister Iwaya and the Economy Minister Mutō, sat down with Prime Minister Ishiba, gave a keynote address at a plenary session of the Asia Zero Emission Community (AZEC) Parliamentary Support Group for Southeast Asia (with former Economy Minister Saitō and former PM Kishida), and spoke at the International Energy Symposium hosted by the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ).
For good measure, he also met with Brazil’s Minister of Mines and Energy, Alexandre Silveira de Oliveira, who was there as part of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s state visit to Japan.
Giving Japan His Blessing
The discourse on energy policy in Japan tends to devolve into the grossly simplistic dichotomy of pro- vs. anti-nuclear. Nuclear power supplied about a quarter of Japan’s electricity before the 2011 East Japan Earthquake, but all 54 of the country’s reactors were taken offline after the meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The country’s nuclear regulator has designated 33 reactors as operable, but only 14 are so far back online.
The government’s strong desire to restart as many reactors as quickly (and safely) as possible is now enshrined in its 7th Strategic Energy Plan. Birol emphatically agrees.
At the KK Nuclear Plant, he talked about the crucial role of nuclear power can play in improving energy security and reducing emissions. He also emphasized just how important restarting the plant’s units 6 and 7, saying that “the Japanese economy doesn’t have the luxury to miss this opportunity.”
“I feel really bad that a country I really love, Japan, has so much idle capacity,” Birol said. “I very much hope that soon, not only the Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant, but other nuclear power plants in Japan will come back, in a safe way.”
He grounded his backing of nuclear in the IEA’s recent report The Path to a New Era for Nuclear Energy. The report takes a sweeping assessment of the global nuclear energy landscape (it’s a “new era for nuclear”), models the growth of nuclear capacity (global nuclear capacity will rise by >50% by 2050, led by — no surprises — China), identifies opportunities (small modular reactors) and challenges (supply chains for uranium and reactors, high financing and construction costs, etc.), and politely extends recommendations for policymakers.
The Japan-IEA alignment on nuclear itself isn’t surprising at all. Since its founding in 1974, the IEA has seen nuclear as a valuable energy source (”The IEA’s founders considered nuclear energy, along with coal, to be the two most promising alternatives to imported oil,” says its 1994 report). Those “IEA founders” very much included Japan, which began building nuclear reactors in 1980 to reduce its dependence on oil — a painful lesson of the 1970s oil shocks.
But fast forward to today, the biggest obstacle for Japan’s new era for nuclear is the resistance of local governments. The KK plant is a case in point. For a while now, the national government in Tokyo has been trying to persuade Niigata Prefectural lawmakers for to approve the restart of the nuclear plant. Just last month, METI’s official was grilled before the prefectural assembly for not being able to give good enough answers on the government’s and TEPCO’s (owner/operator of the plant) safety measures, evacuation plans, and economic benefits for Niigata.
Other prefectures, however, have been more amenable. Also last month, the governor of Fukui Prefecture gave a go-ahead to the continued operation of 3 nuclear reactors after Kansai Electric Power Co. (owner/operator of the reactors) presented a plan for the spent fuel that the governor deemed good enough.
Back to Birol. Zooming out from nuclear energy, Birol also gave his blessing to Japan’s energy strategy as a whole. He told Economy Minister Mutō that the 7th Strategic Energy Plan prudently strikes a balance between economic gains, energy security, energy affordability, and emission reduction. In a world of deepening uncertainty, he said it’s important for countries to have coherent and consistent energy strategies like Japan.
It’s also interesting that Birol attended the AZEC parliamentary group’s meeting, where Saitō gave him a briefing on how Japan and Southeast Asia share energy challenges (highly dependent on fossil fuels and, at least according to the Japanese government, geographic limits on large-scale renewables deployment).
Power Japan readers know my views on AZEC: a platform through which Japan promotes its fossil fuel-related infrastructure investments (along with clean energy investments, too). Birol’s perception of AZEC isn’t reported anywhere, but I assume he has largely bought into the Japanese narrative about it.
All of this amounts to the conclusion that there will be no gaiatsu from the IEA on Japan’s energy strategy.
Thank you for reading Power Japan. If you’re not a subscriber, please consider becoming one.
Questions or comments? Leave them in the comments section or in the subscriber chat.
Last but no less important, share this post with friends and colleagues who might find it interesting.