Why Japan Is Neglecting Climate Change Commitments by Building Coal Plants

With the Kyoto Treaty, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the international pressure to curtail carbon emissions, you would think that coal would become more a thing of the past. At least in the United States, coal consumption as a percent of overall consumption has been on the decline (EIA). That does not seem to be the case for Japan. As a matter of fact, Japan has been increasing its reliance on coal. In 2018, Japan was looking to 36 new coal plants. The New York Times reported earlier this month, however, that Japan revised that figure down to 22 coal-fired plants because building the other plants did not make economic sense. Even with a downward revision, it is a notable trend in an age of more carbon-neutral alternatives. Japan was set to be carbon-neutral after 2050. If Japan is successful in building the 22 plants, it would most probably delay Japan's acquisition of carbon-neutral status. Not only that, these plants would emit 74.7 million tons of carbon every year. Why is Japan bucking the trend towards fewer carbon emissions?

The most obvious answer dates back to the Fukushima nuclear accident. In March 2011, an earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 followed by a tsunami hit Japan. These natural disasters particularly hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, thereby causing the most severe nuclear accident since Chernobyl. I can talk about the advantages of nuclear power, but the truth of the matter is that Fukushima made a mark on the psyche of the Japanese people where it all but eliminated nuclear power consumption (EIA).

Tangentially, Japan is also looking to diversify its energy portfolio. In part, Japan does not want to generate too much liquified natural gas (LNG), especially since demand from China and India could cause LNG prices to spike. It is true that renewable energy as a percent of Japanese energy generation has increased to 16.7 percent, which is still lower than its European counterparts. Solar power increased from 1.9 percent of energy generation in 2015 to 6.5 percent in 2018 (ISEP). Aside from the general issues of capacity and intermittence with solar and wind power, Japan has the additional issues of limited sunshine and a lack of land for large-scale projects, both of which make solar power twice as expensive in Japan than in Europe.

There is also a geopolitical element to Japan's rush to coal, the "clear and present danger" being China. On some level, there could be a national security threat from China, which could be reason for Japan to become less dependent on Australia for its coal. However, I would contend that it is China's interactions in the energy market in the Asia Pacific that are driving concerns. China is using its Belt and Road Initiative to expand influence in Asia and Africa. The truth is Japan would like to have some of that influence. South Korea is also part of the equation because South Korea is exporting nuclear energy to countries that are of national interest to Japan. While Japan is nowhere near the military threat it was in the middle of the twentieth century, I would surmise that it would like to remain an economic powerhouse.

Where Does This Leave Us?
Japan is under economic and political pressure to continue with its coal production. In spite of the naysaying from other countries, I do not see Japan's coal consumption changing anytime soon. This is all the more lamentable since carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is too cost-prohibitive to be commercially available. It will be difficult for Japan to get past the geographic hindrances that limit solar energy production. I also do not see the Japanese populace getting over Fukushima quickly enough to restore nuclear power capacity.

We have to be careful of what lessons to draw from Japan when it comes to energy policy. The Fukushima accident does not show the issues with nuclear power per se, but rather about proper planning and construction. An archipelago nation in which most of the people live on the coasts and are prone to natural disasters is not the best candidate for nuclear power. That does not mean other countries should not use nuclear power. Nuclear power is still the only carbon-neutral energy source that can adequately satisfy energy needs. Removing nuclear power from the equation while trying to rely more on renewables would most probably either lead to greater energy outages or considerable increases in energy prices. Until technology can be developed to overcome the limitations of solar and wind power, nuclear power is the world's best bet for a more carbon-neutral energy consumption.