In 2009 the Japanese government signed a pledge to cut their carbon emissions by 25 percent by 2020, however following the disaster at Fukushima in 2011 and the subsequent collapse of public confidence in nuclear power, this target may have to be abandoned.
Nuclear power plants used to provide a large portion of Japanese electricity, and formed the backbone of their renewable energy sector and the plans to reduce carbon emissions. After the meltdown at Fukushima all 54 of the nation's nuclear reactors were shut down in order to undergo maintenance and testing, and have yet to be restarted.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has now released figures which suggest that the gap left by nuclear power is being filled by larger use of fossil fuels. From January to April of this year the amount of electricity generated from natural gas, coal, and oil based power plants was up 40 percent compared to the same time last year. Fossil fuels now provide 90 percent of Japans electricity, rather than the 64 percent from last year.
Japan's deputy Prime Minister, Katsuya Okada, said that the target of 25 percent was "a number computed on the premise that we will depend on nuclear power to a fair degree. I have no doubt that an overall review will be necessary," given the change in circumstances.
Lucky for them Japan had already decided to opt out of signing an extension of the international emission cuts target under the Kyoto Protocol. Although they haven't given up on renewable energy and will introduce various clean energy subsidies with the aim of encouraging a 13% increase in production by 2013.
By. James Burgess of Oilprice.com
James Burgess is an analyst with Oilprice.com. He is a successful small cap investor with a focus on early stage renewable energy companies.
Follow Oilprice.com on Twitter @OilandEnergy and join us on Facebook
Follow James Burgess on Twitter: www.twitter.com/oilandenergy
Why don't you try being part of the solution.
Of course they have to use what they have in the meantime, that short emissions extension is far better than more deaths by cancer from nuke power.
Waste to energy is of course what Japan has the most of today,
right?
Pipe nightmare. that's nukes.
Japan May Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Up to 15%, Panel Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-08/japan-may-cut-greenhouse-gas-emissions-by-up-to-15-panel-says.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/germany-threatened-by-energy-overcapacity-ft-deutschland-says.html
Competition by Germany’s regions to produce renewable energy as the country shifts away from nuclear and coal power could cause overcapacity if the process isn’t coordinated, the Financial Times Deutschland reported.
Chancellor Angela Merkel will meet with state premiers next week to discuss greater cooperation as regional governments develop plans to build wind and clean-energy capacity, the newspaper said. Competing plans could cause overcapacity in the coming decades, the FTD cited Hildegard Mueller, who heads the BDEW industry association, as saying.
The northern state of Schleswig-Holstein aims to produce by 2020 three times more energy from offshore wind parks than its population uses, and southern states such as Bavaria are planning more energy self-sufficiency, the newspaper said.
It will be easier for Japan, Germany is showing the way. The first time is always the hardest.
Simple chemistry is coal is all carbon, burning with O2 give pretty much all CO2.
Methane is cheap, quick and easy.....chemistry is CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O, lots of energy making water!
Burning methane directly in a turbine the resembles a jet engine rahter then making steam (and condensing steam back to water) is not as efficient. That's nuclear, coal, some oil- other oil is more like a car/truck engine.....better, but not a jet engine.
Throw in renewable of solar and wind, even biomass- all the debris from the tsunami- which is carbon neutral, or at very least not fossil.
I'm not worried about their CO2 long term, Germany did reduce theirs last year and still a net exporter of electricity.
Germany's long support for wind and solar energy is delivering zero-cost electricity at times. In contrast, the UK's new energy policy seeks to underwrite the rising cost of nuclear
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/may/22/energy-nuclear-renewables
"Too cheap to meter": that was the infamous boast of the nuclear power industry in its heyday. It has been catastrophically discredited by history.
Yet the phrase may yet see a new life - not of course for nuclear power - but for renewable energy. As the UK government publishes its draft energy bill on Tuesday, acknowledged by all but ministers themselves as primarily an arcane way of getting new nuclear power stations built, I am in Germany.
Already, on one particularly windy weekend here, the surge of electricity drove the price down to zero. Very soon, due to the 25GW of solar capacity Germany has already installed, hot summer's days will see the same effect: electricity too cheap to meter.
Now hang on, I hear you say, free electricity is actually crazy as it means there's no incentive to invest in new, clean generation capacity, which almost every country needs as the world seeks to cut the carbon emissions driving climate change. Germany's renewable energy policy, which began with a feed-in-tariff in 1990, deals with this by continuing to pay the producer, even when electricity is sold for nothing.
Germanys CO2 dropped last year.
Your information, while true, is misleading. Yes there are small amounts of time where the electricity rates drop, but in general Germany still has higher rates because of the electricity they need to bring in from out of the country to make up for the nuke plants and the use of solar/wind.
Second, while the total output of CO2 in Germany dropped last year, it wasn't because of renewable energy use for electricity production. It was because of other energy sectors (cars and such). The amount of CO2 produced by Germany's electicity generation actually increased on the order of 15% from before the nuke shutdown.
you are the missleading one.
When this ecobetrayal has screwed up the economy enough that government is no longer ahead, it will allow the restarts.
Was there really a disaster at Fukushima, specifically? The government seems to think so, but it would, wouldn't it.
There is no reason for anyone not animated solely by government revenue, and for them, no *good* reason, to share in this unseemly pretense.
Nukes are more expensive than solar wind and waste, and take longer to install.
after the earthquakes which of those nukes is safe?
Nukes are not ecological., Nukes are the ultimate anti life equation.
take your fear mongering over to enespews