17 prefectures plan or mull boosting solar power aid after nuclear crisis

[kristopher]

17 prefectures plan or mull boosting solar power aid after nuclear crisis

YOKOHAMA (Kyodo) -- Seventeen of Japan's 47 prefectures have already decided on or are considering the enhancement of programs to promote solar power in the wake of the country's worst nuclear plant crisis in Fukushima, a Kyodo News survey showed Sunday.

While the nuclear crisis has accelerated moves to shift energy policy at the local level, many prefectural governments called for further steps on the part of the central government, such as improving a program for power utilities to buy excess electricity generated by solar and other renewable energy sources.

The survey conducted from late May to early June, which received responses from all 47 prefectures, found that 36 of them already had their own programs for the promotion of solar power generation, such as subsidies for the installation of solar panels, before the March 11 earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

Of the 36, 16 have decided on or are considering the enhancement of their programs, while the Tokyo metropolitan government, which ended its subsidy program in March, has decided to newly create a similar program for homes.

In Kanagawa Prefecture, for example...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110620p2g00m0dm016000c.html

A consensus is emerging...

[Art_from_Ark]

1. One of my neighbors had a solar collector on his roof

It was knocked off the roof and broken into several pieces by the March 11 earthquake.

I hope the current generation of solar collectors is more resistant and secure.

[SpoonFed]

2. Are you serious?

Isn't it good enough that they won't blow up, meltdown and wipe out 1/3 (or maybe all) of the country? (and pollute a large part of the pacific and send radioactive fallout 6K away!)

I mean really. This is excellent, positive news; that maybe, just maybe there is a concensus growing in Japan that the country should do whatever it can to get as far away from nuclear power as possible, after it learned by its terrible mistake, and the best comment you can come up with is that you hope panels are earthquake resistant?

They sure seem more effing earthquake and tsunami fail-safe than nuke power was...

:spank:

[Art_from_Ark]

3. Perhaps you read more into my post

Let me put it another way: My neighbor, in Japan, had a solar collector on the roof of his house. He paid the equivalent of around $10,000 for it. Even though our houses were 150 miles away from the March 11 epicenter, his solar collector was shaken off the roof and crashed to the ground by the earthquake, where it broke into several pieces. Given that most Japanese roofs are made of tiles, and LOTS of roof tiles were shaken off during the March 11 quake, even 150 miles from the epicenter, it seems hard to really anchor a solar collector onto a typical Japanese roof. Unless there is a way to make these stronger and more secure (and cheaper), they probably won't catch on in a big way with people around here.

[kristopher]

4. That's a pretty small sample size to draw that conclusion.

I understand your view, but I can't believe they routinely mount solar to earthquake standards that are lower than the rest of construction.

BTW, I was really surprisde to hear you say they closed the kiosks on the Yamanote platforms so I asked my sister-in-law about it. She said they are still there.

[Art_from_Ark]

5. Have you seen roof damage damage in Japan?

I see it every day. My sample may be "small", but the damage to roofs has been widespread here. You go just about anywhere, and you will still see houses with blue tarps covering places on the roof where the tiles were shaken off, even 3 months after the initial earthquake (a neighbor said that it will cost the equivalent of $5000 just to repair his roof). Before the Big One, the biggest earthquake experienced in Ibaraki in living memory was probably less than M6.0, and certainly much less than the Japanese seismic intensity of 6+ (one level below "catastrophic") that was registered on March 11, so earthquake standards were set accordingly. Also, most of the houses around here were built in the '80s or earlier, when an even weaker set of standards were in place. Really, you should take a close-up look at a typical Japanese house around here, and then you can understand how difficult it may be to anchor something like a solar collector in place.

As for the kiosks on the Yamanote Line, they apparently have them on alternate platforms now. I noticed that regardless of whether I ride the Sotomawari or the Uchimawari train, I always face the platform that doesn't have a kiosk, which is probably why I never noticed them. So I turned around on one trip, and noticed a few platform kiosks, but not at every station. And the kiosk on the platform I usually use at Tokyo Station always seems to be closed.

[kristopher]

6. She said the lights are turned off so they might look closed.

It's pretty hard to figure how someone could miss the presence of them, howver. Anyway, if you ever feel like trying something different, the Tokyo-Yamanote version of a pub crawl is always an option.

I actually know quite a bit about the way the homes are built. Solar presents no special challenge that would rule out or particularly limit its use.

[Art_from_Ark]

7. I'm tempted to

take a video of the Yamanote passing through some stations, so you can see that there are no kiosks on a lot of the platforms.

As for the solar collectors, once again, they are difficult to mount on tile roofs. Black heavy tile roofs, which are the norm in this part of Japan. Some newer houses are being built with a different style of roof which is more conducive to mounting foreign objects, but the majority of single-family homes still have the heavy clay tile kawara roofs. And solar panels still cost a bundle. If people around here can't come up with the $5000 to repair their roofs, it's kind of doubtful that they'll be able to come up with the money for solar panels.

[kristopher]

8. It doesn't matter...

About the video or the kiosks that is. You had said they closed them all down and I was startled; that's all. I know there are a few stations without them, and I know how easy it is to zone out while riding the train. All's good as far as I'm concerned. I now know that they haven't made any dramatic changes; and that was what piqued my curiosity.

As to the tile roofs, you're making too much of it. Look carefully at how verandas have been mounted when added on the older homes.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. I checked the farthest platform of the Uchimawari tonight

Shinagawa-- no kiosk that I could see
Tamachi-- kiosk apeared to be closed
Hamamatsucho-- no kiosk
Shimbashi-- kiosk was open
Yurakucho-- no kiosk
Tokyo-- kiosk was open

So I retract part of what I wrote. Yes, I guess I have been "zoning out". And yeah, I guess it doesn't matter.

[SpoonFed]

13. Nope. Haven't seen the damage.

Can't go into the exclusion zone where humans can't really live for 1000 years.
So nope, haven't checked on the roofs in that area, sorry.

[Yo_Mama]

9. His comment is quite relevant

The payback on solar is long term. Unlike thermal, where it is relatively cheap to create the plant and the primary cost of generating electricity is the fuel, there is a very high installation cost per kwh for solar. It is the upfront cost that still makes solar relatively expensive compared to most traditional power generation.

Thus, if the solar installations get destroyed at a high rate, solar costs per kwh will be very high indeed in Japan.

I think, but I cannot prove or cite anything to prove my theory, that roof-mounted lighter panels could be framed up to limit the damage because they are lighter and could be mounted on frames pinned to structural support with shake compensators to prevent the panels from being destroyed by anything but very severe local quakes. A solar collector is a much heavier piece of equipment that would be harder to secure. However in any area exposed to tsunami or severe storms, solar panels might not do well. Siting is always an issue in Japan.

The relatively high rate of destruction of all Japanese buildings and infrastructure is one reason why costs of power generation in their country are so high. It's a problem with any type of power generation, but it would have relatively far greater impact for types of power that require very high installation costs. In the past, Japanese companies and individuals have coped by building relatively cheap buildings in high-destruction areas, and by careful siting of larger, more expensive buildings on rock beds, plus shock absorbing systems.

I think designing and installing quake-resistant roof-mounting systems for solar panels could be done without too much additional cost. They would still be very vulnerable to storm damage anywhere near the coast, and frankly, most of Japan's population is on the coast.

You only have to look at their roofs to see that they are designed to be very resistant to fire and storm damage. They do have a governmentally supported system of quake insurance, but it is costly and it only pays 50% of the damage.

Still, the problem for Japan is that solar power couldn't keep the country running, so if they decide to deep-six nuclear plants, they would have to build a lot more thermal plants to compensate. This would have very bad effects on their balance of trade, because they have to import most their fuel.

Tidal turbines, which I realize are not an established technology, might be far more suitable for Japan. They already have a ton of hydro plants and most of those plants are pumped hydro.
http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/location/hydroelectric/index.html
FEPC page on power plants:
http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/location/index.html

Solar power isn't new in Japan - I know in the mid 2000s they were second in the world in solar power generation - but it is still a very small percent of total generation. Japan is also a very urbanized society, and a high manufacturing society. Its government also has the highest level of public debt/GDP in the world - over 200% at this point. They are in such a severe crisis now that it is hard to see the way out.

Map of principal power plants in Japan


Example of how they handle loading factors:

[kristopher]

10. None of that is determinative; singly or in total

These prices might be slightly dated, but an apple in Japan is $5; it is a great apple though, it will have a core with so much sugar in it that it is actually translucient.
A perfect-every-time watermelon the size of a basketball can cost $18-60 dollars, and a brewed by the cup single serving of coffee in a small shop is usually $5-10.

When the West barged into their feudal agrarian economy they stalled the them and talked among themselves for a bit while they decided on a plan; and then set about to deliberately dismantle their governmental, industrial, economic, and educational systems and restructure them on carefully selected western models - thereby maintaining complete sovereignty.

They borrowed much of the money to set up this systemic makeover from a single merchant house since they had no banking system to speak of either.

...

I'd be interested in seeing documentation of the effects of this "relatively high rate of destruction" you refer to. My anecdotal experience is that the marginal costs to society from disasters are far less than the many other cultural choices they make that lead to the types of prices I quoted above. Another example would be that for the most part they happily pay $120 for domestically grown rice instead of $30 for the same rice from Louisiana, just in order to ensure a minimum level of food self-sufficiency. If they became 100% isolated tomorrow, the could probably avoid famine.

A horizontal system oriented around consensus can be overwhelmed in crisis mode requiring command and control style leadership, and it can seen as nothing but dithering by those who don't practice it. But make no mistake, when they finish this process of forming a consensus, whatever the decision will be it will manifest itself far more rapidly and effectively than you probably can imagine.

You are incorrect about their renewable potential, they have as much as they might need. And as far as "high installation costs" I'm pretty sure there isn't any type of generation that is more expensive up-front AND in equity costs than nuclear. In fact, if I were to see that the data supports your statement that there is a "high rate of destruction" surcharge on infrastructure, I'd wager that the risks to capital invested in renewables are far lower than those in centralized thermal due to distributed risk.

I KNOW the risk of the kind of energy shortage they are now experiencing is *far lower* with a distributed grid than with their current centralized system since dramatically improved overall system survivability and reliability is one of the most fundamental benefits of a distributed, renewable grid.



The concerns about mounting are specious.

[Yo_Mama]

12. IMO

The inherent risk of destruction, widespread disaster, long-term contamination, etc, means that Japan has a very limited capacity for nuclear. And they've already outrun that capacity.

Your comments about the distributed network and the origination of the current systems are really apposite according to what I know. The two-frequency grid alone is a huge problem now. On the one hand, it limits flexibility. On the other hand, they may be ready to make a bunch of grid changes which are the normal prerequisite for major power sourcing changes.

There will be huge change in Japan. They are gadgety, creative people and I don't think the direction is be that predictable.

None of the eleven reactors due to come back on this summer have yet been given local permission to restart. Of the 17 in operation, five more are slated to shut down in August for maintenance. The remaining 12 all have to shut for maintenance by next summer. They'll be making one major decision very soon. So much of Japanese power is used in manufacturing that it is a very complex decision. They could never run their manufacturing basis on solar/wind unless they had decades to build a new system and some way to store masses of power for months.

It's not just what people want to do. It is what is possible, and when, and how much it will cost.

If they really want to get rid of those nuclear plants, they will probably just build a bunch more gas plants and then try to reach their carbon goals with a long term renewables push. I think the decisions they make in the next 14 months will determine the direction of the next 15 years. If they put the money into conventional now to meet a short-term need, they will be constrained on the renewables for a while from lack of money.

[kristopher]

14. So you have no support for your claim of a significant disaster surcharge?

Unfortunate; I was looking forward to seeing the data.

About distributed generation:

...In addition to the potential benefits for an electric system, DG can help decrease the vulnerability of users of the electric system to threats from terrorist attacks, and other forms of potentially catastrophic disruptions. In other words, DG has the potential to increase the resiliency of the grid and other critical infrastructure sectors , such as telecommunications, chemicals, agriculture and food, and government facilities. There are many examples of owners and operators of such facilities using DG to maintain “normal” operations when the grid is down during weather-related outages and regional blackouts. However, for a variety of factors**, many of these units cannot be relied upon by electric utilities to help the system recover from such events.

THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION AND RATE-RELATED ISSUES THAT MAY IMPEDE ITS EXPANSION
A STUDY PURSUANT TO SECTION 1817 OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
June 2007
U.S. Department of Energy

**The "factors" involve planning and prior integration, not technical obstacles.



You also have a skewed view of what DG is and can do overall in regards to industry; you wrote, "They could never run their manufacturing basis on solar/wind unless they had decades to build a new system and some way to store masses of power for months."

The part about storage is simply bullshit that isn't worth addressing. Then there is the fact that solar and wind are not the only forms of renewable energy generation. And if there are particularly important and energy intensive industries their needs can be addressed individually instead of socializing their energy costs through a massive, uneconomic nuclear welfare program.

The quality of your input in this case is so far below what you produce most times that it appears to be deliberate misinformation.

[Yo_Mama]

15. On solar?

The best way to figure it would be to use the applicable earthquake insurance rate and multiply by 2. Those may be adjusted upwards, because the area where this one hit was considered relatively low risk. The banks of most of their disaster funds are already broken. For example, they have a mutual fund set up for all the volunteer firefighters. So many were killed in the tsunami that the fund is broken and families will probably get around 50% of the benefits promised.

The five year rate is currently around 4.5% for most residences, I think. That rate would not cover loss or damage just to solar panels or any superficial loss - the insurance only kicks in for 50% damage of structure or 80% damage of fittings/furnishings. That's where I get the "multiply by 2". The five year rate is the lowest rate offered, but there are additional discounts for earthquake resistant construction. If the total structure was destroyed and the solar was a part of the structure you would get compensation, but quake insurance doesn't pay all the damages.

Anyway, over 20 years it would probably be about 35-40% of cost to cover the whole loss on average from fire/quake, but you can't buy insurance - you have to save it. Depending on location (near coast/fault, and earthquake resistance of the building) you would adjust that up or down. That's why being able to install panels in a way that would cut damage from minor quakes would be important.

In actually insuring residences, you can only get quake insurance as an addition to a fire policy (a lot of quakes cause fires and quake insurance does not cover fires caused by quakes), so if you were going to insure for the 50% deal as part of the structure the cost would be fire plus the quake rate. Fire pays out higher, I think.

These types of losses are always an issue in Japan.

Edit: to put it in yen, in the Tokyo area average homeowners fire/plus policies are cited to be around 10,000 - 20,000 yen a year, and quake riders 5,000 - 10,000 a year.

But the usual terms are 5% payout, 50% payout and 100% payout. So total loss is compensated at 100%, a loss > 20% - 70% is 50%, and loss 20% or below is 5%.

[kristopher]

16. You made a specific claim I don't think is true

You wrote, "The relatively high rate of destruction of all Japanese buildings and infrastructure is one reason why costs of power generation in their country are so high."

What you've explained isn't support for that conclusion. In fact, it doesn't seem related at all in the sense that it can't be used to explain the various inputs to energy costs .

You usually post where you get information, but I guess you forgot it this time. It would be great if you could also share the source of the information on insurance rates you used.

BTW 5000 yen is about 6000 cents.