Economics for Managing Nuclear Energy in Japan

15 January 2013, Session IV, Keynote-Part III, Nuclear Power ASIA, Kuala Lumpur

ECONOMICS FOR MANAGING NUCLEAR ENERGY IN JAPAN

Japan Atomic Energy Agency Kazuaki YANAGISAWA [email protected] 1 Chronology of NPP in Japan for 34 years

70,000M$, 260Billion Ringgit or 7兆円 NPP Economic 7,000 Crisis in Japan A 1978 TMI-2 accident B 1979 2nd Oil shock (Islamic F 6,000 Total;1,084,752M$ revolution) for 34 years C 1985 Plaza accord,240→150 yen/dollar, High-priced yen 5,000 G J D 1986 Chernobyl accident I H E 1986-1991 Bubble boom and

Yen) 10years slump

4,000 F 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, 1st c Economic scale study D G 2005 2nd Economic scale 3,000 study H 2007 Niigata Chuetsu Offing

End (Billion End 2,000 Earthquake(M=6.8) B I 2008 Lehman shock (Hard stock slump) 1,000 A J 2010 The Great East Japan E Earthquake(M=9.0),Fukushima Daiichi Severe Accident

0 Economic scale of Nuclear Power Plant at of scale Plant Nuclear Demand Power Economic

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Fiscal Year 2 LWR operation in Japan 2010-2012

Electric Power Licensed Power Station Reactor Power 2010 2011 2012 Hokkaido Tomari １ PWR 579 Hokuriku Shika １ BWR 540 Tomari ２ PWR 579 Shika ２ BWR 1,206 Tomari ３ PWR 912 Kansai Mihama １ PWR 340 Tohoku Onagawa １ BWR 524 ** Mihama ２ PWR 500 Onagawa ２ BWR 825 ** Mihama ３ PWR 826 ３ Onagawa BWR 825 ** Takahama １ PWR 826 Totsu １ BWR 1,100 Takahama ２ PWR 826 Tokyo Fukushima I-1 BWR 460 Decomission ３ Fukushima I-２ BWR 784 Decomission Takahama PWR 870 Fukushima I-３ BWR 784 Decomission Takahama ４ PWR 870 Fukushima I-４ BWR 784 Decomission Oi １ PWR 1,175 Fukushima I-５ BWR 784 ** Oi ２ PWR 1,175 Fukushima I-６ BWR 1,100 ** Oi ３ PWR 1,180 Fukushima II-１ BWR 1,100 ** Oi ４ PWR 1,180 Fukushima II-２ BWR 1,100 ** Chugoku Shimane １ BWR 460 Annual Inspection Fukushima II-３ BWR 1,100 ** Shimane ２ BWR 820 Fukushima II-４ BWR 1,100 ** Shikoku Ikata １ PWR 566 Kashiwazaki－Kariwa １ BWR 1,100 Ikata ２ PWR 566 Kashiwazaki－Kariwa ２ BWR 1,100 Chuetsu Offing Earthquake * Ikata ３ PWR 890 Kashiwazaki－Kariwa ３ BWR 1,100 Annual Inspection * Kyushu Genkai １ PWR 559 Kashiwazaki－Kariwa ４ BWR 1,100 Annual Inspection * ２ Kashiwazaki－Kariwa ５ BWR 1,100 Genkai PWR 559 Kashiwazaki－Kariwa ６ ABWR 1,356 Genkai ３ PWR 1,180 Kashiwazaki－Kariwa ７ ABWR 1,356 Genkai ４ PWR 1,180 Chubu Hamaoka １ BWR 540 2009.1.Shut Down Sendai １ PWR 890 Hamaoka ２ BWR 840 2009.1.Shut Down Sendai １ PWR 890 Hamaoka ３ BWR 1,100 JAPCO Tokai GCR 166 1998.3 Shut Down Hamaoka ４ BWR 1,137 (Japan Atomic Tokai II BWR 1,100 ** Hamaoka ５ BWR 1,380 Power Tsuruga １ BWR 357 Company) Tsuruga ２ PWR 1,160 Total number of reactors operated 54 26 3 The Great East Japan Earthquake We are here

3 Ⅰ INTRODUCTION

1 Purpose To study  the economic implications of the Fukushima accident on the Japanese economy and society

 the link between nuclear energy and CO2 emission reductions  the economic scale of nuclear energy and application of radiation 2 Target Year 1978～2011 (34 years) 4 2. METHOD

 Database  Ministry of Finance: ”Annual Securities Report ”, prepared by each Japanese electric power company, for example, http://www.tepco.co.jp/ir/tool/yuho/bk-j.html, [in Japanese]  Federation of Electric Power Companies; “Self-produced and regional exchanged general electricity”, http://www.fepc.or.jp/library/data/hatsujyuden/2011.html

 Currency conversion rate  Information Service Bureau, the Bank of Japan, “ Foreign Exchange Market”, http://www.stat- search.boj.or.jp/ssi/(2011), [in Japanese]  1 US dollar =120.9 Japanese yen for 1997, 110.2 for 2005 and 79.8 for 2010.  1 MYR=27 Japanese yen for 2011

5 Ⅲ.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6 １．Economic Scale of Nuclear Power Generation

New energy Demand End Hydraulic <2> Thermal 54LWRｓ

Supply End <1> Electricity cost at Electricity cost at supply end ; demand end; capital, running and generation, maintenance, and fuel costs transmission and distribution costs.

7 1.1 The economic scale of electricity at the demand end; E (d)

 E (d) = {operating income + non-operating income + financial income } ×{ (electricity generated by nuclear) / (nuclear + thermal + hydraulic + new energy – pumping up power)｝ = {ordinary earnings} ×{a share of nuclear power generation} 8 (M$) FY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Hokkaido 4,681 4,621 4,640 5,570 5,659 4,816 7,754 (1) Ordinary Earnings 13,716 13,439 13,612 16,190 16,189 13,675 18,680 Tohoku Data from the Ministry of Finance Tokyo 45,199 43,499 44,714 55,000 51,885 45,671 64,967 Chubu 18,826 18,293 18,972 22,872 22,512 19,260 29,010 http://www.tepco.co.jp/ir/tool/yuho/bk- Hokuriku 4,267 4,094 3,978 4,991 4,958 4,266 6,103 j.html Kansai 21,935 20,837 21,253 25,103 25,374 21,992 31,733 Chugoku 8,943 8,643 8,910 10,834 10,520 9,130 14,143 Shikoku 4,737 4,557 4,771 5,621 5,322 4,704 6,843 (2) A share of nuclear power Kyushu 12,110 11,521 11,901 13,909 14,404 12,262 17,725 =Electricity generated by nuclear / Gross FY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 generated electricity Hokkaido 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.19 0.35 0.45 0.29 Data from the Federation of Electric Tohoku 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.00 Power Companies Tokyo 0.34 0.37 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.26 0.10 Chubu 0.23 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.02 http://www.fepc.or.jp/library/data/hatsujy Hokuriku 0.28 0.28 0.07 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.00 uden/2011.html Kansai 0.44 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.45 0.41 0.20 Year 2005 Chugoku 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.03 0.09 Average Coefficient of 0.49 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.41 0.43 0.19 Shikoku installation utilization (%) 72 Kyushu 0.44 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.16 Gross generated electricity（TWh) 957 (M$) Nuclear power 304 FY 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Thermal power 582 Hokkaido 1,202 1,238 1,167 1,055 1,977 2,159 2,261 Hydraulic power 81

Tohoku 2,010 2,372 3,005 3,600 4,023 3,134 0 reakdonw New energy 5 B Tokyo 15,262 16,298 10,010 12,153 14,439 12,093 6,270 Pumping-up power -16 Chubu 4,349 2,734 3,581 4,071 2,853 2,073 546 Hokuriku 1,210 1,162 274 1,751 1,936 1,595 0 Kansai 9,617 9,053 8,779 10,157 11,305 8,946 6,455 (3) Economic scale of NPP at Chugoku 1,271 1,023 1,085 1,157 1,586 305 1,276 demand end Shikoku 2,298 2,124 2,241 2,620 2,181 2,006 1,279 （３）＝（１）×（２） Kyushu 5,333 4,727 4,910 5,625 6,150 4,802 2,775 9 Cost of electricity at the demand end (M$) FY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Hokkaido 1,138 1,202 1,238 1,167 1,055 1,977 2,159 2,261 Tohoku 3,078 2,010 2,372 3,005 3,600 4,023 3,134 0 Tokyo 13,944 15,262 16,298 10,010 12,153 14,439 12,093 6,270 Chubu 3,554 4,349 2,734 3,581 4,071 2,853 2,073 546 Hokuriku 959 1,210 1,162 274 1,751 1,936 1,595 0 Kansai 9,216 9,617 9,053 8,779 10,157 11,305 8,946 6,455 Chugoku 1,023 1,271 1,023 1,085 1,157 1,586 305 1,276 Shikoku 2,188 2,298 2,124 2,241 2,620 2,181 2,006 1,279 Kyushu 5,577 5,333 4,727 4,910 5,625 6,150 4,802 2,775 Sum 40,678 42,552 40,703 35,119 42,632 46,816 40,462 20,862 Facility availabulity(%) 68.9 71.9 69.9 60.7 60.0 65.7 67.3 23.7

Cost of electricity at the supply end (M$) The economic FY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 scale at Hokkaido 420 428 378 381 716 1,111 954 1,393 Tohoku 1,119 1,375 1,331 1,387 1,514 1,665 1,221 1,406 demand end is Tokyo 5,389 5,049 5,026 4,556 4,544 5,264 4,553 5,373 three times Chubu 2,008 1,517 1,503 1,444 1,355 1,413 1,124 1,265 the magnitude Hokuriku 276 857 723 542 757 916 692 850 at the supply Kansai 2,615 2,962 3,129 3,025 3,745 4,003 3,392 4,091 Chugoku 486 529 640 599 610 670 471 819 end. Shikoku 782 821 872 810 869 968 763 948 Kyushu 1,716 1,746 1,766 1,933 2,260 2,378 1,893 2,309 JAPCO 1,422 1,191 1,198 1,385 1,275 1,347 1,280 1,542 Sum 16,234 16,475 16,567 16,063 17,643 19,735 16,343 19,997 10 Economic crises occurred three times (A-B-C, D-E, F-G) and nuclear economy lost about A:Criticalityy accident at 40,200M$ Shika Unit 1,and JCO criticality accident 60,000 90 B:Raptuire of coolant pipe

） at Hamaoka Unit 1, ） 80 - C:Falsified and concealed 50,000 A D F an annual inspection data B 70 （ by TEPCO. Cracking of E BWR core shroud occurred 40,000 C 60 also at TEPCO D:Tube rupture at 50 secondary loop in turbine MillionDollars;M$ hall in Mihama Unit 3 （ 30,000 E:Niigata Chuetsu Offing G 40 Earthquake damaged Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, 20,000 30 TEPCO F:The Great East Japan 20 Earthquake. 10,000 G:Units 1-4, Fukushima 1 Economic Scale of Electricity of at Scale Economic 10 were damaged severly Availability of Nuclearr Facility Nuclearr Availabilityof accompanying with NPP Demand End End Demand NPP 0 0 hydrogen explosion(1,2,4). All units in Fukuhsima #2, Onagawa and Tokai II were 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 scrumed. Reactors remaind were obliged to long annual 11 Fiscal Year inspection. TEPCO lost about 5,823M$ in a year 2011

Annual inspection data was falsified and concealed.. Fukushima 25,000 BWR core shrould was 0.50 Daiichi was cracked by stress corrosion. Niigata Chuetsu Offing severely Earthquake damaged damaged by the

Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Earthquake strike of the

20,000 0.40 tsunami and The Great East Japan East Great The lost the AC and DC power 0.30 sources. LOCA 15,000 and severe core damage happened 10,000 0.20 subsequently led the H2 gas explosion at the

DemandEnd (M$) reactor 5,000 0.10 buildings of Unit 1, 3 and 4.

This accident EconomicScale of TEPCO at 0 0.00 LoadingFactor Nuclear of （-） forced to the remainded NPPs to hold the long que for 199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011 restart. Fiscal Year 12 KEPCO lost about 2,491M$ in a year 2011

Tube rupture at a Even though secondary loop the Great East 25,000 occurred at turbine 0.60 Japan hall in Mihama Unit 3 Earthquake, Mihama,

Earthquake 0.50 Takhama, amd ）

20,000 - Oi NPP were （ The Great The East Japan operated in 2011.. 0.40 Units 3,4 in Oi 15,000 are further continued 0.30 operation in 2012 10,000 0.20

5,000 0.10 Nuclear of Factor Loading

0 0.00 Economic Scale Economic of KEPCO at (M$) End Demand 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 13 Lots of evacuees from the contaminated land, and no return to date (160,000peoples)

Return near future As an inevitable consequence of the Residence limited Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident, No return huge amounts of radioactive materials such as the nuclide Cs (half life 30.1y for 137Cs) were diffused to the open air and fallen out to contaminate the Land of Vigorous Rice Plants; Japan. Taking into consideration of lots of evacuees (160,000 as of Dec. 2012) from the contaminated area, as one of researcher has been worked in the field of nuclear safety, the author would like to express regret for his incompetence. 14 An Increased Taxation Plan

• Urgently, Japanese government decided to put a restoration tax mainly to personal income and corporation profit. For the former, the taxation rate by 2.5% will be started from Jan 2013 to Dec. 2037, that is 25 years. The Government is planned to use the money as much as 125,000 M$ or 372,000 million MYR for restoring the disaster stricken area. The loss of nuclear will give a heavy blow to your ordinary life. • Irrespective to the Fukushima accident, Japanese government tried to increase the consumption tax as the social security. Current consumption tax is 5%; It is planned to increase by 8% from April 2014 and by 10% from Oct.2015. Apart from the nuclear, a reduction of population leads an increase of consumption tax to support the social security.

15 Employee, averaged age, years served and annual salary of the 10 Japanese electric power companies

FY 2005 2010 2011 Years Annual Years Annual Years Annual Employee Ave.Age served Salary Employee Ave.Age served Salary Employee Ave.Age served Salary - - - k\ - - - k\ - - - k\ Hokkaido 5,274 41.7 22.0 7,990 4,999 42.8 21.8 8,176 5,183 42.7 21.4 7,975 Tohoku 11,423 40.2 20.4 8,238 11,980 40.5 20.5 8,374 12,342 41.1 20.2 8,209 Tokyo 36,179 39.2 19.6 7,692 36,683 40.9 20.9 7,613 37,459 41.1 21.1 6,537 Chubu 15,299 39.9 20.6 8,318 15,769 40.8 21.2 8,345 15,845 40.9 21.2 8,369 Hokuriku 4,193 39.1 19.6 7,506 4,466 40.4 20.7 7,834 4,530 40.6 20.6 7,697 Kansai 20,408 39.1 19.2 7,941 20,277 41.1 20.9 8,064 20,484 41.3 21.1 8,053 Chugoku 9,667 39.7 20.2 7,765 8,928 42.3 22.6 8,047 8,951 42.5 22.9 7,967 Shikoku 4,433 40.3 20.1 7,748 4,556 41.9 21.9 7,896 4,570 42.1 22.1 7,923 Kyushu 12,186 39.2 19.9 7,983 11,727 40.5 20.9 8,288 11,804 40.6 20.9 8,337 JAPCO 1,259 41.4 18.3 6,743 1,342 41.9 19.9 6,487 1,376 41.5 18.7 6,377 Sum 120,321 120,727 122,544 Average 40 20.0 7,792 41 21 7,912 41 21 7,744 kMYR 289 293 287 Note: Averaged annual salary in 2005 was 7,792,000yen per person, that was corresponded to 7,792,000/27=289,000MYR Annual salary was reduced from 7,912,000 yen (before accident) to 7,744,000 yen (after accident). The reduction rate was of the order of 2% in average. The TEPCO made the salary cut of the order of 15% (6,537/7,613). The higher the price of electric rate for retail sale, the larger the cutting rate of the salary in TEPCO. To comeback the Fukushima District, the TEPCO decided to move a part of head office function from Tokyo to Fukushima J- village, where 500 employees are listed their names (News released on end of November 2012). Total population in J-village will be 4,000. 16 Energy Sourse of Japan in 1997 Total electricity 865TWh Crisis on Energy Mixture in Japan

Others means that electricity was purchased through other Energy self-sustenance rate in various vendors (5) Others (1) Hydraulic Japan ; 4.6% 12% 8% Dependency of oil; 76% in Energy Sourse of Japan in 2011 1976 Total electricity 937TWh As of year happened the Great East Japan Earthquake

(5) Others (1) Hydraulic (3) Nuclear (2) Fire 17% 7% 35% 45% Facility availability 81%

Energy Sourse of Japan in 2010 (4) New energy Total electricity 988TWh 0.3% One year before the Great East Japan Earthquake

(5) Others (1) Hydraulic (3) Nuclear 17% 6% 11% (2) Fire Facility availability 24% 65% (4) New energy 0.2%

(3) Nuclear (2) Fire 50% 27% One year after Fukushima Daiichi Facility availability 67% Accident 17 Energy Best Mix in Malaysia National Depletion Policy, Malaysia 2010 (4) Petroleum 0.2% (5) Others (3) Hydraulic 2% 6%

(2) Coal 37% (1) Natural Gas 55%

National Depletion Policy, Malaysia 2030 Electricity 138TWh (4) Petroleum (6) Nuclear 1% 8% (3) Hydraulic 6%

(1) Natural Gas (2) Coal 53% 32%

Electricity xxxTWh Ref. IEEJ(2008) 18 Cost Performance of Nuclear (Unit; cent/kWh) Power Capital Operation Fuel generation Nuclear 2.0 1.7 1.4 5.2 Hydraulic 10.2 1.8 0.0 11.9 Petroleum 1.9 1.3 5.7 9.0 LNG 1.3 1.0 3.3 5.6 Coal 2.1 1.3 2.3 5.7

If one replaces the nuclear by the petroleum, an expected cost escalation will be 1.73(9.0/5.2). Therefore the use of firepower instead of nuclear resulted in a heavy blow to the electricity rate. Problems remained unsolved in near future are the compensation for damages caused by the Fukushima Daiichi accident; for example, the land contamination, evacuees and so on. The TEPCO has a duty to perform decommissioning of 4 Units as soon as possible.

19 1.3 Economic Scale for Fuel Cycle in 2005 -Domestic data excluding export

2005 Reactor System Installations 2005 Upstream Electric Mining Unit: M$ and Equipments Electric Mining Prospecting, Mining, Reactor Pressure Vesel 174 1 Conversion Equipments Rcore Components 102 2 Enriching Equipments Reactor Control Equipments 49 0 Reconversion, manufacturing 127 96 Coolant System Equipment 244 4 Equipments Measuring Control Equipment 158 3 Cladding Manufacturing Facilities 4 0 Equipments Radiation Control Facilities 67 9 Enrichment 319 0 Waste Treatment Equipment 82 7 Fission Raw Materials 265 0 Reactor Containment 1 0 Nucelat Materials 2 36 Generator/Transformer 455 6 Fuel Assembly 357 0 Others 1,089 76 Item Sum 1,070 132 Item Sum 2,427 109 Year Sum 1,201 Year Sum 2,537 Note: (1)Electric；Electric enterprise, (2)Mining；The mining and manufacturing industries Common to 2005 2005 the whole items Electric Mining Downstream Electric Mining Construction, Civil Works 444 581 Reprocessing (Service) 521 26 Installation of Equipment 552 82 Waste Treatment and maintenance 2,576 454 Disposal (Service) 70 0 Others(Investigation etc) 560 200 Nuclear Fuel Tranport(Service) 133 67 Item Sum 4,132 1,318 Reprocessing and Waste Year Sum 5,450 Treatment Equipments 296 223 Transportation Equipmants Item Sum 1,020 316 Electric: goods were delivered to electric enterprises. 20 Year Sum 1,336 Mining; goods were delivered to industrial enterprises. Fuel Cycle Cost in 2005

Up stream, Total 1,202, 11% 10,524M$, Reactor which is Common to Equipment, corresponded the whole, 2,537, 24% to about 25% 5,450, 52% of the electricity cost Unit; Million Down stream, at the demand Dollars (M$) 1,336, 13% end

Note: In reality, all items except export were counted as the part of the demand end 21 2. Nuclear as the green technology

 Emitted carbons In year 2004, a gross Electricity Generation Source (g / kWh) electricity produced Hydraulics (medium, small) 11 in Japan is Nuclear 22 8,651TWh. Natural Gas 519～608  By assuming that the Petroleum 742 gross amounts are Coal 975 produced only by Values in the table are taken into account of energy coal and petroleum, consumption needed for mining, NPP construction, fuel then hypothetical transportation, and waste disposal. carbons emitted are estimated to be 8 7.43 x 10 t-CO2

22  By using green technologies represented by LWR, LNG and hydraulic power, the gross amounts of emitted carbons can be 8 suppressed to the magnitude by 3.79 x 10 t-CO2 , where a share of LWR is 57 percent.  A price of emitted carbon at trading market is

18.5$/ t-CO2 for developing country 27.7$/ t-CO2 for European Community (EC) An indirect effect of Japanese LWR is 8 3.79 x10 t-CO2 x 0.57 x (18.5～27.7)$/ t-CO2. =3,993M$ for trading with developing countries =5,989M$ for trading with EC countries.  The economic scale of LWR in 2004 in Japan was 41b$, the green technology can save the money about 10-15% of those.  The role of green technology is important not only to suppress the global warming but also to save the economic cost.

23 3. Economic Scale of Application of Radiation

24 3.1 Rough estimation Industry 57,748M$ ↓ Attributing rate with no deflator After taking into （１）Purchase of consideration of Irradiation Facility radiation attributing 4,217M$（20%） rate （２）Radiological 20,827M$ Equipment 920M$（ 4%） ↓ Industry in 2005 （３）Radiographic Deflator 20,827M$ （６）Fabrication of Testing 998M$（5%） 21,318M$ Semiconductors （４）Sterilization of 12,241M$（59%） Disposable Medical Industry in 1997 Equipments , （） 17,470M$ （５）Radiation 1,545M$ 7% 22% increase from Processing 1997 to 2005 906M$（4%） 25 Rough 3.2 Agriculture estimation 2,528M$ Chronology by ↓ C-14, Food Irradiation （） Radiation Radiological 1M$ 0.04% 8M$（0.3%) attributing Analysis rate Sterile Insect 127M$（5%） Not applied Technique（SIT), RI distribution and 61M$（2%） ↓ deposition Deflator 4M$（0.1%) Sterilization 24M$（1%） 2,587M$ Others in mutation Agriculture in breeding Agriculture in 2005 1997 78M$（3%） 2,528M$ 2,495M$ Rice in mutation 4% increase breeding from 1997 to 2,226M$（89%） 2005 26 3.3 Medicine

Dental Dental/Diagnoses /Radiotherapy 1,161M$（8%） 5M$（0.03%） Medical Dental /Examination /Examination 0M$（0%） 0M$（0%）

Medical /Radiothrapy 977M$（7%） Medicine in 2005 14,386M$ Medical /Diagnoses (Excluding MRI), 12,243M$（85%）

27 Medicine -No Reimbursement

Unit: Million Dollars (M$)

28 3.4 Economic Scale of Radiation

FY2005 Radiation（Industry, Agriculture, Medicine) FY１９９７ Attributed factorconsidered, No deflator

Medicine 10,308M$ 33% Sum Medicine ３０，９００M$ 13,954M$, 37% Industry Sum 18,006M$ Agriculture 59% ３７，３００M$ 2,571M$ 8%

Industry 20,826M$, 56%

Agriculture 2,528M$, 7% 29 3.5 Economic Scale Nuclear Energy vs. Radiation

FY ２００５ Radiation (Industry, Agriculture, Medicine) and Nuclear Energy（Electricity and Eqipment Export) Attributed factor on Industry is considered under no deflator correction

Radiation Sum 37,308M$ Energy ８０，３００M$ 46% １９９７ 43,018M$ 54% Radiation 30,885M$ 39% Sum ７８，８００M$

Energy 47,894M$ 61% 30 Conclusions (1)

 During past 15 years, an economic crisis attributed to the loss of safety occurred three times in Japanese NPP. The resultant economic loss was 40,200M$, where the Fukushima Daiichi accident lost as much as 19,600M$ only for 2011. Be careful. A loss of safety leads a significant loss of economy. 31 Conclusions (2)  The occupational ratio of nuclear was reduced from 27% to 11% after the Fukushima. This energy loss was covered mainly by the firepower, of which cost was 1.7 times the nuclear. This is the principal mechanism for a recent raise of electricity rate, giving a heavy blow to an ordinary life of Japanese people. Japanese government will put a restoration tax on a personal income by 2.5% for coming 25 years, where 125,000M$ is planned to use for restoring the disaster-stricken area. The loss of nuclear will give a heavy blow to your ordinary life.  A total number of employees in 10 Japanese electric power companies was as many as 120,000, which did not change after the Fukushima. The average salary of 40 years old in 2011 was about 7,744,000 yen or 286,000MYR per year. In which TEPCO recently made a salary cut by 15%, that is, 6,537,000 yen in average. The TEPCO made the salary cut in return for increasing electricity rate after the Fukushima. . 32 Conclusions (3)

 Hypothetical trading of the carbon dioxide emission between Japan and foreign countries might save about 4,000M$ in 2004. It corresponded to about 10% of the ordinary earnings of all electric cost in Japan. The green technology linked with the NPP was effective to save the cost and avoid the global warming 33 Conclusions (4)

 A total sum of nuclear energy and application of radiation in 2005 was 80,300M$ or 2% of GDP. A detail was 43,018M$(54%) for nuclear energy and 37,308 M$ (46%) for application of radiation. It is said that nuclear energy and application of radiation are as inseparable as the wheels of a car. However, one of the wheels after the Fukushima is mostly punctured (20,862M$), needing a quick repair. Or, the concept of best energy mixture

will be fallen into pieces. 34 Thank you for your attention

Question?