Essay by Eric Worrall
“… As coal and nuclear generation expand … they may displace domestic renewable energy …”
Japan’s energy security response is creating a renewables blind spot
April 27, 2026
Michiyo Miyamoto…
Rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have once again exposed Japan’s dependence on imported fossil fuels …
The Japanese government has responded to these challenges by reducing LNG use through increased coal-fired generation and restarting nuclear power plants, positioning these sources as providers of stable and affordable domestic supply.
This approach may result in unintended consequences. As coal and nuclear generation expand within Japan’s constrained power system, they may displace domestic renewable energy — an alternative capable of delivering equivalent energy security benefits at lower cost. …
…
Japan’s policy response focuses on expanding inflexible baseload generation at the expense of domestic renewable energy that could deliver equivalent energy security benefits at lower cost. The prioritization of coal and nuclear increases the likelihood of renewable energy curtailment, reduced investment, and higher consumer costs, while jeopardizing the achievement of decarbonization targets.
…In Kyushu, large-scale solar curtailment began in October 2018 after the restart of Genkai Units 3 and 4, marking the country’s first sustained reduction in renewable output. In Kansai, curtailment started in June 2023, when multiple nuclear units were operating simultaneously, and has since become more frequent.
Read more: https://ieefa.org/resources/japans-energy-security-response-creating-renewables-blind-spot
…
I’m shocked I tell you. Imagine a nation choosing reliable nuclear energy over solar energy.
Instability in the Aussie gas export market may also be playing a part in Japan’s move to diversify away from gas.
It’s not just Aussie gas availability which is experiencing an uptick in political interference. Australia also recently considered a surprise new tax on gas exports, a proposal which was narrowly rejected, for now – possibly because of the risk of widespread demand destruction, as nations like Japan re-evaluate whether Australia is a reliable trading partner.
Australia’s Prime Minister Albanese also boasted recently about using Australian food exports as leverage to secure more fertiliser and fuel for Australia. Using food as a bargaining chip may have further upset Asian trading partners, trading partners who like Japan are likely already questioning whether Australia is still a reliable trading partner.
Coal for Japan can be sourced from Australia, but there are other options. Indonesia is also a large scale exporter of thermal coal. By embracing coal and especially nuclear, Japan insulates itself against Australian sovereign risk, against Australia’s increasingly unstable conduct of international diplomacy and commerce.
Imagine a type of generation so powerful it could actually force out Weather Dependent Generation as a main source of grid energy for a modern society. Naw… Impossible!!! 😘🤔🤗
Ruinable Energy 🖕🖕🖕
Such a shame!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“inflexible baseload generation”
Nuclear and coal are inflexible? WUWT?
“domestic renewable energy — an alternative capable of delivering equivalent energy security benefits at lower cost”
Equivalent energy security? WUWT?
Certainly inflexible. They don’t swing widely.
Swing wildly is instability.
They load follow, increasing electrical output to match increasing demand and decreasing as demand decreases. That is not a defition of inflexxible.
Inflexible is code for ‘constant, reliable, stable, but not able to be switched off the moment a breeze pops up, or a ray of sunshine falls, and on the moment the aforesaid stop’.
“…domestic renewable energy that could deliver equivalent energy security benefits at lower cost.”
They say it twice. Must take lessons from UserLoser, thinking that repeating the mantra will make it true
Japan is a small nation with a lot of people and most of it is mountains. Where would they put renewable energy?
You can place 2GW of coal or gas generation right downtown where the load is needed. Installing 24GW (required to replace 2GW of conventional generation due to capacity factor and part time capacity) would require covering an area larger than the city being supplied with solar panels and still require battery storage to make the energy available at peak demand
No amount of wind or solar could “replace” 2GW of coal, because it will ALL produce NOTHING when the breezes and sunshine don’t cooperate.
Overbuilding does NOT “solve” intermittency.
Yep 1TW of Solar produces ZERO between 4pm and 8am and next to ZERO before 10am or after 2pm. Wind on the other hand produces Zero for almost 60% of the year
October 22nd at Noon might make 100% Renewable Generation but October 22nd at 4pm could provide 0% Renewable Generation
Wind produces zero at night a large percentage of the time.
And under Winter Blocking Highs when Solar is at it’s seasonal worst.
Here in New Hampshire, they put wind turbines on top of hills and mountains, where everyone can see and admire them for miles and miles, and plaster solar on what once was farmland. Because that’s just what we (and tourists) want to look at.
🙄 Yes, how many landscapes can we ruin with useless crap that can’t do the job no matter how much they build.
The State , like a dog , has to mark its territory
They have renewable energy. Gas, coal, hydro and nuclear are the ONLY renewable sources of energy on this planet.
Also wood from well managed forests.
Don’t know if Japan has enough forest area to make that reliable, they damned sure ain’t got enough open and unused land area for solar and wind.
I wasn’t thinking of Japan when I wrote that- but my understanding is that Japan has quite a bit of forest on those mountains and they don’t do much cutting because they like the forests the way they are. No doubt some rural folks cut firewood and there is a very small timber industry.
They definitely know how to manage their forests, and import vast amounts of lumber at same time. Japanese woodworking is art, structures and furniture, and they use what most people consider scrap wood already. Pretty sure they don’t waste any, unlike most other countries.
I’ve read that they rebuild their wood temples every so often. Some are claimed to be many centuries old but look very good because of those rebuilds. A logger I used to sell timber to married a Japanese woman and went over there with her. He said the forests are mostly mature and look very nice and that there is little sign of logging. Japan can easily afford to buy whatever wood they need from elsewhere. Good thing they don’t do much cutting on those steep mountains to avoid erosion.
“Japan’s policy response focuses on expanding inflexible baseload generation at the expense of domestic renewable energy that could deliver equivalent energy security benefits at lower cost.”
And just where will this “lower cost” renewable energy come from? To work at all, renewables require many tagalong machines such as backup, DC to AC conversion, frequency and voltage control systems and long power lines. When these tagalongs are included, renewables are always more expensive than fossil. Much more. Always.
If renewables were really lower cost,
they wouldn’t need to tell us all tge time that they are lower cost.
They are as much lower cost as the democratic republic of north Korea and german democratic republic are/was democratic.
If renewable were so “low cost,” Germany and the UK would have really cheap electricity. D’oh!
You capitalist you! 😉
I SPEAK IN CAPITALIST!!!
“And just where will this “lower cost” renewable energy come from?” From gas, oil, coal, hydro and nuclear.
Would this be a person’s nightmare to eclipse all nightmares? –
you’re enjoying a South Pacific cruise holiday of a lifetime, when a calm voice announces over the loudspeakers that there is an approaching Cat 11 cyclone right in our path, no dodging it.
Interested guests are invited to visit the Bridge to observe how the Captain goes about planning the best course to navigate us safely through the threat.
You take up the invitation, and as you enter the expansive Bridge, you hear the unmistakable sound of a somewhat giggly Australian accent.
It’s coming from the man with the most braid & gold stripes on his epaulets and sleeves –
The CAPTAIN OF THE SHIP.
The as you move into position to observe the navigation course setting activities, you’re confronted by a familiar, disturbing face –
in charge of the ship and everyone’s survival is –
CHRIS BOWEN!
Prayers are uttered by people who have never been known to pray in all their lives-
Lord save us all!
“As coal and nuclear generation expand … they may displace domestic
renewableunreliable energy”Exactly. That’s the goal. It’s what rational people do.
Like this ?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/just-belgium-slams-door-green-energy-insanity-restarts/
restarting nuc plants …. 😉
Miyamoto wrote about Japan’s renewed emphasis on dispatchable power that
“….they may displace domestic renewable energy — an alternative capable of delivering equivalent energy security benefits at lower cost. …”
Miyamoto relied on renewable cost calculations based on 2 factors which provided a distorted view of renewable power costs.
The cost stack included only the direct costs of building and operating wind and solar systems, ignoring the costs of 100% back-up and grid extension to the remote renewable sites.They base renewable power production on nameplate rather than accredited capacity.
Renewable power can appear to be “lower cost” if you ignore over 50% of the costs and inflate the production by 1000%. Such an analysis will provide a very unrealistic cost per kWhr for renewables. Once the reality of renwable cost overruns and gross underperformance blows up in the faces of the green politicians, they concude that massive subsidies are in order to keep the actual impact of renewable power costs in the $0.30 to $0.40 per kWhr range. This is double the global average power cost of $0.16/kWh, but it is on par with much of Westen Europe (and California).
This is the game the green charlatans have been playing for years.
When will the idiots who write something like this “an alternative capable of delivering equivalent energy security benefits at lower cost.” be challenged with “prove it!”
story tip, Belgium restarting nuclear generation:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/04/just-belgium-slams-door-green-energy-insanity-restarts/
And vaccines “risk” displacing communicable diseases. We’re doomed!
And firefighters risk “displacing” burned out buildings.
This is fun! 😅🤣😂
“unintended consequences” is a fun phrase to say, sounds smart, but it seems like the consequences described here (Miyamoto) are more aptly described as “part of the plan”.
My wife of almost 30 years is Japanese. Her family lives in Ibaraki, so close to Fukushima we took a drive out there, to support the local economy.
I’ve been blessed to have visited 10+ times now, allover Japan from Nikko to JAXA Space Center to Tokyo, Fujisan, Yokohama, Kyoto, even Mt Sakurajima and Hiroshima, all the way south.
And I can tell you: Japan has very few solar farms and windmills for a reason: 80% of the land is mountains, with earthquakes and typhoons and tsunamis and rain all the time.
Japan has more important issues to worry about, like a massive labor shortage, baby shortage, a full 30% the houses are empty, debt and spending problems, too many dumb laws, too high taxes.
Takaichi sama has more pressing things to worry about..and she’s right of former prime minister Abe, so we are triple-clap praying she fixes everything.
Dan,
My wife and I felt most uneasy in Kagoshima as we watched Sakurajima volcano spewing tons of black dust as a reminder that a big blast might happen. It is very scenic and a different experience for the tourists like us – but we were glad to get many miles away from it asap.
That incessant black dust makes solar panels a no-no. Imagine the mindless cost of having to clean them several times a day. It is just one example of the folly of “renewables” for much of Japan’s land area.
It is easy to evaluate Japan as well-run by numerous indirect factors such as the beautiful train system that is mostly exactly on time. Like the thousands of efficient, intensive small farms producing high quality food, an asset threatened by land-hungry wind and solar. Like the careful management of forestry and fishing that visitors can view.
A nation could do worse than use Japan as a model of electricity management. Late thought – do the bulk of Japanese voters pay much attention to political Greens? Or have they decided to ignore them, as any sensible nation ought?
Geoff S
And affordable housing risks displacing homelessness. Oh no!
Yeah, there are very few homeless in Tokyo and Kyoto…mostly hang out in subway stations and train stations…and since all drugs are banned, there is no mine field of needles to dodge. They don’t beg, either, just sit quietly mostly.
“Affordable housing” is a great concept for individuals and families with income producing character. Even free housing will not do much for homelessness. That is an altogether different problem.
For those who are already homeless, perhaps not, but it could help keep some from becoming homeless to begin with.
I’ve always thought you couldn’t blame the Japanese for their widespread opposition to nuclear technology. Two atomic bombs and Fukushima—enough to traumatize generations. The societal consequences after the bombings were terrible for many Japanese people: no one wanted to go near the hibakusha (those exposed to the Bomb), and segregation took hold against those who had survived the atomic bombs.
I’m not personally opposed to military nuclear technology, let alone its civilian applications, but you’d have to be completely obtuse—and woefully lacking in empathy—to not understand why so many Japanese didn’t want to hear about nuclear power for a long time. Still, I’m glad they’ve decided to reinvest in nuclear plants; it can only benefit their economy.
While the Japanese stance on nuclear power is obviously understandable given the past few decades, I’m disgusted by the way Western environmentalists have weaponized Fukushima. Nuclear power is an absolutely wonderful thing, and I’m not a little proud that France, under de Gaulle’s leadership and Pierre Messmer’s guidance, was once a leader in civilian nuclear energy. The shutdown of the Superphénix reactor, orchestrated by Lionel Jospin to appease the eco-hypocrites, is a staggering act of stupidity. With those fast breeder reactors, France could have theoretically achieved 8,000 years of energy independence. But no, we had to pander to the lunatics who hate progress.
Charles,
I think that you have a personal dislike of nuclear that you are projecting unfairly onto the Japanese population. I have just written above about Sakurajima volcano. People whose entire life has been lived in view of its threat might well have a more relaxed approach to sudden catastrophe including a nuclear bomb, but having noted this, I am just as guilty of projecting a personal view.
IMO, we lead happier lives when those around us refrain from nuclear fear mongering. What did you want to achieve with your comment here, apart from stirring the anti-nuclear pot a little? If that was your aim, why do it? Do you have any hands-on experience with nuclear risk evaluation? (I do).
Geoff S
Geoff,
I am absolutely in favor of nuclear technology, both civilian and military. There are only advantages to nuclear power, and I myself am thoroughly disgusted that the French left went out of its way to sabotage the Superphénix project, which could have given France incredible energy independence through the recycling of nuclear waste. But the left had to get environmentalists on its side, and today we can see the disastrous results of that policy.
That said, I need to clarify several points that I consider important. As for volcanoes, they have always existed, and the activity levels of the most dangerous ones are, of course, very carefully monitored by geologists and volcanologists. Nuclear bombs, on the other hand, have only existed since 1945; they are an entirely human creation. Does that make them inherently evil? According to many environmentalists, yes. According to reasonable people like you, me, and the majority of readers of this site, clearly not. Making the best use of the laws of nature—whether from chemistry, physics, biology, and so on—in order to progress is what we do best.
Nuclear technology is therefore something absolutely wonderful; I say this with complete honesty. But I am also committed to scientific realism (and therefore opposed to catastrophism, Malthusianism, and all such nonsense), as well as to historical honesty. Anyone who claims that a large part of the Japanese population was not, for a long time, deeply marked by the trauma of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has no sense of history. Likewise, the Fukushima incident may well have felt, I believe, like a grim repetition in the minds of many Japanese people, including of course survivors of the bombings.
What I mean—and I want this to be perfectly clear—is that I am FOR nuclear power. I am very pleased that Japan is in the process of revising its view of this magnificent technology, whose military use has nonetheless left very vivid marks in the Japanese collective unconscious and popular culture. I hate seeing the clownish antics of environmentalists who instrumentalize history to shamelessly claim that nuclear power will destroy the world, which is obviously FALSE.
Finally, I would say that part of the value of sites like WattsUpWithThat lies in the possibility of dialogue and nuance. On sites run by extremist environmentalists with a left-wing bent (I specify this because there are similar people on the right of the political spectrum—in France at least—and they are just as dangerous, with their Pétainist fantasy of a “return to the land” and their thoroughly anachronistic love of “traditional” agriculture), discussion is completely impossible, and banning is immediate, after the usual insults (denier, Big Oil stooge, etc.).
Civilian nuclear power, like all industries, can of course be dangerous if poorly managed, hence the importance of training competent engineers and informing the public about the enormous advantages of harnessing the atom.
As for military applications of nuclear technology, they are undoubtedly terrifying. It is not without reason that a nuclear war cannot be won and must therefore never be fought, even if it does not necessarily lead to a nuclear winter (Michael Crichton’s lecture on the subject is very instructive, and I very much enjoyed reading it).
Nuance, always nuance—that is my credo. WattsUpWithThat is a very pleasant place precisely because one can speak calmly and politely without being kicked out with a boot up the backside simply because one’s opinion diverges from the prevailing orthodoxy. It is obvious that Japan’s relationship with nuclear technology is different from that of most of the world. Pointing this out here does not reflect, on my part, any aversion to nuclear power—I believe I have demonstrated that in this message. This may not have been clear enough in my previous text, in which case I apologize.
To conclude, I would say: long live nuclear power, long live common sense, long live humanity, and have a good day everyone !
Sorry for this very long message, but I wanted to be as thorough as possible!
Renewable energy may have little in the way of inertia, but it is one hell of a millstone around our necks.
Mad Ed’s Tumble dryer extravaganza
Rush to buy tumble dryers after Miliband’s net zero ban
Retailers report ‘massive uptick’ in demand for traditional models before heat pump push
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/rush-for-tumble-dryers-after-miliband-net-zero-ban/
“Claim: Japan’s Coal and Nuclear Push Risks Displacing Renewable Energy”We can only hope this this becomes fact.
“One of these days, you’ll turn around and renewables won’t be there”.
Turns around.
“Not today”!
It’s from that TV show “Everybody Doesn’t Love Renewables”.
“Australia also recently considered a surprise new tax on gas exports, …..”
“The government on Wednesday also moved to ease import restrictions on fertiliser supplies needed for farming…”
………………
Ummmm…..why is Australia importing fertilizer for agriculture when it exports the natural gas that can be used as the feed stock for manufacturing its own fertilizer? Does Australia have a problem with domestic fertilizer manufacturing? Am I missing something here?
It can be made to sound logical:
More tax on gas exports forces producers to look for other ways to sell their gas.
Then:
Less tax on fertilizer import makes fertilizer production a worse way for same producers to sell gas.
So:
More local gas directed to non-export, non-fertilizer uses… like electricity generation.
The combination seems to be anti-net-zero in a passive aggressive way.
I was part of the early 1970s start-up team for Australia’s urea plant at Gibson Island, Brisbane. Recently, I read that its life had ended.
All plant like this can reach a wear out time when it is too costly to keep going with repairs and upgrades. OTOH, measures such as excessive taxation or cost increases of raw materials can make it a loss operation that has to be closed before bankruptcy. Or, it might be shut down because it offends some ideology like using natural gas feedstock.
I do not yet know why this plant was closed. Australia is in critical need of urea (or another nitrogenous fertilizer) to maintain much of its agriculture, so it’s closure was at a rather critical time.
Do any readers know the correct story? Love to hear from you. Geoff S
Taxes everywhere in Australia. A carbon tax for big energy users, active consideration of carbon import taxes, an inflexible pay award system with broad union rights and industry wide collective bargaining. Nobody builds a new energy intensive factory in such circumstances, not without a heap of government grants.
You need a chemical plant for that and there are some funny politics at play 🙂
1.) You Needs lots of power … We are getting short on that as they try to phase out FF generation
2.) You need cheap gas. Only Western Australia has a domestic gas retention policy so all other gas you pay the same price as someone overseas.
3.) Australian wages are high compared to other countries
4.) The environmental and development approvals would take 10 years
That all adds up to not happening here.
Good news then..
“… As coal and nuclear generation expand … they may displace domestic renewable energy …”
What’s the bad news?
…
Goebbels would be proud. Repeat the lie often enough and it will be believed.
“Renewables” are NOT an “alternative,” can NOT deliver ANY “energy security,” and are NOT “lower cost.”
Delusional.
Straight from the NERC website, wind and pv solar contribute to frequency fragility and therefore grid instability. Every MW installed weakens the grid.
Yup, destroying the electric grid, one “subsidy and mandate farm” at a time.
Do the mean: an alternative capable of delivering almost equivalent energy security benefits at higher cost?
Clever Japanese.
Call me surprised that Japan doesn’t want to destroy its gorgeous scenery with junk electricity non-supply. !!