TEPCO eyes 16 % rate hike in fiscal 2012 to cover compensation claims

[kristopher]

TEPCO eyes 16 % rate hike in fiscal 2012 to cover compensation claims

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) is projecting payments of as much as 10 trillion yen in compensation to people and other parties affected by the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant and is eyeing a rate hike of about 16 percent from fiscal 2012 to cover the cost, according to internal documents obtained by the Mainichi on June 13.

The documents include TEPCO's financial projections which have become the basis for the government to help the utility pay compensation to victims of the nuclear disaster and pass on a certain amount of projected redress costs to consumers.

Specifically, TEPCO is projecting an increase in fuel costs due to a shift from nuclear energy to thermal power prompted by the ongoing Fukushima crisis.

The Cabinet of Prime Minister Naoto Kan is set to decide on June 14 on compensation scheme legislation that will aid TEPCO with contributions from other nuclear power plant operators and government bonds...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110614p2a00m0na003000c.html

With a 16% rate hike on electric here I wonder how much carbon reduction could be achieved targeting it at energy efficiency and renewable deployment.

Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette

Abstract
Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is "carbon free" and "releases no greenhouse gases." However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

This paper published in the journal of Science and Engineering Ethics. The article above is an example of way the uncounted costs affect the actual GHG reductions performance of a given technology.

To reiterate:
Ethics requires good science.

Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is "carbon free" and "releases no greenhouse gases."

However, such claims are scientifically questionable ... for at least 3 reasons.

(i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content.

(ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used.

(iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies.

Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic.

Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.