the Real Cost of Energy for Japan

[donald]

The Peoples Republic of China (PRC), and almost all of it’s mainland inhabitants

What do you mean "it is mainland inhabitants"?

 

[DATsunONE]

In 1985, when the delegation made up of the top officials and the brightest minds in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) came to the United States to study business, they made very pointed (predetermined) inquiries. They specifically asked (from each U.S. professor of business they inquired from) exactly how to defeat the Japanese corporations, and particularly the Japanese automakers, in business. They ignored those professors who would not, nor could not, answer that exact question, academically. They not only listened intently to those professors who did answer that specific question (academically) but, they debated, exhaustively, the advice given by each of those professors, with those professors. The current President of the PRC, Xi Jinping, was among that delegation.

Imagined?

Japan can stick it’s (proverbial) head in the sand (continue to suck up to the Oil Companies) but, that is not going to change the fact that the PRC intends to bankrupt it, first, and then buy out all of it’s major corporations, one by one, off the chopping block (in foreclosure). The PRC was taught exactly how to do that by U.S. professors of business (from 1985 onward) and, to date, the PRC has not deviated from that strategic business plan. The U.S. Oil Companies have no intention of rescuing Japan from the PRC; not by continuing to buy products from them, at higher prices, and definitely not militarily. Walmarts (controlled by the Clinton family) are not supplied with any products produced in Japan! The writing is on the wall; or, rather, in the shopping centers, all over the United States.

Dan

 

[donald]

Japan can stick it’s head in the sand

What do you mean "Japan can stick it is head"? Why is it a head?

 

[woodgeek]

Mythical 'S' curve?

So all these diverse countries with different cultures and technology have all developed along this same curve that, like a cell culture curve, starts out exponential, and then drops to sub-exponential as people become more 'satisfied'.

So with China 'its different this time' because some folks listened to some B school profs 30 years ago? They are going to sustain an exponential growth in the face of human nature and blow past all other societies' standard of living and gdp per person until they own all the wealth on the planet?

:lol:

 

[DATsunONE]

When the delegation from the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), made up of their top officials and brightest minds, came to the United State in 1985 to study business, all of them boasted about their lifestyle. The PRC’s current President, Xi Jinping, was among that delegation. Needless to say, the people of the PRC’s lifestyle has changed dramatically for the better since the PRC got into business, in a big way, in 1986.

They boasted about having full free medical insurance and free education through college. They boasted of having 100% full time employment. They boasted about mandatory retirement, at full pay, at the age of 50. They boasted of having lots of free time and the freedom to work out and spend with their friends and families because of being limited to a 40 hour work week. They boasted of eating well and living long and healthy. The most amazing of their boasts, was their boast about their salaries, the highest in the PRC, at the time; about $400 per month. They were exceedingly proud of this. Though, $400/month is equivalent to 43200 yen per month, today; the yen was low in 1985, and was equivalent to 95600 yen per month, then. In stark contrast, automakers in the United States and Japan tend to bragg about their billions of dollars (cho yen). The PRC’s leadership (Central Committee Members) boast of their individual income is endearing to their people; whereas, the United State’s and Japan’s leadership boast of their individual income brings forth quite a different set of emotional responses from their peoples. Endearment is not one of them.

In 1985, I was both, working full time and going to college full time. Though, I was working full time, I still had to take out student loans, under usurious rates, to be able to pay for my college courses, which seemed to take forever to pay back. I couldn’t find a professional job for a long time when I got out of college, though I graduated at the top of my class. I had no medical insurance and wasn’t looking to get any until the age of 66. I could only look forward to retirement at age 62, at half of the minimum wage.

Whatever lies the Oil Companies are spoon feeding you about the deplorable living conditions in the PRC, are just that; all lies. There isn’t going to be any NEW peoples revolution in the PRC; not now, and certainly not until many years after they have defeated Japan in business. The people of the PRC threw of the yoke of their capitalist industrial slavers, many years ago, and they have no intention of fitting that yoke back on; ever.

As for the Japanese automakers; you can lie to the Japanese people all you want but, that is not going to change the outcome of your economic war with the PRC. The PRC will take your businesses away from you if you do not learn how to compete against them in business. You cannot compete against the PRC if you continue to delude yourselves about the truth of the economic facts. No one can offer you solutions to your energy dilemma, for consideration, if you refuse to face the economic facts. You won’t even be able to honestly evaluate any solution offered to your energy dilemma if you continue to succumb to your own propaganda.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

The saying; “bury your head in the sand”, is a very old saying referring to the believed behavior of Ostriches to avoid danger. Ostriches don’t actually bury their heads in the sand to avoid danger. It’s an old saying that people of my generation in the United States used to use. It is said that people bury their heads in the sand when they refuse to confront or deal with a problem, and choose to deny it. The saying comes from an ancient belief about ostriches, first recorded by the Roman writer Pliny the Elder. For many generations, it was believed that, ostriches buried their heads in the sand when confronted by a predator, that they could not escape from, so that they wouldn’t have to witness the imminent fateful attack by that predator.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

The “S” Curve is a subject of constant debate amongst the members of the Central Committee of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and has been for the past 29 years.

The U.S. professors of business, in 1985, that advised the PRC delegation sent to the United States to study business, advised that delegation to send 200 of their brightest high school engineering and physics students to study, under the U.S. student exchange program, at the very best U.S. colleges of business, throughout the United States, that had a business science curriculum program through the PhD (doctorate) level. From 1986, and for the past 28 years, the PRC has sent, and continues to send, their brightest engineering and physics high school students, to those very same business colleges, throughout the United States. The PRC also sends a number of such brilliant students to other business colleges in other countries, now, as well. Of course, the PRC has established their own excellent business colleges, too. However, all business executives in the PRC are required to attend, through the masters level, both, a business science college of repute in another country as well as a business science college in the PRC.

Several questions were raised by that PRC delegation, in 1985, as to why send the best and brightest engineering and physics high school students to United States business colleges and why seek out business science programs as opposed to business arts programs. The answer was; business is a collection of sciences. It is not an art form. Only scientifically oriented, gifted, and interested, students will be able to make the best of that education.

The PRC has strategically considered, and continues to strategically consider, the “S” Curve. They have strategically planned to avoid it’s adverse affects, and continue to do so, every year since they got into business; since 1986. There are a number of very strategic means (methods by which) the PRC goes about doing that. The PRC constantly plans for and test the effectiveness of each one of these strategic means, utilizing the knowledge and techniques they learned from the business science colleges they attended.

I am flabbergasted to find out that the Japanese automakers and elites are so completely unaware of these facts.

Yes; the PRC planned to avoid the negative affects of the “S” Curve, and continue to plan to do so. More importantly, they have succeeded in their efforts to do so. No; it was not a fluke. Yes; the PRC will continue to do so until they have defeated all the capitalist countries in business, as they have vowed to do.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

When Hong Kong was under British rule, and the rest of China had become communist, some of us referred to the inhabitants of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) as being from the mainland. Hong Kong is actually on the mainland, too. Kowloon is the island. So, I can see where using that phrase "mainland inhabitants" would be confusing.

The people of Hong Kong, today, are completely different from the people of the PRC, today, in many ways. Both peoples were raised under very different belief systems; almost, in every aspect. Because the differences between these two peoples are so different, it is not possible to compare them in the manner that they are being compared to by outsiders today; and, especially, not in how they react to PRC rule.

Many of the people of Hong Kong consider themselves to be subjects of an invading oppressive dictatorship. With very few exceptions, the people of the PRC consider themselves to be citizens ruled by a liberating collection of their own (the Central Committee) liberators.

Regardless, what is going on in Hong Kong has nothing to do with Japan's energy dilemma. The people of Hong Kong couldn't, nor would even if they could, save the Japanese people from being taken over, in business, by the PRC. On that issue, defeating Japan in business, the two peoples (those raised in Hong Kong under capitalism and those raised in the PRC under communisim) agree.

Dan

 

[woodgeek]

Um, the history of HK and China/Japan relations is a little more nuanced than can be explained in a forum post, and repeatedly talking about a cadre of PRC leaders who were trained overseas in B schools fails to really add the necessary detail.

I would offer that the major difference between HK and the PRC is in their net worth and gdp per capita figures...HK is basically at a US level of wealth and gdp per capita, the fine people of the PRC are not (yet). It is well known that peoples political attitudes and their emphasis on wants versus needs evolve as a country moves along the S curve, and old members who remember disorder/starvation/war pass away. How that shakes out for the PRC remains a very open question.

I would offer that the leaders of Singapore and Korea also sent their brightest young people to overseas B schools, and have been very successful by any measure in fostering their countries development. Are you saying that the leaders of the PRC are smarter and have a deeper understanding of human relations than those other countries, so they and they alone will not experience slower growth as they become more wealthy, as has every other developed country?

To stir the pot.....what say you about demographics? A lot of analyses show growth correlation with fraction of the population in a prime range, e.g. 30-45 years old. Japan had that in the 80s, the US had that 90s, and China had that in the 00s. Each of these countries had a triumphant swagger and robust economy and growth in those decades.

Projections show the US 'echo boom' will give the US 'prime demographics' for the next 20 years or so. In comparison, Chinese demographics in 20 years will look a bit worse (older) than Japan's today. The removal of the one-child policy is a (little/late) admission by your genius PRC leaders of this impending demographic headwind.

 

[donald]

The saying; “bury your head in the sand”, is a very old saying

I'm aware of the saying, but wonder why you put it as 'burying it is head in the ground'. Surely the saying is 'burying its head in the ground'?

 

[DATsunONE]

The United States is not going to retire anybody at age 50; and, certainly not at full pay, from their highest paying job. If anything, the U.S. is going to increase the age of retirement (beyond the age of 66) and reduce the amount paid to retirees (below half pay).

The United States is not going to pay for anybody’s upper education. If anything, the cost of a college or technical education will continue to rise in the United States.

The United States is not going to pay for anybody’s political campaign. If anything, the cost of a political campaign will continue to rise in the United States, making political representation even less accessible to the vast majority.

The United States is not going to guarantee anybody full time employment, for any period, what to speak through the age of retirement. If anything, the probability of finding and keeping full time employment, for long periods, will continue to decrease in the United States. Unemployment periods will continue to increase; and, unemployment benefits, and covered length of time, will continue to decrease in the United States, as well.

The United States is not going to guarantee anybody employment commensurate with education and experience, for any period. If anything, upper education and work experience, will continue to become less valuable in the United States.

The United States is not going to provide anybody health care, at no cost. If anything, affordable care will continue to be less affordable. The honeymoon of affordable care will end soon.

The majority of the people, in the United States, are not going to stage a violent revolution to change these things. Instead, they are going to implement the initiative process to do that. This will begin to happen when initiative petitions can be signed online; an event which will occur relatively soon, from now.

The majority of the people, in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), are not going to stage a violent revolution to spread the wealth, either. They will seek to institute a process, like the initiative process in the United States, which will allow them to have more of a say in how their new found wealth will be spent (spread). They will also facilitate individual participation in this initiative like process online.

What the majority of the people in the PRC will not do, as they gain more power, and in their effort to spread the wealth, is weaken the PRC’s economic advantage over it’s competitors (especially, over Japan) to the extent that they no longer maintain a distinctive economic advantage over them.

There just isn’t going to be any “S” Curve salvation for Japan; not now and not in a 100 years. The “S” Curve will not solve Japan’s economic woes. Japan will have to compete, economically, or it will be taken over (bought out) by the PRC.

Identifying the parameters of the solution (what will solve the problem) to Japan’s problem (energy dilemma) should guide Japan’s search for a viable one. Expecting a highly improbable leveling circumstance to occur, like the “S”Curve, definitely falls far outside those parameters. Even were the PRC to spread the wealth, and set aside nothing for buying out failing businesses, Japan could still not compete, economically, against the PRC, given it’s current (and proposed) exceedingly high relative cost of energy compared to that of the PRC.

Dan

 

[woodgeek]

Why doesn't Japan just buy a few hundred billion $ of PV panels from China, before the Yen collapses, and become self-sufficient in energy?

The take away from this thread is that
1) The leaders and people of the PRC are unique in the history of the world, and this will enable them to do something that other developing/developed countries have not done....continuous exponential growth to beyond a First World Standard of living....AND doing so without any change to the political organization of their country. Heck, if my leaders could deliver that I would stand by them too.
2) That the people of Japan have zero capacity to meet their future energy needs either by international trade (something they have done for decades) or home grown RE technology. Somehow after the PRC takes over Japan these problems with the island will cease to be a problem.

The final question for the OP is whether he thinks the PRC taking over Japan and then the world is a **good thing**.

 

[donald]

Why doesn't Japan just buy a few hundred billion $ of PV panels from China....

Well, one thing that might come out of a sudden increment in production is it'd be finally made clear what the real contribution PVs make to acidifying the oceans.

 

[DATsunONE]

I asked that very same question from my business strategy professor, back in 1985, right after he lectured the Minister of Finance of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) on how to do business; “Does China take over the world? Remember, I was a college undergraduate business student in the United States, back then. He said; “No. Japan gets it’s act together and learns how to compete.” Of course, we discussed that answer further but, let me digress a bit, first.

Each member of PRC’s delegation, sent to the United States, to study business in 1985, was accompanied by the usual complement of U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agents. When my business strategy professor first began to lecture the Minister of Finance of the PRC on how to do business, he was subsequently interrogated, right in front of me, by three of those agents. They were livid and demanded, contemptuously, that he explain why he had done such a thing. His reply was; “Now, you have to compete!” Even more outraged by that response, they demanded; “What does that mean?” He said; “You wouldn’t understand.”

Later, in private, I asked my business strategy professor to explain what he meant by the statement that he had made to the FBI and CIA agents; “Now, you have to compete.” He explained that, the Oil Companies were not going to stop polluting the world, on their own, before it was too late to save the world from global warming; and, that the only way they would stop selling oil is if and when people stopped buying their oil. People will only stop buying oil when there is a cheaper, more economically viable, means to generate it’s energy equivalent. Japan, and other similarly situated countries like it, who don’t have their own oil, and must consequently buy it from other countries, will be the first countries to look for a cheaper alternative energy equivalent to oil but, only if they are compelled to do so. Since, China has it out for Japan, it only made sense to teach them business. If and when China surpasses Japan, economically, it would compel Japan to seek that cheaper alternative energy equivalent to oil sooner. The sooner the world stops combusting fossil fuels to generate energy, the better for the world.

I asked my business strategy professor; “So; the whole reason you taught China how to do business was to save the world from global warming?” He said; “Yes. Teaching China how to do business was the only plausible solution to the global warming problem.”

It’s been almost 30 years since the PRC got into business, now, and Japan still hasn’t figured this out on it’s own. I guess, it just had to be spelled out for them.

It is glaringly obvious, now. Japan has to find another way to generate energy, other than by combusting fossil fuels, in order to survive the economic onslaught by the PRC.

My business strategy professor was confident that Japan would discover a cheaper alternative energy equivalent to oil. He said that; “The Japanese are a very clever people. They’ll figure it out, in time.”

To answer your questions. No; the PRC does not take over the world. No; the PRC does not take over Japan. No; the PRC does not continue to grow, exponentially. Yes; Japan solves their problem (their energy dilemma) and succeeds in competing against the PRC, when they do, because they have the abilities and the tenacity to do so. Yes; every country, including the PRC, will stop combusting fossil fuels to generate energy, when Japan does, just to be able to compete against Japan. Yes; the people of the PRC will live better because of this result, even though the PRC will no longer enjoy such an economic advantage over their competitors, any longer. Yes; Japan saves the world from global warming but, not for philanthropic reasons. Japan saves the world from global warming, inadvertently, because it has no other choice but to, in order to survive, economically.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Beyond the fact that they are not as green as people have been led to believe, solar panels (PV) are just no good (economically) for Japan. They are not green because they completely displace way too much land and solar from the species that sorely need both, and cause entirely too much extra heat.

Also disregard the fact that PV, to date, is still much more (many times more) expensive than coal for the production of electricity. That fact alone should be the end of this discussion; i.e., considering PV as a viable choice for the relative cost comparative analysis between China and Japan for the production of electricity.

Also disregard the fact that PV does not produce at night, less during the winter, less during inclement weather, less during the mornings and late afternoons, and less the further away from the equator. PV always has to be supplemented and variably so, on average by forty or more percent, even on a good day.

Let’s start with the Japanese Islands (the Japanese homeland), itself. Japan is so populated that there is no room (land) for solar panels, except on top of existing structures. Japan has always been prone to earthquakes. This is why Japanese structures are not built high. Solar panels are heavy and, if placed on top of habitable buildings, without a complete overhaul of the structure of those buildings, would cause them to topple, under any regular (2 to 5 year) earthquake event.

For Japan’s vertical integration investments, mines and farms in other countries, where it has control over the energy source to operate them, it could not afford the additional land required to install solar panels, even if that additional land, adjacent to those operations were available, which in most cases, is not. Far more solar panels would be required than the few that could be installed on the top of the few buildings on those properties. In addition, those buildings would also have to be restructured (pass inspection) to handle the extra weight. Japan could purchase land elsewhere for it’s solar panels but, then it would have to upload the electricity produced on the grid and download the electricity needed from the grid, where needed. That grid would be controlled, either by foreign corporations or, by foreign government entities. Japan would not be permitted to operate a utility company in those foreign countries. In other words, if it did that, Japan would have to sell it’s PV produced electricity at wholesale prices and buy it back at retail prices, from where it needed it. Considering the typical 15+ years it takes before an investor experiences a return on investment, for those PV producers who do not have to sell their electricity at wholesale, Japan would do far better buying it’s electricity off the grid, at retail prices, rather than setting up it’s own solar farms.

I have already discussed the fallacy of placing solar panels on artificially built islands, offshore.

Dan

 

[woodgeek]

Ah well.

A lot of what you are saying about solar is simply not true. PV makes less power away from the equator? Not if you tilt it. On a cloudless earth, every point gets the same number of hours of sunshine per year. You just need to tilt the panels, putting fewer in a given area. At US or Japan latitudes this is a 30% hit on a land use basis, and a 0% hit on a per panel basis.

PV panels are too heavy to put on top of buildings? Japanese buildings are over-engineered for earthquake resistance....the weight of panels would be negligible.

Japan looks like 1/3rd of the US population in 1/20th of the land. That US land figure includes 40% in Alaska, which I don't think we should count. Overall, more like the population density, population and area of the Northeast US, that is, New England, NY and the Mid-atlantic states combined. There are LOTS of plans for a 100% Renewable Energy future for that US region, that are all affordable (or close with falling prices).

Japan has 2X the marine coastline of the US, with 1/3 the people. IF you wanted to go with offshore wind, it seems likely that Japan would have a big edge on our US NE proxy.....~7x as much coastline. Since the Japanese are building whole floating islands and airports, I think they have the know-how and construction facilities for heavy marine engineering.

Despite the fact that wind and solar are complementary in their diurnal and seasonal cycles....battery-based cheap grid storage is coming. This will make intermittency and related FF usage a non-issue

IOW, the whole idea that Japan is hopeless to becoming self-sufficient in energy.....nuts. Germany is trying to get there with a higher population density, a tiny solar resource and almost no coastline. And no-one seems to be saying they can't do it.

 

[DATsunONE]

I did not mention wind generation.

Fewer solar panels (PV) means more land is required to collect the same amount of electricity. In other words, for PV, less electricity is collected per acre, the further away from the equator.

Japanese buildings are over-engineered for a reason; frequent earthquakes. The added weight of solar panels, on buildings in Japan, would not be negligible. The reason that solar panels, in Japan, must be heavier is because of the frequent earthquakes and hail storms, they experience there. Because solar cells are so fragile, in Japan, they have to be placed on specially built platforms and inside of specially built cases, designed to absorb the additional energy from frequent earthquakes. The buildings there, themselves, would not provide the additional absorption (energy dampening) required. In addition, the glass encasements, for those fragile cells, must be built from extra strong, extra expensive, heavier glass and other materials, to deal with the frequent heavy hail storms there.

Cheap grid storage, if and when it does come, would have nothing to do with selling PV generated electricity to the grid, at wholesale prices, and buying electricity from the grid, in a different location, at retail prices, in foreign countries, for Japan. It will, however, reduce the need for supplementing, during the evenings, during inclement weather, and during daily variations. Still, batteries and the yearly replacement thereof, is an added cost; making PV that much more expensive, than it already is. Producing electricity with PV, for Japan, no matter where, would cost far more than what China pays to produce electricity with coal. China will continue to produce much of it’s electricity with coal, for well over a 100 years, until it has a cheaper way to do so.

Offshore PV, built on artificial islands, would be even more expensive.

The problem I identified is Japan’s current inability to compete economically with China, in terms of relative cost of equivalent energy. I merely identified that problem. I never said that there was no solution to that problem. Nor, did I say that it was hopeless for Japan to compete economically with China. PV, for Japan, however, is a hopeless means of achieving that end, though.

To compete economically against China, it is not nearly enough for Japan to become energy self sufficient. Energy self sufficiency, at any cost, is just not good enough to compete economically against China, for Japan. To compete economically against China, Japan will have to generate energy, at a comparative cost, to what China pays for it’s energy. At less relative cost would be best. This objective is attainable for Japan; but, not if Japan gets caught up (invests too much time and money) in prospective alternative energy sources (going down dead end roads) that do not, nor ever could, pencil for it.

I haven’t seen any German goods being sold in Walmarts, anywhere throughout the United States. I am unfamiliar with the markets in Europe.

Japan must look for, or develop, alternative energy sources to attain energy self-sufficiency, which will allow it to become competitive with China. PV is just not one of them; and, never will be. If Japan does the math (comparative cost analysis), objectively and thoroughly, this conclusion will become painfully obvious. Prospective sources of alternative energy, which could not allow Japan to become economically competitive with China, in time, such as PV, should be rejected, out of hand. PV would never pencil for Japan, in any amount of time, what to speak of in time.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

There are two kinds of engineers; the ones (bad) that will tell developers whatever they want to hear and the other kind (good) that tell them the truth. There are only a handful of engineers that tell the truth. It’s easy to find and keep engineering work by lying to developers. It’s hard to find and keep engineering work by telling them the truth. Developers tend only to hire and retain bad engineers.

There are two views, when it comes to storm and earthquake events. Good engineers will tell you that a 100 year storm event can occur at anytime, in a 100 years, and that it cannot be predicted; and, as such, a 100 storm event can even occur back to back. Bad engineers will tell you that a 100 year storm event will only occur once every 100 years and claim that they can predict the next occurrence from the last such occurrence.

Japan’s energy dilemma is not an engineering problem. It is a developer’s problem!

The Fukushima Daiichi (genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko) nuclear meltdown, in March 2011, is a prime example of this problem. The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission found that the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant was, in fact, not designed to deal with the expected earthquake or tsunami (the event) which caused it’s failure.

Some good engineers, outside of Japan, warned Japan that the design of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant would not withstand either an anticipated severe earthquake event nor the tsunami that would be expected to follow such an event. Japan, like most developers, did not listen to those good engineers. Japan may even have looked at the calculations made by those good engineers. However, if Japan did look at those calculations, it chose to ignore them.

Again; Japan has the choice. Knowledge will not be an issue. There is no question as to whether Japan will be PUBLICALLY presented with the (correct and complete set of) calculations comparing the cost of it’s current (and proposed) energy consumption with that of China. Beyond these simple snippets (short posts) in this thread, I intend to insure that Japan is provided with extensive academic (peer reviewed) reports from unbiased writers; meaning, they don’t have any affiliation or allegiance to any Oil Companies or to China. The only question remaining then will be whether Japan chooses to ignore those independent unbiased reports and continues to go down dead end roads (implementing alternative energy schemes) that will never permit it to be able to compete economically against China.

Only after coming to grips with the reality of it’s energy dilemma, and truthfully and completely evaluating all solutions that have been proposed, to date, will Japan be able to see (understand) any real viable solutions that may be offered to that problem, in the future. Japan has not been presented with any viable solutions, to date. Until then, Japan is a blind man, stumbling around in the dark, without cane or sword to defend itself against China.

Dan

 

[DATsunONE]

Japan’s energy dilemma (it’s inability to compete with China, energy wise) will only get worse, over time, if Japan does not employ a solution to that problem. The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) isn’t going to stand still and wait for Japan to catch up. They will continue to seek and employ energy production and consumption technology that is even more cost effective than that which they already utilize today.

Among the near future changes to expect from the PRC, in this regard, will be a move away from centralized production and distribution of energy. This is because it is tremendously more economical to do so. If Japan hopes to be able to compete against the PRC, this is the most important means by which it will be able to do that.

Decentralizing electricity (DE) generation has been a constant (hot) topic of debate and research since 1970, in the United States. In 2004, economic modeling revealed that DE would average 44% lower capital cost savings and 15% lower retail cost savings. Centralized electric generation uses vast amounts of land for such things as power plants, transmission lines, and transformer stations. The U.S. and the PRC have plenty of land to waste but, for Japan, land is extremely precious; every little bit of it. Transmission lines, typically, loose between 10 to 15 percent of the electricity they transmit. Outages, typical to centralized generation of electricity, add 29 to 45 percent of unnecessary additional cost to U.S. power. Centralization of electricity production is “old school”; based on last century’s technology. Modern technological advances allow for decentralization of energy production and distribution. If Japan does not decentralize it’s electricity production and distribution, it will fall even further behind the PRC.

DE generation most probably will entail small power plants for buildings and residences; one or a few. Small power plants, employing nuclear fission, even if possible, would be prohibitive. This is because the fuel used to operate one such power plant could also be used in a nuclear weapon powerful enough to destroy a town or a small city. This is also the reason why you will not see any commercial ships, commercial jets, or commercial tractors, being driven by small nuclear fission power plants.

Nuclear fusion is the modern rave. Lockheed Martin, just recently, claimed that their compact fusion reactors will be able to drive commercial ships, commercial jets, and commercial tractors, among other things. Other companies, with different small nuclear fusion reactors, are making similar claims. I will discuss each of these, separately, later.

Dan

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Japan should also used wave power systems. They are surrounded by the ocean, and these systems are being built commercially by at least three companies around the world.

Ocean based wind turbines and land based turbines and solar PV on every building make a lot of sense. And Japan has easy access to geothermal energy.