Japan aims to boost government use of renewable power

  • Market: Coal, Electricity, Emissions, Natural gas
  • 10/12/20

The Japanese government is planning to boost use of electricity generated from renewable energy sources at ministries and state-owned facilities to 30pc in the April 2021-March 2022 fiscal year as a first step towards achieving the country's 2050 decarbonisation target.

Environment minister Shinjiro Koizumi and administrative reform minister Taro Kono said today the government will instruct all ministries and state bodies to ensure at least 30pc of their power use comes from renewable sources such as solar and wind, starting from 2021-22. Renewable power use at most ministries is currently estimated at below 10pc.

Renewable power made up 18pc of Japan's total power output in 2019-20, nearing Tokyo's target of boosting renewable power generation to 22-24pc of its 2030 total power output. Renewable power output increased by 5pc on the year to 185mn MWh in the last fiscal year, according to government data.

Tokyo has pledged to make renewable energy its primary power source by 2050. Thermal power generation, including coal, LNG and oil, made up 76pc of Japan's total power output in 2019-20. LNG and gas were the biggest power-generating sources in the same year, accounting for 37pc of total power output.

Increasing output and use of renewable power has led to a fall in Japan's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in recent years. The country's GHG emissions declined for a sixth consecutive year to a new low in 2019-20.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
28/03/24

'Weeks, months' to reopen Baltimore waterway: professor

'Weeks, months' to reopen Baltimore waterway: professor

Houston, 28 March (Argus) — It could take weeks or even months to clear debris and reopen the waterway under the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, according to a engineering professor at the nearby Johns Hopkins University. As of Wednesday, there was no official timetable for the reopening of the Port of Baltimore after a major highway bridge over the Patapsco River was hit in the early hours of 26 March by a container ship and collapsed, with the debris and ship blocking the waterway. "I'd be shocked if it's weeks, but I don't think it'll take even a year" to clear the waterway, structural engineer and Johns Hopkins professor Benjamin Schafer said Wednesday. He expects the rebuild of the bridge to take significantly longer. "I've lived through quite a few civil infrastructure projects and they're rarely less than 10 years. So I think that's what we're looking at," Schafer said. He noted that it took five years to build the original Francis Scott Key Bridge and seven years to repair the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, Florida, after a similar collapse in 1980. Still, "this is definitely not a national supply chain crisis," John Hopkins operations management professor Tinglong Dai said Wednesday. "The effect will be mostly local, mostly minimal and mostly temporary." The bridge collapse and port closure is also unlikely to trigger a global supply chain crisis, he said. The Port of Baltimore is an important but "niche" port specializing in automobile imports and exports, Dai added. "The supply chain has evolved...I have already seen a lot of rerouting happening." Automakers started adjusting their supply routes away from the top port for US vehicle imports the day of the collapse, including General Motors, Ford and Mercedes-Benz. Baltimore is also a major port for coal exports, which may start to shift to terminals to the south in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Freight rates for ships that carry coal could see increases in global markets Other commodities like asphalt and caustic soda that move through the port will see challenges, while organic agriculture imports may see less problems due to seasonal flows. By Nathan Risser Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

Mosaic plant sustains minor damage from fire


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Mosaic plant sustains minor damage from fire

Houston, 28 March (Argus) — Florida-based phosphate and potash fertilizer producer Mosaic anticipates limited damage to a production plant near Tampa and minimal disruption to operations in the coming weeks following a brushfire on Monday. The brushfire ignited Monday evening during routine maintenance near Mosaic's Riverview phosphate production facility and was initially contained before rekindling Tuesday morning because of heavy winds. The fire was fully under control by Tuesday afternoon, according to local first responders. Mosaic told Argus on Tuesday the fire was not considered a threat to the facility initially, but now expects the plant sustained "limited damage to ancillary operations" and the impact could last between four to six weeks. The Riverview plant has a production capacity of 1.8mn metric tonnes (t) of processed phosphate products, and produces 30,000 t/week, according to Mosaic. The facility was producing phosphates primarily for exports to Brazil at the time of the fire, the company added. Smoke was observed Monday from the fire as a result of foam retardants used by local fire officials to cool the high-density polyethylene pipes. Polyethylene gas piping is often used for natural gas distribution. Natural gas flows delivered to the plant fell slightly Wednesday at 2.42mn cf/d, down from 2.45mn cf/d on Monday, once the fire was extinguished, according to data from Florida Gas Transmission. Flows at the plant on Thursday rebounded to 2.45mn cf/d, in line with expectations that affected phosphate output at the plant should only be temporary. By Taylor Zavala Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Long-term contracts needed to stabilise gas prices: MET


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Long-term contracts needed to stabilise gas prices: MET

London, 28 March (Argus) — Germany and Europe need more LNG and business-to-business long-term contracts to even out supply shocks and stabilise gas prices, even as demand is unlikely to reach historical heights again, chief executive of Swiss trading firm MET's German subsidiary Joerg Selbach-Roentgen told Argus . Long-term LNG contracts have a "stabilising effect" on prices when "all market participants know there is enough coming", Selbach-Roentgen said. He is not satisfied with the amount of long-term LNG supply contracted into Germany, arguing that stabilisation remains important even now that the market has "cooled down" after the price shocks of 2022. Long-term contracts are important for the standing of German industry, Selbach-Roentgen said — not to be reliant on spot cargoes is a matter of global competitiveness for the industrial gas market, he said. The chief executive called for more long-term contracts in other areas as well, such as for industrial offtakers, either fixed price or index-driven. Since long-term LNG contracts are concluded between wholesalers and producers, the latter need long-term planning security for their projects, which usually leads to terms of about 20 years. But long-term LNG contracts in general do not represent a major risk for MET nor for industrial offtakers in Europe, Selbach-Roentgen said. LNG is a more flexibly-structured "solution" to expected demand drops in regard to the energy transition as the tail end can be shipped to companies on other continents such as Asia if European demand wanes, he said. Gas demand is not likely to recover to "historical heights" again, mostly driven by industrials "jumping ship", Selbach-Roentgen said. When talking to large industrial companies, the discussion is often about the option that they might divert investments away from the German market as the price environment is "not attractive enough" for them any longer in terms of planning security, the chief executive said. This trend started out of necessity in reaction to the price spikes but may now be connected to longer-term "strategic" considerations, he said. In addition, industrial decarbonisation — as well as industrial offtakers' risk aversion because of the volatile gas market following Russian gas supply curtailments — leads companies to invest less into longer-term gas dependencies in Germany, Selbach-Roentgen said. In addition, MET advocates for a green gas blending obligation of 1-2pc green gas or hydrogen, in line with legislative drafts under discussion by the German government. This has already met with interest by offtakers, despite uncertainties around availability and prices, and would provide a regulatory framework that allows firms to prepare for the energy transition, Selbach-Roentgen said. By Till Stehr and Rhys Talbot Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI

London, 28 March (Argus) — The "best bet" to achieving global energy security is through mitigation funding and multilateral cooperation, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI highlighted that governments are funding more domestic renewable energy projects but have increased oil and gas production in the name of "energy security" at home in the years following the Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The recent rebrand of energy transition funding to energy security funding has allowed some developed nations to justify domestic oil and gas licences and drag their feet on multilateral financial commitments. This is causing "real worry" among climate-vulnerable developing nations, WRI chief executive Ani Dasgupta said. He said that although the initial "shock" to the world's energy markets after the invasion of Ukraine "quickly went away", it has triggered "real worry among poorer countries that when push comes to shove, it won't be an even game, or have a fair outcome." Developing countries have long complained about the lack of access to climate funding. Richer nations have only recently met the $100bn/yr target in climate finance to developing countries agreed in 2009, while discussions on setting a new climate finance goal for 2025 at Cop 29 in Baku in November could prove difficult. President of the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) Denis Sassou-Nguesso said last year that the $100bn/yr in climate financing to developing countries promised by rich countries "never reached us", adding that the annual UN Cop climate conferences have become little more than a talking shop. "Just after the invasion of Ukraine, every country started to think about energy security," Dasgupta said. "In theory, good things could have happened, countries could have concluded that their best bet to getting energy security is by going renewable". But it was not the case in key consumer countries or regions, Dasgupta pointed out. China bought the majority of Russian gas following the EU's withdrawal, he said, and has since upped production at coal-fired power stations despite an "extraordinary" acceleration towards renewables set for 2023-28, according to Paris-based energy watchdog IEA . In Europe, the UK and Norway continue to award new oil and gas licences . "In the US, the fossil fuel lobby argues that the best route to energy security is to invest more in fossil fuels". But the best route is to invest in more renewables, he said. "Even if the US produces a large amount of oil and gas, it is still a traded commodity, and so you have to pay a price for it that is set globally." The US special presidential co-ordinator for energy security Amos Hochstein has also suggested in September that a widening climate finance gap could ultimately threaten global security. "We have seen the percentage of dollars spent on the energy transition outside the OECD, in developing and middle income countries actually go down instead of up…" By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025

Sydney, 28 March (Argus) — Australia's biggest companies will likely face mandatory climate reporting from 1 January 2025, six months later than originally planned, according to a bill the Australian federal government introduced in parliament. Under the revised proposal, the country's largest companies and financial institutions will need to start disclosing their climate-related risks and opportunities, including scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, within their annual sustainability reports from 1 January 2025 instead of 1 July as previously intended . Scope 3 emissions disclosure will continue to be required from the second year of reporting. Companies will be arranged in three groups, with group 1 entities including companies meeting at least two of three criteria: more than A$500mn ($324mn) of annual revenues, over A$1bn of gross assets, 500 or more employees. Group 2 companies will have lower thresholds — above A$200mn of revenues, $500mn of assets and 250 employees — and will start reporting from the financial year starting on 1 July 2026. Reporting for group 3 entities — those with more than A$50mn of revenues, $25mn of assets and 100 employees — will begin from 1 July 2027. The 1 January 2025 start date might be pushed further to 1 July 2025, if the bill does not become law before 2 December. It will now be debated in parliament and needs to pass both houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, before receiving royal assent. Its approval will support more investment in renewable energy as well as help companies and investors manage climate risks, the government said. Companies are currently not required to report their scope 3 emissions under Australia's National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which is used to measure and report GHG emissions and energy production and consumption. Scope 3 can include emissions within supply chains that occur inside or outside Australia, such as emissions from the combustion of Australian coal or LNG exported to other countries. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more