Japan is moving toward restarting the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station, the world’s largest by capacity. The move could change the country’s energy policy, which relies on atomic power to tackle high fuel costs, boost energy security, and reduce carbon emissions.
The nuclear plant is run by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), and the restart of its biggest units, No. 6 and No. 7, together producing about 2,710 megawatts (MW), could happen soon, if regulators and local authorities approve.
It is the governor of Niigata prefecture who moves to approve the restart of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa facility. Hideyo Hanazumi plans to hold a press conference to announce his decision and said he will consult with the prefectural assembly. If the assembly also agrees, the restart will be officially authorized. He said during a media briefing:
“I would like to make a decision and express it soon.”
A Long Road Back: Why Japan’s Nuclear Revival Matters
After Fukushima in 2011, Japan shut down nearly all its reactors, and restarting them has been slow. By late 2024, only 14 reactors had started back up under the stricter post-Fukushima rules.
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, also called KK, has a total capacity of 8,212 MW, making it the largest nuclear power plant in the world. The facility has mostly sat unused since 2012. This happened after safety worries and stricter rules came in after the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
In December, regulators lifted a de facto ban that had blocked TEPCO from loading fresh nuclear fuel into the plant. The company has done safety inspections and is now seeking approval from Niigata Prefecture. This includes getting the governor’s okay, as they have a lot of influence over the decision.
If approved, restarting even part of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa could dramatically boost Japan’s nuclear output. For TEPCO, this move may lower operating costs, reduce dependence on costly imported fuels, and improve its long-term financial outlook.
Japan’s Nuclear Comeback: The Bigger Picture
Nuclear’s share in Japan’s electricity mix has begun to rise, per the ISEP data. In fiscal year 2023, nuclear energy made up 8.5% of the country’s power generation. It is the highest level since before Fukushima. Fossil fuels, especially LNG and coal, still supply the bulk of power.
The country still has far to go. Many reactors remain offline as utility firms seek regulatory approval and local consent. The largest plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, could add back several gigawatts if its units restart.
Policy now backs a larger nuclear role. The government’s strategic energy plan targets roughly 20% nuclear by 2040, alongside a big push for renewables (40–50%). These goals aim to cut fuel import bills and lower emissions, but they will require many more restarts, life extensions, or new builds.
The commercial case for more nuclear in Japan rests on several factors. Restarted reactors reduce costly LNG use and help utilities stabilize generation costs. They also provide steady, low-carbon baseload power that complements intermittent renewables.
On the other hand, safety upgrades, decommissioning risks, and local opposition impose large financial and political costs.
In short, Japan’s nuclear comeback is real but cautious. Progress relies on a few key factors:
- Regulatory approvals,
- Local consent, ongoing safety investments, and
- Nuclear’s ability to compete with cheaper renewables and storage as they grow.
Small but Mighty: Japan’s Growing Interests in SMR
Japan is also studying the use of Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs, as part of its longer-term energy plan. These reactors are smaller and can be built in factories, which may reduce costs and construction time. They could help Japan add more nuclear power without the long delays that come with large plants.
Several Japanese companies are already working with international partners to develop SMR designs. IHI, a leading equipment maker, is working with a U.S. firm, NuScale Power, on modular reactor technology. They have built full-scale mock-ups to test their engineering systems.
Chubu Electric Power, one of the country’s major utilities, has also announced plans to invest in SMR projects at home and overseas. These steps show rising industry interest in this new type of reactor.
Even with this momentum, Japan’s SMR plans are still at an early stage. The government has not yet completed a full regulatory framework for these reactors. Safety rules, design standards, and licensing pathways still need more work before construction can begin.
- Japan faces key economic questions. Can SMRs compete with renewables, large reactors, and imported fuels?
Because of these factors, experts expect SMRs to grow slowly. The Asian country may first use them for research or for exports before they appear in domestic power grids.
Still, as the country looks for low-carbon energy and more stable power supplies, SMRs are becoming part of the national discussion about the future of nuclear power.
Hurdles Ahead: Safety, Costs, and Local Concerns
Even with regulatory and political momentum, restarting Kashiwazaki-Kariwa faces hurdles. Local consent remains a key issue: the governor needs the nod of the prefectural assembly.
Safety is a major concern. TEPCO must run the plant under the tougher standards imposed after Fukushima. For residents near the plant, the disaster’s memory is still strong. This leads to local resistance in some communities.
There are financial risks, too. Restarting nuclear plants requires huge investments in safety upgrades, regulatory compliance, and community relations. If the market for electricity or nuclear power shifts, these costs could pose a burden.
Strategic Impact on Japan’s Energy Market
If put back online, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa could play a key role in lowering Japan’s import bill for liquefied natural gas (LNG). Japan is one of the world’s largest LNG importers, and atomic power offers a way to reduce its reliance on volatile markets.
More nuclear generation could also support Japan’s climate goals. The government’s energy roadmap targets a big increase in nuclear while also expanding renewables, aiming for a 40–50% renewable share by 2040. In that plan, nuclear provides a stable, carbon-free “baseload” to complement fluctuating solar and wind power.
The restart could also reshape investor sentiment. Utilities, financial institutions, and even global energy analysts are watching closely. A strong comeback of large nuclear power could show faith in Japan’s atomic revival. This might also encourage long-term investments in its nuclear industry.
Why the Restart is Significant Globally
Japan’s potential restart of the world’s largest nuclear plant comes at a moment when many countries are rethinking nuclear power. Rising energy prices, geopolitical instability, and stronger climate targets make nuclear more attractive. A revival in Japan could influence other nations to reconsider or expand their own nuclear programs.
For TEPCO, a successful restart strengthens its case for nuclear as a core part of its business. For the region, it offers more stable energy, local economic support, and lower emissions. And for Japan, it could signal that the nuclear sector is fully back in its long-term energy mix.
If the governor of Niigata approves the restart as expected, Japan may very soon add a major source of clean, reliable power — and a potent symbol of its atomic revival.
The post Japan to Restart the World’s Largest Nuclear Power Plant appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy1 year agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19