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.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.
Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.
Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.
What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working
The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.
Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.
The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.
The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.
The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.
What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign
The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.
- What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
- What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
- What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
- What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
- What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.
If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.
Where this leaves your near-term commitments
You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.
You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.
Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.
If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测