Japan starts up offshore wind farm off Fukushima coast

It is ridiculous feelgood pork. And those who still think that wind turbines (or marine current turbines for that matter) are "green" should read up on the environmental cost of extracting rare earths.

It is ridiculous feelgood pork.

If you read the article even the Fukushima governor says that it is a symbol and just one step- noone thinks this wind farm will solve the energy problems. I'm interested to know what your solution is, if wind farms are useless?

Well one suggestion would be that made by the world's leading climate scientists but that one isn't very popular by the 'experts' on Japan Today.

http://bit.ly/1fc6Dpu

There's no question that a large part of the answer lies in decreased energy usage. Usage levels adapted to use as much power as is available. Usage levels can also adapt downwards with increasing cost, but it will take time and require changes in lifestyle.

CraigHicks. I think you hit on the key issue. There is no way humanity can continue at its present energy consumption. We must cut back. I still see outdoor lights blazing away everywhere during sunlight hours on a daily basis. People have learned nothing.

Fukushima is not hot or warm like Okinawa or Kagoshima. So, this wind energy is super. One sttep closer to safe future Fukushima.

It's a step in the right direction for Japan, but somebody has got to convince them that nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source.

Lets just hope these aren't as breakable as the powerplant itself.

On TV on Sunday night a fishery representative commented that these turbines will get in the way of their fishing nets. Personally I feel that fish need such safe havens in the face of relentless fishing boats packed with electronic and mechanical wizardry.

I think Japan really needs to concentrate like this on getting the maximum out of renewables first.

Nuclear, on the face of it efficient and cheap, mortgages our future. It's a wonderful dream. In the medium to long run term the nuclear cleanup will be horribly costly as the present generation of power stations reach their retirement age, really only a matter of 30, 40, 50 years down the road, or less. At that point it will become an on-going, growing and likely unsolvable problem all over the globe for our children. No, nuclear should never, ever be allowed to take on more than a back-up role.

There are many nuclear power stations that have reached retirement age and have been decommissioned without any drama. Hence the reason the climate scientists are saying that nuclear is the way forward. But what would they know?

In other parts of the world these ocean wind farms have become a haven for recreational fishing cos of the large amount of artificial reefs they create. Possibly the pro fishermen should consider diversifying into fishing charters instead of being concerned about raping the local seas.

Heda, I think what climate scientists are saying is 'not fossil fuels'.

Given a one-on-one choice, nuclear may seem to them a better trade-off against CO2-producing power generation, but I am sure they must be happier with renewables such as this proposed off-shore wind farm. Storage of nuclear waste and decommissioning are not nearly as simple as you make out, even if they do not pose a CO2 hazard per se.

http://bit.ly/1fc6Dpu

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization’s concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.

Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power

etc. This was widely covered by all of the mainstream media last week and it originates from the leading climate scientists on the planet

how this will help the people of fukushima is beyond me. they first need housing in order to use that tiny amount of electricity being generated. this project will only make money for the corporations trying to sell renewable energy sources.

While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.

Could not have said it better myself. A typical nuclear power plant produces the equivalent of over 2,500 wind turbines (assuming they are operating at maximum capacity, i.e. the wind is blowing strong and just right) and you'd need about 242 square kilometers. That's peak efficiency, which usually isn't happening, so maybe triple those numbers to get something you could actually, maybe rely on. Solar panels, on the other hand, would need 20 square kilometers, but then can only operate during daylight hours, and require clear, strong, sunlight... which usually isn't happening if you've ever lived in Japan, so again, even more space to occupy to put out the power a nuclear plant can deliver.

This is government posturing and will in no way help the people of Fukushima. However, I must admit, I don't know how Japan expects to provide electricity to its population without a sudden, huge increase in land mass, or no more fault lines to disrupt (or destroy) nuclear plants. It's a really tough situation.

John... sorry that was a quote coming from the link above - not my words - I'm not eloquent enough.

But as ever the JT community will disagree with the experts.

Good idea. Perhaps much of that land can be used for wind and solar power (especially as the efficiency ratios rise more and more). I also think the areas closest to the Daichi and Daini reactors could be used as nuclear storage. All landowners should be compensated with the remaining equity of TEPCO.

Your quote, Heda, is an eye-opener for me into the thinking of one body of scientists on this planet. This is probably not the place to be discussing nuclear issues, however, so I will refrain. Suffice it to say that it revealed how scared they are of the anti-nuclear group, because they see them as providing a wedge excuse for fossil fuel burners around the planet to continue polluting, and thus such activists themselves have become an enemy to climate change scientists.

Oh, one more thing, those climate change scientists are not advocating nuclear energy as we know it, as they realize it is insidiously poisonous, but some future ideal form which they have cleverly worded under the advocacy of "development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems".

As posters have said above, the world economy is not a runaway monster; we all need to learn to to economize at home and in business, to steer closer to Nature, and to take positive enjoyment in natural generation of energy. Wind farms are not perfect either, and there are problems with bird migration, low winds and high winds, but these are gentle problems that we can work on without paranoia or guilt.

Disillusioned

It's a step in the right direction for Japan, but somebody has got to convince them that nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source.

By its definition, nuclear is not a renewable power source, but it is sustainable for a long, long time.

nandakandamanda

Oh, one more thing, those climate change scientists are not advocating nuclear energy as we know it.

Well, they are advocating the new GEN III plants which are being built and the GEN IVs which are planned.

"We understand that today’s nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits."

They also comment on the hazards of nuclear vs. fossil fuels.

"Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology."

I can't disagree with them.

Suffice it to say that it revealed how scared they are of the anti-nuclear group

Of course another way of looking at it is how scared they are of the way the people are continually polluting the planet. They are not scared of the anti-nuclear brigade they are scared of what will happen if we don't change our fuel. They, the experts say that nuclear is the only option.

You dismiss that because they're scared of the anti nuclear brigade. If you read the biographies of the authors you will understand they are scared of nothing. Apart from the continued pollution of the planet that is.

Back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on the wind farm will be removed.

When I think of the fact that all the vending machines in Japan need one complete nuclear power station to support them, then how many wind farms would it take to keep them lit up and humming?

But then again, when I think that one wind farm can provide even a percentage of the energy of a nuclear power station, then somehow I like it. Yay! Go, wind farms, go! Provide some of the night-time power that solar cannot! A happy marriage I hope, even if they cannot carry the whole heaving world on their shoulders.

What about tapping the energy that moves the galaxies? Tesla discovered how to use this and transmit it world wide in a wireless manner. This is the ultimate answer, because energy distribution cannot forever be a profit making venture. Nature gave us everything free....it is Business who wants payment. Business is the ultimate villain. The U.S. Govt. should use Tesla's papers they stole.

this is a good idea! and it will be the worlds biggest.

Farmboy, thank you for correcting my English. I will rewrite it. It takes the amount of energy that would normally be generated by one nuclear reactor to power all the vending machines in Japan. Admittedly right now they are running on coal- or gas-fired electricity.