Sunday May 27, 2012

Order by Time Order by Popularity

45 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Well the most feasible would be geothermal, where you can make it work, or biomass. Beyond that the energy provided by the others fails to justify the space, resources, and time required to get them up and running.

  • 0

    jinjapan

    it depends are where you are located. they all should be put to use in the locations where they would generate the most power.

  • 0

    WilliB

    What a classic polemical question. NONE of these pipedream schemes is, of course, a viable replacement for nuclear energy. But the question blithely assumes we can pick one of them. Typical political correct bias.

  • 1

    cleo

    Where's the button for 'A sensible combination of all the above, plus a bit of restraint'?

    The question as it stands is a bit like, 'Which national currency is the best alternative to a credit card?'

    The answer being that it depends on your circumstances, and none is 'the best' in every situation. In either case clocking up debt on the credit card in a wild spending spree (because hopefully you won't have to pay today) until you inevitably hit criticality and sink into bankruptcy, leaving massive debts for your children's children to shoulder, is not the way to go.

    Basically I agree with jimjapan, but more wordily.:-)

  • 1

    BlackOut

    this somehow make me feel like the person or people making this poll doesn't have much idea of what's the idea bebind renewable energy and how we can the most out of it, so i am not going to vote for this. it's just non-sense to pick only one over other!

  • 1

    taj

    yep. need a button for "a combination" as no one of those alternatives is going to pack the punch of nuclear. And as we are now increasingly aware, putting too many eggs in a single basket makes you vulnerable. We need redundancy and we need to be less reliant on power for everything. (ie: the toilets in our office building that need electricity to flush fer chrissake!)

  • 0

    aoto

    i have geothermal for my house heating, solar water heating and a 5 kw wind turbine in the garden, last year my home energy bill was -356 euros

  • 0

    Kolorado

    A question for Aoto...Do you know and can you share information on the amounts of time and capital you have invested in production of your energy and what is your return on this investment?

  • 0

    cactusJack

    Solar power only effectively works for about 8 hours per day. How can that replace anything? Solar power is good as a complementary system to the existing power structure.

  • 0

    sengoku38

    Solar is fine as long as you want to bulldoze hundreds of km of habitat to put up the panels.

    Wind kills birds and the windmills will break in typhoon.

    Hydroelectric requires dams that cause earthquakes or damming rivers which destroys habitats.

    Geothermal is not bad, but there isn't enough.

  • 0

    GoHomeHaters

    you don't build all your solar panels in one place, like putting all your eggs in one basket. Every home and office building should be responsible for generating their own power. I'm not a huge fan of Hydroelectric but its worked out well for Canada with NO earthquakes o.O

  • 0

    sf2k

    I once did a napkin comparison of nuclear and geothermal and determined that for a base load system, geothermal is a realistic comparison. Solar can then be used for day to day load, and the two working together or along with other systems would work out quite well.

  • 0

    sf2k

    If you are aware of Moore's Law for computers, it also is true for solar panels in terms of its increasing capacity and lower costs. Take any statistic you want, in 18 months it will change. Given that Japan makes a lot of LCD TVs and that solar panels use pretty much the same technology (lots of cells put together) there is no reason why Japan can't ask 50% of production to go to solar panels to get the country off or reduce its dependency on nuclear. That would make a dent.

  • 0

    TheQuestion

    Every home and office building should be responsible for generating their own power.

    Impractical. For those living in apartments, urban areas, or low income housing the capital required for ANY of these ventures would never justify itself. Self sufficiency went out the window when we started living in cities, we need mass energy production capabilities and most modern renewables can't do it.

    I'd much rather see more research go into better nuclear technology, generation IV nuclear reactors are expected to put out nearly 100 times the power of current ones and they might even run on old nuclear waste in addition to normal nuclear fuel and their waste degrades in decades instead of millenia. If we actually put some effort into it we could have them as early as the later half of this decade. More on the subject at the ossfoundation under 4th generation nuclear power.

  • 0

    sf2k

    @sengoku38

    Solar is fine as long as you want to bulldoze hundreds of km of habitat to put up the panels. Wind kills birds and the windmills will break in typhoon. Hydroelectric requires dams that cause earthquakes or damming rivers which destroys habitats. Geothermal is not bad, but there isn't enough.

    huh? debunk time...

    windmills kill no where close the the number of birds compared to office buildings. I guess you're in the process of dismantling all of them? no? Cars kill more birds. Are they banning them? no? Then drop the windmills kill birds. In comparison to everything else it is laughably minor and the technology improves to not do that. Buildings and cars certainly don't, so the disparity only increases. It's been debunked for nearly a decade.

    Solar: why would you bulldoze habitat? Stick'em on buildings, bridges, bus stops, even make them into piazzas like in Germany. Face buildings toward the sun in design to begin with. Use natural light indoors even.

    Hydroelectric cause earthquakes??? huh?? I'd agree with GoHomeHaters that that would make Canada the earthquake capital of the world. Nope.

    Windmills breaking in a typhoon. Ok now, this one is possible. That's possible in that they can be toppled. They shut down after a certain high wind speed, it wouldn't keep generating. But it would be akin to a office building falling over. Not likely with today's engineering. Possible? Sure.

    Geothermal isn't enough! Good enough for the planet. Should be good enough for a single country upon it. Geo is ideal for Japan.

    Please read recent material on any of these topics. Your fear might be alleviated. Opportunities abound in Japan. I don't know why people are blind to it.

  • 0

    sf2k

    @aoto

    do you have a feed in tariff where you are? If so, how is that going?

    also what size of building is this for, and what size lot does the building occupy? That would provide a useful comparison to the average house in Japan. Some areas would likely be quite similar

  • 0

    sf2k

    @taj

    totally agree

  • 0

    kujiranikusuki

    really??? no one mentioned Fusion (NOT FISSION) power? and generation IV nuclear reactors (fission).

    @TheQuestion I agree with you 100%! not only what you said but they are nearly indestructible, and the problems we have had in the past are irrelevant. The fuel would be in-cased in carbon bucky balls basically indestructible un-meltable (at fusion temps) balls. not OPEN AIR fuel rods.

    INSTEAD the world is now NOT going to build these new nuclear reactors, they are also shutting down existing ones. Germany just announced no more nuclear power by 2022. IRRESPONSIBLE actions based on the ill educated public's response. Fukushima was mis-managed from DAY 1!!! Chernobyl's design was TERRIBLE! Soviet reactors didn't use shields OF ANY KIND!!! The soviet used nuclear technology irresponsibly from DAY 1. They lost 6 or 7 nuclear reactors they tried to launch into space (the USA only built and {successfully}launched 1 and canceled plans to build more after seeing what a bad idea is to launch them into space). Russia even irrsiblby used Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (non fission radioactive electrical generators) for decades, even having LOST TRACK of many of them!!! my point is an irresponsible manger will cause problems in WHATEVER system you decided on. Just look at all the industrial accidents in India with chemicals and chemicals making processes that have been used and deemed safe for 50 years or longer.

    you have global warming happening all over the place and you want to get rid of all OLD and NEW power plant options that have NO effect on global warming. notice I said power plant. I dont consider a solar panel a power plant. and a dam worsens the effects of global warming. geothermal is a a pipe dream from James Bond movies.

    do you really want to compare all the deaths and health problems burning coal has had on people for the last 150 years vs nuclear accidents? REALLY? get a clue and get educated. Yes nuclear power CAN be terrible. but coal IS TERRIBLE all the time every day!!!! worst case, 10,000 birth defects vs MILLIONS of deaths JUST from black lung! not to mention all the crap that everyone else in the world breathes in smaller amounts.

    I am not saying gen 4 reactors will save man kind, but they will ease the burden until Fission reactors become a positive reaction reality. all those other energy sources are great supplements to current needs today.. but thats all they are. Supplements.

    3 Gorges damn anyone??? WORST IDEA EVER! hydroelectric? more like epic hydroFAIL!

  • 0

    kujiranikusuki

    woops: am not saying gen 4 reactors will save man kind, but they will ease the burden until Fission reactors become a positive reaction reality. I meant FUSSION reactors become a positive reaction reality. HUGE difference.

  • 0

    sdf_crew_member

    Neither, presently.

    There's no modern technology of power production capable replace nuclear plants. If for personal use with some reservations it could be possible as to industries - no chance.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    Agree with sdfcrewmember.

    Solar, wind, etc work well on a smaller scale(for the time being).

    In order to use those on a large(city) scale you would need serious land, etc investment, which is fine if you got those close by a big city(unlikely).

    If further away the loss on the power-cables, etc alone will not make them feasable.

    Add to that those alternate energies rely heavily on Oil(plastics, etc), rare-earth metals, etc materials for the plants to be produced. And those materials are also needed for eco-friendly cars, etc.

    Our daily power-consumption has been on the increase for the last 30 years and still hasn't spiked yet and most likely won't for quiet a few decades.

    Imagine the evening power-spike when a few hundred-thousand cars are being recharged in the evening + our current consumption.

  • 0

    Pilger

    I voted "other".

  • 0

    Farmboy

    The Bloom energy fuel cell seems very promising, and it seems to fit in well with a decentralized grid, which I think may be the way things go.

    The other forms of energy could be parts of the solution as well, and an individual or company wanting to be independent of the grid should look at all of these ideas, choosing the ones that best fit the particular situation.

  • 0

    WilliB

    Farmboy:

    " The Bloom energy fuel cell seems very promising "

    Fuel cells are nice, but they are not fundamantally different coal or gas power plants. They still work by oxidyzing carbon, only in a fancier (and more expensive) way.

    They don´t touch the fundamental problem of the limits of fossil fuels (plus the problem of CO2 emissions, in case you are a climate change believer).

    So no, no matter what the particular manufacturer is, I would not list fuel cells as an alternative.

  • 0

    gogogo

    Geothermal power, the foot print is low, it does not need the space that solar and windmills need plus it's very accessible in Japan being such an active volcanic country.

    The best answer is actually a little bit of everything so you have options.

  • 0

    ka_chan

    Japan has so many hot springs that geothermal is a natural. This way changes in geothermal activity can be study for volcanic predictions. They some places have the hot water just pouring out, the cost should be much reduced. Use the heat to generate electricity and take a bath with the same water. Seems like a good fit.

  • 0

    Hikozaemon

    Solar is good but only on a house by house basis for hot water and so on, not cheap or efficient enough for mass generation, and too inconsistent and unreliable for Japan.

    Geothermal power is cool - NZ and Iceland use it, but have also learned that over time, tapped geothermal sources lose their intensity. Still, it's a nice eco-friendly source, but not really doable on a nuclear plant scale.

    Other than Hydro, wind is currently the best in terms of cost, and ability to generate large amounts of power. Downside is that the best wind resource is in Hokkaido, which is poorly connected to norhtern Honshu, which is not connected at all to the rest of Japan, so without upgrading the grid, Japan is already nearly at capacity for wind. Plus of course the fact that it is unstable as a power source and requires coal or other thermal plants to work in tandem with them to stabilize output.

    Hydro is fine, cheap once running, although of course very disruptive and destructive to build.

    The best potential source of renewable energy isn't on the list - it's wave energy. It is the most powerful, consistent and widespread natural energy source. The only problem is that no one has yet engineered a practical large scale wave generator able to withstand the full scope of ocean based storms and conditions. This is the technology I hope the government pumps lots of money into the research of. Japan has a huge coastline, and being able to harness the unlimited waves and currents around it would be the best hope for sustained evenly distributed natural renewable energy.

    In the meantime, until the technology is there and the grid is upgraded to be able to better handle the addition of renewables, I don't care where the power comes from so long as it isn't nuclear. Fire up all the new coal and gas reactors you want, if you ask me.

  • 0

    glycol57

    Japan has a problem. Photoelectrics are expensive and Japan is a little too far north to make best use of them.

    Hydroelectric may not be practical either in an earthquake-prone nation because dams and other water containment structures could fail in a sudden and spectacular way.

    Wind ... well ... the variability of the power produced limits HOW it can be used, plus those huge windmills are expensive.

    Geothermal hasn't lived up to hopes either for a number of technical reasons.

    In theory, ocean currents and tides can produce a lot of power, but it requires an impractical amount of hardware to accomplish on any useful scale - and the laws of thermodynamics come into play limiting how much power you can extract from slow-moving water.

    Which doesn't leave Japan with many options in the short or medium term. Coal/gas/nuclear .... choose your devil and learn to co-exist with it.

  • 0

    Badge213

    It's not just one but a combination of all these methods. Some are better adapted to others based on location, type of facility etc.

  • 0

    cactusJack

    Little tidbit: It takes about four years to eliminate the carbon footprint of a solar panel; i.e., offset the carbon generated producing the panel with the clean energy coming from the panel itself.

  • 0

    realist

    Personally, I see nothing wrong with good old oil and coal-fired Power Stations. Natural resources, producing much needed CO2 gases, which are very necessary for the survival of plant, aqnimal and human life on this planet, despite what the Global Warming religionists say.

  • 0

    realist

    "Carbon Footprints" "Carbon Offsetting" and other such words are just meaningless nonsense to more and more people now. Such words and espressions are not part of my vocabulary. I reject them. Nuclear power is not good for the Planet, because it is too dangerous. There is nothing wrong with CO2 -producing energy sources. There are much greater amounts of CO2 produced by one little volcanic eruption than are caused by all the factories in China for a year. The hysteria about CO2 is all hyped-up nonsense.

  • 0

    j4p4nFTW

    Where is the option for "none"? I make too much money off of nuclear to allow any of these others to come into use.

  • 0

    Serrano

    Everyone should cook using charcoal - everything tastes better cooking with charcoal. It's renewable because trees keeping growing as long as they're planted. Only problem is some pesky neighbors complain when I barbecue on my veranda.

    As far as producing electric power, if a way to synthesize oil from dirt could be found, that would be great, as there is so much of that stuff on every continent, it could be considered renewable for centuries, although eventually even dirt would start getting scarce, probably after the 23rd century. If, however, a way to synthethize oil from dirt is not found, we have a major problem. Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro-electric won't be nearly enough.

  • 0

    yabits

    There is a lot of energy to be captured/converted from the kinetic energy of vehicles on roadways. The technology is out there to install plates in the road which the weight of the vehicles press down on -- even a fraction of an inch/cm -- and can generate power. Typical rush hour traffic essentially creates a dynamo.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    Too bad there wasn't an "all of the above" choice. I mean honestly one doesn't have to use only one or the other if they can combine the total output from different resources.

  • 0

    sfjp330

    If the goal for Japan is to create a secure, low carbon, resilient and safe energy system, then now may be the appropriate time for an assessment that will, by design, include decentralized, local energy systems connected to a smart national grid. At the very minimum, outcome will hopefully fix Japan's problem of having half of the grid operating on 50hz and the other half on 60hz. For Japan and elsewhere, nuclear power is a short-term solution with very long term problems that include the costs of decommissioning nuclear plants and of dealing with the resulting nuclear waste.

  • 0

    Frungy

    Personally I think the problem here is the assumption that government should provide a centralised solution. Energy is pretty much inherently destructive in large amounts, and as our power demands grow ANY solution, no matter how "green" will be dealing in steadily larger amounts of energy.

    I'm a fan of geothermal for Japan, but when you want to tap into the huge amounts of energy Japan needs... well, when there's eventually an accident it's going to be equally huge.

    This is what people don't seem to get about the entire energy debate. We all use radioactive gadgets in our houses, from smoke detectors to your glow-in-the-dark "massager". On the household scale minor mishaps don't cause a big problem, but when you build a huge nuclear power plant to supply hundreds of thousands of homes there's an exponential increase in risk.

    This same equation applies to any sort of massive power plant, whether it's solar, hydro-electric or 10 000 monks chained up and thinking good thoughts about electricity ;) . Hydro-electric is a good example, a small plant generating power from the local river? No problems, worst case it just breaks. A huge dam providing power for millions? If there's a disaster it kills thousands as water floods down.

    I really think the answer here isn't which power source people choose, but rather to de-centralise power generation and base it on whatever suits the local environment rather than trying for some stupidly massive "one-size-fits-all" solution. Kagoshima has a nice active volcano just next-door, so for them geothermal would work wonderfully, but for other places maybe hydro-electric. The key in my mind would be to keep it as small as possible and split the power generation over a wider area.

  • 0

    the_harper

    Too bad there wasn't an "all of the above" choice. I mean honestly one doesn't have to use only one or the other if they can combine the total output from different resources

    Agreed. Japan's best approach is to leverage ALL renewable resources rather than wasting time deciding which is best. As I heard on the radio the other day, the immediate need for renewables is to handle as much as possible of the daily peak load, reducing the need for other sources to supply this component. What the people criticising some of these renewable sources are forgetting is that if you put solar panels on the roof of a house and take its daytime load off the grid, you're reducing the load on the grid as a whole. If the panels are able to feed power back into the grid, you have even more benefit.

    Similarly, replacing electric hot water systems with solar ones takes more off the grid (although a lot of hot water systems in Japan are gas). Geothermal energy doesn't have to be on an industrial scale to be beneficial - if you use it to heat or cool your house, you again remove an air-conditioning load from the grid.

    Here's hoping that nano-scale antenna technology can be quickly developed to provide solar panels with 40% efficiency - double that of silicon cells.

    There's no single answer but a whole series of responses needed. As Frungy suggests above, power generation doesn't have to be on the massive scales used in the past to be beneficial. Most generation systems are currently built that way for the benefit of the power companies who want economies of scale.

  • 0

    ihavegreatlegs

    Hydro does not need damns at all. This is an island country and surrounded by thousands of miles of coast line. The technology is already there to use the tides to generate energy. Good clean energy, and the tides do not take a rest, unless someone hijacks the moon.

  • 0

    2020hindsight

    Hydroelectric may not be practical either in an earthquake-prone nation because dams and other water containment structures could fail in a sudden and spectacular way.

    Easy, just don't locate it on a fault line.

    I like the number of experts on this tread that say that solar power is viable. It isn't.

  • 0

    Zenny11

    2020hindsight.

    Japan is a fault-line period.

    How many people know that New York is build on top of 2 fault lines, etc.

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    Japan would need to have large, deep rivers to make hydroelectric energy viable. But as many have pointed, waves can be a good source. I would say that the best options would be: the combination wind and solar energy during different seasons (e.g. solar energy during summer, wind energy during winter).

  • 0

    chewitup

    What we really need to work on is batteries. The core trouble is not the generation of power via any of these, but the fact that we just can't store it in a practical way for later use.

    But yes, a combo is the answer, including biomass which is not on the list.

  • 0

    shinaykahn

    Probably the one that hasn't been discovered yet.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in Poll

View all

View all