Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

European wind power output tipped to treble by 2020: report

World Aug. 03, 2011 - 06:12AM JST ( 21 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

21 Comments

-1

FoxieAug. 03, 2011 - 07:40AM JST

Let's just hope they can find another solution soon. What an eyesore.
1

SquidBertAug. 03, 2011 - 08:32AM JST

I respect that you don't like the way they look. But to me they look beautiful, especially the offshore ones.
1

smithinjapanAug. 03, 2011 - 12:50PM JST

Meanwhile the electric companies and supposed 'watchdogs' in Japan are planting people in audiences in a bid to make nuclear energy appear safe and reliable.
0

Johannes WeberAug. 03, 2011 - 02:58PM JST

You do not have to like how the stuff looks. It is cheap, safe and efficient. And it is far less ugly than nuclear or thermal plants.
-2

WilliBAug. 03, 2011 - 05:44PM JST

It is a scam. This trippled windpower is onlv viable with huge subsidies, and is available only sporadically --- meaning that number of coal and nuke plants have to be operated at constantly varying (e.g. non-optimal) levels, which is very expensive and cre high-wear. That part of the equation is conveniently missing from the wind power statistics...
-2

erikajAug. 03, 2011 - 06:06PM JST

This would be a great, clean source of energy. Unfortunately, it would only work in areas that don't have extreme weather conditions. I'm pretty sure those things would break in a strong hurricane, tornado, or snowstorm.
-1

MolenirAug. 03, 2011 - 07:16PM JST

This should be fun! Glad I don't live in Europe.
0

MolenirAug. 03, 2011 - 07:29PM JST

You do not have to like how the stuff looks. It is cheap, safe and efficient. And it is far less ugly than nuclear or thermal plants.

lol, you've just proven that you know nothing about how the things work. They are not cheap, nor are they efficient. You have the cost to build and maintain them, which is actually quite significant. But you also have the additional cost of keeping several traditional backup power plants on standby, to make up the difference. It actually costs less to just have those power plants up and running then it does to keep them on standby.
0

FoxieAug. 03, 2011 - 08:24PM JST

You do not have to like how the stuff looks. It is cheap, safe and efficient. And it is far less ugly than nuclear or thermal plants.

I recommend you to take a trip to Huelva in the south of Spain. The once beautiful, pristine Med coast with no building boom is now full of propellors. Not a very nice sight. Plus, I noticed that way too many didn't even work. It is now the second biggest windfarm in Europe, employing 50 people which is really cheap in paying salaries, you are right about that partial part. Sure, a nuclear power station doesn't look beautiful either but at least the size is much smaller.

In the beautiful, golden wheat fields, down the road from me, Mr. Son is now planning on building a solar park - another beautiful sight, sigh...
0

SquidBertAug. 03, 2011 - 08:59PM JST

@Foxie, In the beautiful, golden wheat fields, down the road from me, Mr. Son is now planning on building a solar park - another beautiful sight, sigh...

Well that's the problem with almost all energy production. No one wants it in their own back-yard. Still I would be much happier if they planned to build a wind turbine in my back yard than if they were planning a nuclear power plant. Hell I have one of those practically in my back yard all ready, and I don't like it one bit.
0

MolenirAug. 04, 2011 - 10:38AM JST

Well that's the problem with almost all energy production. No one wants it in their own back-yard. Still I would be much happier if they planned to build a wind turbine in my back yard than if they were planning a nuclear power plant. Hell I have one of those practically in my back yard all ready, and I don't like it one bit.

I'm on the opposite side of the fence on that one. I live very close to one of the biggest nuclear power plants in the world, and have no problems with it. Indeed, I and most of my neighbors love it. The reason is simple. The land prices, and all the chicken littles are too scared to live there, meaning, I have own a large piece of land, that cost me very little, and my closest neighbor lives more then two hundred yards away. As for the fear that something might happen. I don't anticipate a 9.0 earthquake any time soon, and living in Arizona, I'm not exactly worried about Tsunamis.
0

SquidBertAug. 04, 2011 - 11:09AM JST

@Molenir

Well I'm glad you found a piece of property that you are happy with. As for risks, well the US has had their fair share of terror attacks. I don't think anyone, that has seen the September 11 videos of the planes hitting pentagon and the towers, still believes that a nuclear plant would survive a direct hit by a Dreamliner
-1

erikajAug. 04, 2011 - 11:53AM JST

As for risks, well the US has had their fair share of terror attacks.

Why are you so afraid of something that has a far less chance of happening than say a car crash, or heart disease? I'm pretty sure you should fear those more since they are far more likely to kill you than the off-chance of a terrorist attack hitting a nuclear power plant.
0

SquidBertAug. 04, 2011 - 02:55PM JST

@erikaj

Why are you so afraid of something that has a far less chance of happening than say a car crash, or heart disease?

Well I think the effects of a nuclear accident is far greater than me having a car accident or a hart disease. I thought anyone staying in Japan at the moment could see that.

Also it seems that the risks of such an attack was at least big enough to motivate the US gov to make modifications to their plants to mitigate. I am just not convinced that any modification would be sufficient in stopping said scenario.

People who think nuclear is safe bug me, because the moment you start believing it is safe, it is going to bite you on the ass
1

erikajAug. 04, 2011 - 05:08PM JST

Well I think the effects of a nuclear accident is far greater than me having a car accident or a hart disease.

SquidBert: That is absolutely not true. Year in and year out, more people die from heart disease and in car accidents, than from nuclear radiation poisoning. In fact, in the U.S. alone, over 600,000 people die from heart disease each year. As for car accidents, it has been estimated that roughly 40,000 die in the U.S. alone, per year. So, I would think that car accidents or heart disease would cause more deaths than nuclear radiation.
1

MolenirAug. 05, 2011 - 07:34AM JST

So, I would think that car accidents or heart disease would cause more deaths than nuclear radiation.

lol, so amusing, and so very true. How many people died of radiation poisoning, or radiation related illnesses? Would have to probably include people on chemo for cancer. As for those dying because of nuclear accident, the answer is probably very, very close the zero. Even in Japan, a hell of a lot more people will die in car accidents or from Heart Disease then will die from Fukushima.
-2

SquidBertAug. 05, 2011 - 10:08AM JST

SquidBert: That is absolutely not true. Year in and year out, more people die from heart disease and in car accidents, than from nuclear radiation poisoning

Well the the problem is that you like many nuclear proponents don't know (or purposely mix up) the difference between risk ad effect. I did not say the risk of a nuclear disaster was greater than me having an heart attack or car accident. Off course it's not. What I said was: The effect of a nuclear accident is far greater than the effect of me having a heart attack or car accident.

When it comes to risks; Risks like heart disease and car accidents are risks that I can manage, in that I can choose to exercise, eat healthy or drive safely etc etc.

But the for risks associated with nuclear power, I have to trust a government and electric companies to manage those risks for me. And they have shown time and again that they are not competent to manage these risks for us.

As for dying from radiation poisoning. That is not the main problem with a nuclear disaster. And I bet you already know that. The risks are in the long term effects of radiation exposure, that will not cause poisoning but cancer. ( Although there have also been cases of radiation poisoning in Japan in the Tokai Mura accident a number of years ago)

And Please Please, stop comparing doses received from x-ray or other medical treatment with the doses received by people in Japan from the accident. It just shows that you know anything about the subject.

Would have to probably include people on chemo for cancer. And also, you are aware that chemo is not radiation right?

It seems you have no understanding of the difference between External and Internal radiation doses. The Internal doses received by ingesting contaminated foodstuff and breathing contaminated air are going to be a much larger problem than the exclusively external doses that you were mentioning

Last: It seems, you believe this is all about being scared of dying. Well it is not, I have put my life at risk numerous times. This is about the total amount of suffering of a nation.
1

freakashowAug. 05, 2011 - 05:37PM JST

I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to nuclear and wind power. On one hand, nuclear power, has the rare potential to be quite dangerous. On the positive side, it is the most energy efficient. As for wind power, it is clean and won't damage the environment (at least not aesthetically). However, it takes up much space, and produces far less energy than the amount of money you need to put into building and maintaining it. I've also heard some accidents happening from broken blades (those things are quite fragile).

So, I propose that if we want clean inefficient power like wind, then we must all give up a lot of our daily conveniences(or at least be ready to pay a lot more in tax money to fund it). Using computers, air conditioning, refrigeration, etc, should be given up by all people, so that we could live without nuclear energy (as well as fossil fuels, since we know those can kill you as well). As for me, I don't think I could give up conveniences such as that, so I'm willing to live with some energy being provided by slightly risky ways. The best bet would be to have a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear power.

But the for risks associated with nuclear power, I have to trust a government and electric companies to manage those risks for me. And they have shown time and again that they are not competent to manage these risks for us.

SquidBert: True, but I would also categorize costly solar energy, and wind energy programs as being things that have been badly managed and could potentially have serious bad effects. Naive people think that as long as it sounds clean, it should be the best way (not even thinking about where the money is coming from to fund them).

By the way, I wouldn't categorize "car accidents" as something you can control. If I'm doing the driving, yes, I do have some measure of control (unless it is caused by the other driver(s)). However, if I'm in a taxi, bus, friend's car, etc. I'm at the mercy of their skills. Fact is, that many times the driver lives, while the passengers are the ones that are dead. Don't think they ever had any control in their own deaths.

Actually, even heart disease, can't be controlled. Many people think of "coronary heart disease" as the only form of heart disease, which it isn't. Don't you know that many other forms of heart disease are purely genetic? Some are even due to environmental factors like diseases such as Rubella. IMO, DNA and getting infectious diseases is not something you have a whole lot of control over.
-1

MolenirAug. 05, 2011 - 09:36PM JST

The effect of a nuclear accident is far greater than the effect of me having a heart attack or car accident.

It has a greater effect on the environment, and your neighbors, not on you though. One will almost certainly kill you, the other, you and your neighbors will all almost certainly survive.

But the for risks associated with nuclear power, I have to trust a government and electric companies to manage those risks for me. And they have shown time and again that they are not competent to manage these risks for us.

Because nuclear disasters happen almost every single day... Oh wait. It takes a badly designed reactor, and massive incompetence (Cherynobl) Or a 9.0 Earthquake, followed by a catastrophic Tsunami (Fukushima) Yeah, thats certainly evidence that those running the nuclear power plants can't be trusted at all! lol.

Last: It seems, you believe this is all about being scared of dying. Well it is not, I have put my life at risk numerous times. This is about the total amount of suffering of a nation.

Now that is a valid argument as it applies to Japan. However this isn't really about Japan is it. This is about European wind power, and turning off the nuclear plants that have already been built, and that are comparatively inexpensive to run. And doing this in favor of massive new capital expenditures to push costly 'green' energy. The suffering that Japan has and is undergoing over the present disaster would be valid if this article was discussing Japans debate over this issue. However its not, and thus it isn't relevant.
-3

SquidBertAug. 07, 2011 - 11:36AM JST

Oh wait. It takes a badly designed reactor, and massive incompetence (Cherynobl) Or a 9.0 Earthquake, followed by a catastrophic Tsunami (Fukushima).

And what was it that caused the accident at Three Mile Island? Oh yes the US are capable of poor design and incompetence as well. That is my point, the probles are not something that can be attributed to a single country or single design problem.

As you believe there are no adverse effects from nuclear accidents, here is a little quote from wikipedia about the Three Mile Island accident

'The nuclear power industry claims that there were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects from the accident,[19] and a report by Columbia University epidemiologist Maureen Hatch agrees with this finding.[20] Another study by Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were 2 to 10 times higher downwind of TMI than upwind.[21] The Radiation and Public Health Project, an anti-nuclear organization, reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident.[22][23]'
1
freakashowAug. 07, 2011 - 03:23PM JST
I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to nuclear and wind power. On one hand, nuclear power, has the rare potential to be quite dangerous. On the positive side, it is the most energy efficient. As for wind power, it is clean and won't damage the environment (at least not aesthetically). However, it takes up much space, and produces far less energy than the amount of money you need to put into building and maintaining it. I've also heard some accidents happening from broken blades (those things are quite fragile).

So, I propose that if we want clean inefficient power like wind, then we must all give up a lot of our daily conveniences(or at least be ready to pay a lot more in tax money to fund it). Using computers, air conditioning, refrigeration, etc, should be given up by all people, so that we could live without nuclear energy (as well as fossil fuels, since we know those can kill you as well). As for me, I don't think I could give up conveniences such as that, so I'm willing to live with some energy being provided by slightly risky ways. The best bet would be to have a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear power.
```
But the for risks associated with nuclear power, I have to trust a government and electric companies to manage those risks for me. And they have shown time and again that they are not competent to manage these risks for us.
```
SquidBert: True, but I would also categorize costly solar energy, and wind energy programs as being things that have been badly managed and could potentially have serious bad effects. Naive people think that as long as it sounds clean, it should be the best way (not even thinking about where the money is coming from to fund them).

By the way, I wouldn't categorize "car accidents" as something you can control. If I'm doing the driving, yes, I do have some measure of control (unless it is caused by the other driver(s)). However, if I'm in a taxi, bus, friend's car, etc. I'm at the mercy of their skills. Fact is, that many times the driver lives, while the passengers are the ones that are dead. Don't think they ever had any control in their own deaths.

Actually, even heart disease, can't be controlled. Many people think of "coronary heart disease" as the only form of heart disease, which it isn't. Don't you know that many other forms of heart disease are purely genetic? Some are even due to environmental factors like diseases such as Rubella. IMO, DNA and getting infectious diseases is not something you have a whole lot of control over.