47 
Japan has quite had its fill of nuclear power, thank you very much. As the country rebuilds from the devastating 2011 tsunami and subsequent Daiichi power plant disaster, it’s looking toward alternate energy sources. Good call, minna-san.
Instead of sinking capital into getting damaged reactors back online, government officials have instead floated a proposal to replace them with what could be the world’s largest wind farm. 143 turbines would be situated 10 miles off the Fukushima coast and produce a staggering full gigawatt of power. The current record holder, Greater Gabbard farm near Suffolk, England, produces just half that with nearly the same number of turbines. To protect these turbines against rough seas and future catastrophes, each 650-foot-tall, 2MW turbine will be mounted on anchored, floating frames rather than bolted directly to the sea floor.
With cracks in America’s wind power plans already beginning to show thanks to the recent fiscal cliff fiasco, Japan’s consideration of replacing a nuclear energy source with a renewable is big news. This can only help further the technology’s widespread adoption, which is an awesome awesome thing.
[UPI via Geekosystem - Physorg - Image: Gail Johnson / Shutterstock]
Wind power is not a suitable replacement for nuclear power, not only does it provide less power but it is also an un-reliable supply. In order to meet demand using a source such as wind you also need to heavily invest in things like pumped storage to even out the supply. Hydro and geothermal are much more reliable renewable sources but quite frankly Nuclear is still the most suitable choice for large demand.
This stinks of a political move rather than a reasonable consideration of Japans long term energy demands.
it doesn’t say they are replacing all nuclear. It also doesn’t say they won’t build nuclear plants elsewhere. The first two word are ‘Japan mulls’ which doesn’t even suggest it’s likely to happen.
How resistant are these to earthquakes and tsunamis? I assume they’re set into the seabed. Something which isn’t too stable around that part of the world…
Read the post. “To protect these turbines against rough seas and future catastrophes, each 650-foot-tall, 2MW turbine will be mounted on anchored, floating frames rather than bolted directly to the sea floor.” If done right, these may even survive a tsunami wave.
Out in the open ocean the wind is pretty reliable; that’s why island nations are best suited for using turbines like these.
Whether it’s at all cost-effective, remains to be seen.
If the fukasima plant was built to international standards then there would have been no issue, they cheeped out and they had to pay for that.
Nuclear power is the only way of generating electricity that works and doesn’t pollute the atmosphere.
You could say the same for other forms of energy. Shale gas appears to be beset by issues related to implementation of the tech rather than the actual tech. The reality is cutting corners makes the energy produced cheaper. There is also the issue of all the waste produced by nuclear reactors. The UK spends billions guarding it and doesn’t yet have a plan to deal with it. Hopefully fast reactors can consume it as fuel but as yet it’s pretty unproved tech.
Thorium nuclear power is the way to go – it produces less waste and the waste has a half life of tens of years, not thousands. The only reason we use uranium/plutonium is the waste has a bi-product (read main product) use: it can be transformed into weapons grade fissile material. Now no large construction companies want to ‘experiment’ with things that haven’t been done before. We are in a period of ‘take no risks’ as everything is money based, as opposed to 50/60′s when governments were more willing to take greater risks (see Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors – AGRs) I suppose that example underlines why companies don’t take risks – but if you don’t reach for the stars….
I really hope the new reactors we build are AGR, they are so much better then PWR.
” There is also the issue of all the waste produced by nuclear reactors.” A few of the modern reactor designs produce very little waste if any.
To add my voice to the above – wind is not a nuclear replacement. It’s great as part of a balanced breakfast, err, power portfolio, but if we’re serious about climate change then that portfolio must be based on nukes. The only debate over this is political.