Japan energy policy: What will they do next?

#1
Rasputin_Vol

Rasputin_Vol

"Slava Ukraina"
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
71,940
Likes
39,733
#1
Rolling blackouts in Tokyo as far as the eye can see... 20% of the country's generating capacity gone. Half of the country running on 50HZ frequency and the other half on 60HZ (incredible). No natural resources. A country that may very well have shellshock after dealing with yet another nuclear disaster. Many problems... or, a lot of opportunities for innovation.

If the country is scared of nukes, what will they do to replace that generation? Will they import more coal? Go green and try to run their economy on windmills and solar? Will they take the lead in cold fusion? Will they develope an innovative energy conservation plan to where they will not need new generation? If there was ever a country that needed a quick, pragmatic and reliable energy generating solution, it would have to be Japan. And the time for them to do it would be now.

And as far as their power transmission system, if there was really anything to Tesla's theory about wireless power, it would need to be further explored right now by Japan. There is some excess generation in the western portion of Japan, but apparently, they don't have enough frequency inverters or whatever power electronic equipment to "wheel" the power to the rest of the country.

Japan will have the opportunity to save humanity with some innovative solutions... they have all the incentive in the world to do so.

And a lot of these conspiracy theories about countries or corporations sitting on designs that are more energy efficient will be tested over the next several years.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#2
#2
Capital will clearly destroy this situation. Gold imbalance actually caused the quake.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#3
#3
Energy efficiency, for sure. If they're in dire straights, build coal plants. They are an island nation ... They should be able to do coal and send the emissions out over the sea, on average. They would probably like the idea of natural gas, but Russia would have to cut them some slack on the volatility.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#4
#4
TennTradition said:
Energy efficiency, for sure. If they're in dire straights, build coal plants. They are an island nation ... They should be able to do coal and send the emissions out over the sea, on average. They would probably like the idea of natural gas, but Russia would have to cut them some slack on the volatility.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
If they go to coal, they will have to import it. And as far as the emmissions, what difference does it make if it goes over the ocean?

And what about their transmission system?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#5
#5
They should try to harvest the wind energy along the coast and the tidal energy of the ocean waves hitting their shores in addition to nuclear energy.
 
#6
#6
Rasputin_Vol said:
If they go to coal, they will have to import it. And as far as the emmissions, what difference does it make if it goes over the ocean?

And what about their transmission system?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want coal emissions hanging over a city of millions, would you? They'll have to import whatever they want to go with if they are looking to do it on a short time table. I would imagine coal is the cheapest route. They could even skimp some on abatement if the emissions can be carried out over the ocean - though that may be too hard to guarantee. Transmission is a quicker and more direct infrastructure issue, IMO. Better transmission would be great, but operating, though inefficient, lines would be better than nothing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#7
#7
oklavol said:
They should try to harvest the wind energy along the coast and the tidal energy of the ocean waves hitting their shores in addition to nuclear energy.
Click to expand...

Do they have the money to invest in wind right now? Their debt load is already breaking their backs.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
oklavol said:
They should try to harvest the wind energy along the coast and the tidal energy of the ocean waves hitting their shores in addition to nuclear energy.
Click to expand...
Really? Are you joking or are you serious about wind and tidal energy?
 
#12
#12
Rasputin_Vol said:
If they can't or won't invest in wind right now, then what are they gonna do?
Click to expand...

they should pack up and move to the area behind utgibbs' woodshed, where he has both a hot air farm and a massive natural gas plant that uses the emissions from his own BS as well as those of his pet gorillas.
 
#14
#14
I don't know why wind has this reputation as being anything more than a supplement. If it isn't nuclear, natural gas, or coal, it can't be the main power source. You can't store energy from a windy day efficiently, you can only have it as part of the grid and get to turn down the other sources when you don't need them as much.

It's the same with hydropower. You open up the gates when you need more power during peak hours, then you shut it down for awhile and let it refill. It can't ever be the main source of energy.
 
#17
#17
IPorange said:
Wind farms do not equal a nuclear reactor. Not even close. And even then, you can't depend on them for your base power anyway.
Click to expand...

Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in the U.S. because he believes it is a realistic alternative:

Oil tycoon plans largest wind farm - US news - Environment - Green Machines - msnbc.com
Billionaire T. Boone Pickens is planning to cash in on the wind energy boom by building the world's largest wind farm in West Texas. The oil tycoon wants to install large wind turbines in parts of four Panhandle counties in a project that would produce up to 4,000 megawatts of electricity.
If Pickens' company, Mesa Power LP, does build the wind farm it would be the largest in the world, American Wind Energy Association spokeswoman Susan Williams Sloan said. It would generate more than five times the 735 megawatts produced at the present largest wind farm near Abilene.
One megawatt is enough to power 250 homes in Texas, Sloan said.
Click to expand...
 
#18
#18
Okay. What's the plan in the summer when demand increases, and a high pressure cell is parked over the midwest? Show me what I'm missing.

I didn't say it wasn't a viable supportive energy infrastructure. It just can't replace nuclear or coal.
 
#21
#21
what happens when the wind stops? it's not as though we have decent storage capabilities.
 
#23
#23
Nuclear energy isn't a permanent solution to the energy problem. Known deposits of material to use in a nuclear reactor is enough to last roughly 200 years.

Enough for our lifetime but it's not a permanent solution. Wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy. Look at the big picture, eventually this will the only form of energy available to us. Oil, natural gas, coal, even uranium etc will run out.
 
#24
#24
oklavol said:
He postponed it for a couple of years. Read the article.
Click to expand...

It ain't gonna happen. In the article that you first linked, it mentioned an offshore windfarm that was cancelled because it didn't make economic sense. The same is true of this project. Pickens will not get the financing he needs.
 
#25
#25
oklavol said:
Nuclear energy isn't a permanent solution to the energy problem. Known deposits of material to use in a nuclear reactor is enough to last roughly 200 years.

Enough for our lifetime but it's not a permanent solution. Wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy. Look at the big picture, eventually this will the only form of energy available to us. Oil, natural gas, coal, even uranium etc will run out.
Click to expand...

all of those listed have significant problems most significantly the storage issues and time of days they produce energy. not including the nimby problems.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top