The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Saturday, May 25, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Japan's Aggressive FIT Already Unlocking Gigawatts of Wind and Solar Power

Analysts predict more than 25 GW of renewable energy capacity will be installed in Japan as the country moves away from nuclear energy.

Yuriy Humber and Tsuyoshi Inajima, Bloomberg
October 01, 2012  |  78 Comments

As Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and billionaire Masayoshi Son lead a swarm of investors exploiting Japan's solar power subsidies, the world's biggest, Sumitomo Corp. is betting on wind.

The trading house, Japan’s second-largest investor in power generation outside utilities, will add wind farms and at least two biomass plants to take advantage of the above-market rates for electricity from renewable sources the government introduced in July. Sumitomo’s local utility, Summit Energy Corp., expects profits from wind power to triple in as many years, said the unit’s president, Shinichi Kitamura.

Sumitomo’s focus is in part a response to a rush into solar projects that’s pushing up land prices and salaries, as well as luring investors from gambling parlor operators to asset managers. While government data show that Japan can build wind farms at a cheaper price and with higher returns than solar, 99 percent of applications for the new tariffs are for electricity generated from sunlight.

“With so many companies rushing in we are seeing a solar bubble forming and land prices are rising,” Kitamura said in a Sept. 7 interview. Japan’s ambitions in renewable energy look more manageable in wind energy, he said.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced on Sept. 14 an energy policy that calls for a phaseout of nuclear energy over the next three decades and to triple generation from renewable sources. The ruling Democratic Party of Japan last month recommended renewable energy make up about 40 percent of Japan’s total by the early 2030s, from the current 8 percent that mostly comes from hydropower.

Premium Prices

To help meet the target, Japan introduced subsidies known as feed-in tariffs (FITs) on July 1 that require utilities to buy power from renewable energy providers at premium prices. As a result, investment in solar, wind and other forms of clean energy may jump to $17.1 billion this year from $8.6 billion in 2011, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates.

The rate introduction follows the examples of Germany, Spain and Italy, who since 2004 overtook Japan as the global leader in terms of installed solar capacity. The rates are now being cut across Europe as the volume of solar projects they created make subsidies unsustainable at their original levels.

The lessons of Europe show that those that get in early reap the most benefit before tariffs rates are cut. Of all the renewable energy types available in Japan today the quickest to set up on a utility scale is solar, said Dean Enjo, an analyst with CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets in Tokyo.

Power Crisis

“Right now Japan is in a power crisis and the immediate response will be in solar,” Enjo said. “Solar farms can be scaled up in months. Biomass, geothermal, wind, they are all viable sources, but they take a lot of time and have a lot of red tape involved.”

From October, all wind power developers will need to make an environmental assessment of noise pollution from humming turbines and to show profit feasibility, after some wind farms failed to make money. Geothermal projects can take as long as a decade to develop, Summit’s Kitamura said.

In the two months after Japan started offering feed-in tariffs, applications for 155 solar projects each with a capacity of at least 1 megawatt (MW) were made, government data show. Wind power attracted 14 applications and biomass just one.

Projects to add more than 1,150 MW (1.15 GW) of solar plants have been announced this year in Japan, compared to none last year, according to BNEF. Those estimates, which exclude residential installations, mean about 110 MW of utility- size solar capacity may be commissioned this year, up from 10 MW last year, BNEF said in an Aug. 31 report.

Pachinko Power

Among the most ambitious plans is Orix Corp., a finance and leasing company that seeks to spend more than its annual net income of 86 billion yen ($1.1 billion) on solar plants.

Japan Asia Group, a Tokyo-based brokerage and an aerial surveyor that started looking at renewables three years ago, last month pledged to invest 150 billion yen to build 500 MW of solar power across the country by March 2015. The amount exceeds Japan Asia’s revenue over the last two years.

Solar investors such as Toshiba Corp., which makes solar equipment, are being joined by companies as varied as asset manager Sparx Group, Mitsui Chemicals Inc. and pachinko parlor operator Novil Corp.

Sparx’s announcement that it would build a solar plant helped its stock jump the most in a month on Sept. 7 in Tokyo.

“The solar market is the most lucrative to investors and it’s going to be the one heating up for at least the next three years,” CLSA’s Enjo said.

Goldman Sachs

The attraction for investor lies in the feed-in tariff. At 42 yen per kilowatt-hour for 20 years of a solar project it’s triple the 14.59 yen per kilowatt-hour industrial users paid for electricity during the 12 months ended in March. That’s grabbed the attention of investors outside Japan.

A group including International Business Machines Corp. and Goldman Sachs won approval to build Japan’s largest solar plant of 250 MW in the southern city of Setouchi, which will cost as much as 86.1 billion yen, the local council said Sept. 13 on its website. That would be Goldman Sachs’s second renewables investment in Japan after it bought 5.1 percent of Eliiy Power Co. a lithium-ion battery maker, last year.

“We expect the clean technology and renewable energy industry to play an increasingly important role in Japan, and we remain focused on this area,” Ankur Sahu, Goldman Sach’s co- head of merchant banking in the Asia Pacific, said in an e- mailed statement.

Viewing Page 1 of 2

  • View All
  • Next Page

78 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 21, 2013
Gary, your ramblings continue to amuse us all -- that's why you go on and on, and on and...

Sure, an exploding windmill is cute, unless your house or cow gets it. What western nuke has had a meltdown in the last 50 years that's hurt any house or cow? We indeed have had two deaths here in Calif. just last year from windmills.
;]
Likely because they aren't regulated as carefully as are nukes, eh Gary?

Of course it takes about 5,000 windmills to equal 1/2 nuke plant, so odds are definitely in death-by-windmill's favor.

Plenty on radiation & health for you to Google & read, Gary. Especially about the Potassium40 throughout your body that's hitting your cells with ~4400 decay events per second for life. Wonder why you're not cancerous or dead?

I should make you do the work, but I'm feeling generous tonight, I guess, Gary...
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/TEAC4%20presentations/Cannara_TEAC4.pdf
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 21, 2013
I'd rather have a windmill explode than a reactor melt down.
Especially since a windmill can be replaced in as little as 4 weeks. Floating windmill maybe a little longer. And better than sitting on those screwed up hotspots that the nukies are choosing wait decades for a cheap solution to handle it.
You may be riding high on comments from others about the low death rates but I question how rigorous the verification of cancer deaths that may be tied to radiation. I haven't seen any isolated studies that rule out chemical and other environmental factors and we only have a few bio-domes around the world to do studies that would mutually exclude other potential sources. So your conclusions are based on cloudy data. Go ahead, you want to yell "La La La La, I can't hear you!" while I type this... Or cover your eyes and make another discrediting remark....
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 21, 2013
I see how you are!
Just eggin me on.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 20, 2013
Gary, you'd be a great climate denier, with your lack of scruples in making up arguments from nothing.
;]
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 20, 2013
@Dr.AlexC
You are shoe-horning information to fit your argument with statements such as these....

"As to use of the Rayleigh distribution and you saying: "my genuine desire to hear why the use of this function is so valued." -- why don't you just look it up? This isn't free consulting, you know. Wind generators using propellers have well-known properties, so you can easily find relevant analyses."

"well-known properties", for others to find.

Is a very lazy argument and stinks of...

Burden of Proof Reversal

You claim to be such a smart guy DrAlexC
Which I try to maintain the benefit of the doubt, even now...
You either got it in you to put forth something the wind engineers can't deny/will tear to shreds or do nothing.
Otherwise you risk being a broken record....

I want to be clear of someting "Sir", I'm not the one claiming to be the "Know it All"
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 20, 2013
You can't "back down" when you have no argument, Gary.
;]
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 20, 2013
You either can step up and provide something objective or you can't or won't.

I'm not backing down!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 19, 2013
Gary, your absurd, desperate verbiage & 'logic' speaks volumes on why you just don't get it.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 19, 2013
I used caps to emphasize what I meant by absolutes just to make it clear. Secondly, I go back to the Burden of Proof Reversal Fallacy I mentioned before. You made the claim, it is yours to defend, I'm not going to just take your word for it! Heck, could you imagine a salesperson trying to sell you something and you have concerns about the product and he tells you to look it up for yourself. Especially if it was going to take a full day or two to crunch the numbers and he lies to you and says it will only take a couple of minutes because he knows that some others who might also be listening may be suckered by foolish pride? You see, you show zero tolerance for taking information at face value and expect a comprehensive analysis of raw data on our part but when I challenge you with your resources, I get attacked! So it appears that you didn't scrutinize your own resources.
BTW, thanks for the deletion...
But back to what I was saying about the Rayleigh Distribution, yes it may be considered a point that $ell$ to an eager ear but also to the same extent of things you ask of others.
So if you believe that this use of the Rayleigh Distribution function carrys significant weight (no pun intended) you may convince the editor of this site to pay you to publish an article as to it's relevance so you can be redeemed for your efforts and gain some public credit!
The article on Net Metering Debate has similar points to consider as what's been argued here as well and is a cause for agruing in circles.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/net-metering-debate-rages-on-despite-calls-for-calm
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 18, 2013
Gary, I deleted the comments duplicated above because of this site's spam-detector.

As to use of the Rayleigh distribution and you saying: "my genuine desire to hear why the use of this function is so valued." -- why don't you just look it up? This isn't free consulting, you know. Wind generators using propellers have well-known properties, so you can easily find relevant analyses.

But what really counts for wind's inefficiencies are many engineering realities beyond just the relatively inefficient coupling of air to props, like...
www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/so-called-wind-farms-dominate-list-of-bangor-hydro-s-top-electric

Then we have your tendency to fib about what others say, like: "Gary, you OBVIOUSLY haven't checked "it" out" (comment 61)". -- you, like everyone else here, know I don't use caps, Gary.

And gotta love this circuitous thought: "remarks about the "thousands of tons of CO2 from manufacturing windmills", overlooks the importance of having diverse carbon offsetting of resources available for a resilient economy that can handle unexpected disasters." -- "unexpected disasters" like...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

or... http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7

or... www.homebrewpower.co.uk/html-renewable-energy-failures/vestas-wind-turbine-fail.html

or... www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9837026/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-high-wind.html

Or maybe an "unexpected 'disaster' is the perennial loss of wind power into transmission distance, conversion and missed generation when winds fall outside the modest speed range of prop generators.

Sounds like all those thousands of tons of fossil-fuel-processed materials per average installed MW of wind might rightly be counted as 'disasters' when the $, deaths & disease associated with them are lined up against the hours of no generation and net grid loading caused by windmill designs & failure rates.
;]
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 18, 2013
Also, can you have the courtesy to consolidate comments 65 through 67 in order to make reviewing previous comments a little more convenient?
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 18, 2013
Additionally, making remarks such as,
"So you sell alarm systems,eh Gary? Good"
And,
"That might be "alarming" for an alarm-system guy"
"You can do it, Gary. You can do it!"
Are worthless for promoting objective analysis of the issues debated.

Same with peppering responses with biased "absolute" phrases such as,
"Gary, you OBVIOUSLY haven't checked "it" out" (comment 61)".
Another one to be wary of is,
"Anyone who knows........ Knows that......"
Such remarks tempts readers to slack off on the use of critical thinking for discerning what to value.
Also, remarks about the "thousands of tons of CO2 from manufacturing windmills", overlooks the importance of having diverse carbon offsetting of resources available for a resilient economy that can handle unexpected disasters.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 18, 2013
@DrAlexC,
I'm still searching for a Lyman's interpretation to address concerns brought up in comment 55 with regards to the use of the Rayleigh Distribution Function in Dr. Pavlak's article.
I'm seeking a response that is free of remarks that personally attack my genuine desire to hear why the use of this function is so valued. I don't want to take for granted that someone's knowledge on this matter will suffice.
So either you can step up to the plate and elaborate or concede you haven't put much thought or a balancing to the pros and cons of this statistical tool!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 13, 2013
So you sell alarm systems. eh Gary? Good.

The point of the Riverkeeper video was that the speaker didn't know what he was talking about, and yet you passed it on, also not knowing what you were talking about.

If you have alarm customers whose alarms fail, what do you do?

So, anything like a leaking gas main or a nuke with odd problems, should also be fixed. We have a nuke in CA needing a stem fix.-- no one hurt. We have gas lines in CA needing fixes -- 8 killed in San Bruno 2 years ago, after 30 years of falsified maintenance reports. So is nuclear safer than gas? Looks lik eit.

Fiixing Indian Point was not what the Riverkeeper guy was saying. I support Riverkeeper by the way, so with my next check, I'll include the link you passed in here and a critique.

To give everyone an idea of how absurd some folks' blind anti-nuclear fetishes are, consider the health facts...
Energy & Environmental Science, 2012, DOI:10.1039/C2EE22658H

If the energy delivered by nuclear had been instead delivered by coal/gas plants, 1.1 million years of life would have been lost. That might be "alarming" for an alarm-system guy,

In contrast, including all mining, construction, operation,,, the number of years of life lost for equivalent nuclear power would have been 1/10 that. And, this is what's been observed for over 50 years -- nuclear power is the safest form of mass generation.

Don't have to believe me...
Krewitt, "Risk Analysis", vol 18 #4, 1998
Paul Scherrer Institute, http://tinyurl.com/42wvr9l
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-human-cost-of-energy

Even the sad Fukushima tragedy killed no one via radiation, despite high worker exposures, but was an excellent example of why things deserve both fixing and good design...

www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf (read Conclusions, p16)
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 13, 2013
I repo'ed an alarm system from a customer who felt she didn't need it anymore because there was 4 years of no incidents and felt money could be saved. However, the following month or so her place was broken into. Point being, past events do not necessarily predict future outcomes or frequency of events.

BTW, as far as responding to proving I don't know nuclear...

Hmmmmm, lets revisit the burden of proof reversal fallacy,

Burden of Proof Reversal-Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim......

So you question my claim I don't understand nuclear power?

I claim I don't understand and you want me to prove it?

I could be fibbing and have a doctorate in nuclear physics and have been playing dumb just to see what kind of trap you would fall into. Perhaps....

Or not even that extreme, just a simple layperson that could get it when broken down properly. However, if I prove that you are capable of communicating advanced concepts to ordinary individuals. I'd have a hard time proving that you have the willingness let alone motive to do so objectively.

I don't want this to be about your abilities or willingness to elucidate a point further or make this about you. I'm just interested in exploring this further in a way that can tie together what has been put out there and revised as much as possible without being attacked. If you disagree or don't have the time or energy, that's fine. Or, if you have other helpful points to add, that's fine too. Some of the things you ask about appear to demand information that is proprietary, confidential, or trade secret potential and I accept my limits to go there in answering. That is why I express wind as having potential. I'm looking at data sheets when I have the time and energy to explore it without forking over thousands of dollars for a report that this parent company may or may not have as relevant.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 13, 2013
So Gary, now you're going to 'prove' to us all that you don't understand nuclear power either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center

Imagine how many lives would have been saved, how many illnesses avoided, had the Shoreham plant been allowed to proceed in the 1970s, as Indian Point did. Then, 2/3 of all NYC area's power would have been emissions free. And, produced using only a few hundred acres.

Instead naive environmental groups accepted $ from The Heating Oil Institute to prevent Shoreham from being operated. It now is being considered by a Japanese company for burning gas. Know how many Americans die from gas exploration, extraction, transmission & use each year, Gary?

So, Gary, >12,000 of your fellow Americans die each year from just coal-burning pollution. If Indian Point were not operating, would you take responsibility for the many extra deaths? Would you pay their medical, burial & life insurance?

The problem with folks like you, Gary, is you don't want to understand reality, yet you're very willing to allow your ignorance to misguide others, even to serious harm.

How much death & disease from power production has been avoided by Indian Point operating since 1974, generating over 70 GigaWatt-years of 0-emissions power, Gary? The EPA can tell you.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 13, 2013
The president of riverkeeper had this to say about the risks of maintaining the Indian Point Nuclear Plant.

http://video.answers.com/the-risks-of-maintaining-the-indian-point-nuclear-plant-293407561
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Gary, you obviously haven't "checked it out", whatever "it" is.

I gave you specific leads to data from vendors, like Mid-American Energy, which explain clearly how many tons of concrete & steel are needed just for 1 windmill's tower. The prop & generator are still more -- 115,000 lbs for the generator & 48,000 for prop. If I can find that corporate data, so can you, Gary.

You can then look up for yourself, so you can trust the facts, how many tons of iron ore, coal, limestone, aggregate, bunker & diesel fuel, etc. are needed to fabricate the parts listed in the data sheet.

I also gave you another scientist's book section on the energy side of wind, compared to other sources. But, if you want a very frank, honest answer from a Nobel winner, I'll give you to Burton Richter, at Stanford -- he has less patience with manipulative types than I do.

You can play the game typical climate deniers do, of rejecting anything anyone puts up as facts, but it won't work anymore here, Gary, because everyone here sees what you're doing, and I don't care what you think. I only care that others don't get sucked in by mis-information from folks who have odd irons in the fire and avoid facts.

So, as someone recently said in a TV debate: proceed, Gary.
;]
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 12, 2013
Being a scientist or engineer doesn't qualify you as flawless, invincable, sincere or honest. You made the claim, I checked it out and I question the effectiveness of it's use in these arguments.

Burden of Proof Reversal-Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim......

In no way is this meant as a personal attack, I humbly accept that wind may have some (acceptable)risks and seek insight from those who will not get offended by questions to their counter claims.

So there is no need for acts of derision or scorn on an individual's status or lack of. The facts can speak for themselves and can be broken down for the average layperson to understand if there is a sincere desire to be heard.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Gary, you're not a scientist or engineer, so how about doing some study and your own research. No one else needs to serve your needs when you don't take the time to honestly investigate a topic.

You can do it, Gary. You can do it!
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 12, 2013
@DrAlex

Gary, what's up with "you ought to do a comparison with fossil fuel generation"? Why?

"Do you think before you write?"

Look at my comment concerning the limitations of using arbitrary figures and the Rayleigh Distribution Function as an argument against wind.

Using those two things as supporting evidence fails to elucidate the true value of wind..

Can you find anything better that has a more honest representation?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Since you're not an engineer, Gary, why should anyone listen to you wax on about "pumped storage out at sea, a DC to AC smart grid, and islands of solar heating/cooling/PV..."?

You clearly don't get the basics of physics, thermodynamics, or even electrical engineering.

Anyone who is an engineer or scientist can explain to you what having more than enough structural surfaces to meet peak loads with present PV means. It means, no wind needed. No vast transmission needed. Almost no permanent power loss needed.

And, EVs plus efficient storage complement local PV perfectly, so again, no wind, no "pumped storage" (which if you were an environmentalist you'd know why it's bad policy.

But you do get residential heat pumps, which have been around for decades (thank goodness).
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 12, 2013
A "New Deal" type of development may be the best option for pumped storage out at sea, a DC to AC smart grid, and islands of solar heating/cooling/PV/ground source combos for residential apartments. Such systems I believe will work if designed for 100 year plus lifetimes to recoup costs and ensure future opportunities for the poor. As you can see how Hydropower is paid for many times over. Also, these infrastructure additions have a good chance as well.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 12, 2013
BTW, I checked out the Pavlak.net website (Baltimore Sun Article) and subsequently went to the other site listed on his PDF and found many sweeping generalizations of wind that do not give a fair assesment to the limits of wind. It does show positive hope for nuclear with acknowledgement of the need to do R&D to deal with currently unsolveable waste issues. At least that portion is fair and worth the risk to explore and bury if it doesn't work. However, I think over time (don't know how long) these issues facing nuclear have promise of being addressed.
Current projects in wind research and development offer an equally optimistic opportunity to address the concerns Dr. Pavlak has with no-solution-in-sight of zero carbon power from wind and do so in very short time scales.
One example of the limited review of wind's potential is lackluster integration of selective smart grid low-loss loads. The idea is demand systems would match the Pgrid curves in figure 6 via closed system feedback.
Another shortfall of this article is the lack of generational performance data from actual wind speeds and over lay that on wind data captured from various sites. Instead, the chart on figure 5 assumes probability of output via the Rayleigh distribution function at an arbitrary 25% capacitance factor. Newer designs exceed the performance curves on this chart and open up custom designs that can capture higher wind yields tailored to a particular site's wind behavior. More R&D focuses on capturing winds at lower speeds, include more higer wind speeds or both beyond optimization of loads with rotational blade pitch. The key focus here is on ultra light weight materials with plastic deformation levels beyond maximum wind gusts, integration of smart materials utilizing strategies similar to rudderless wing design, long lasting UV resistance that capitalize on materials discovered during Photonics research, etc...
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Gary, what's up with "you ought to do a comparison with fossil fuel generation"? Why?

Do you actually think before you write?

And yes, I'm aware of the taller GE systems, with "space frames" -- you know what that means, Gary? Ever seen an oil rig?

Why are you so dedicated to trying to make an environmental silk purse out of a windmill's sow's ear? You still have to build the dam, etc. for storage, remember?
;]
Neither the science nor engineering work for wind to have any realistic future meaning.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Gary, if you get the data sheet for the Siemens 5MW wind generator, you'll get some basic specs, like the tower using 400 tons of steel, the foundation using 1000 cubic meters of concrete, etc.

You can also go to the other vendor I mentioned and get similar.

It's not hard.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 12, 2013
Also, I went to the Siemens website and didn't find the data you mention.
Where is this alleged 2,000 per MW?
Based on what turbine design?
What year?
You mention transportation cost was the significant factor?
Which type of transportation?
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 12, 2013
This website I found gave some promising hope for wind...

http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.10929

BTW alex, you ought to do a comparison with fossil fuel generation costs and CO2 output as a baseline and then we can go from there...
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 12, 2013
Here is an article that hints at cost effective wind tower upgrades...

http://howiswindenergyused.info/ge-acquires-next-gen-wind-turbine-tower-technology/

This technology also addresses you concern for massive service roads.. If it is actually a concern to begin with...
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 12, 2013
Really, Gary? I mention local solar, EVs, storage, efficiency and nuclear, and that's a fetish, but your 1-note tune for wind isn't?

The issue is ralistic assessment of what will help our tragic situation now -- the one we'll leave our rightly disgusted descendents, if we don't think honestly.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
Wind fetish?
No more than nuclear fetish????
Better to stick to concerns over potential pitfalls than optimistic endeavours.....
Also, potentially better to rebuild directly over the Fukushima site than at Tokyo (as you mention earlier) to quell nuclear safety concerns.....
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
Current updates to worldwide aeros corp...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Worldwide-Aeros-Corp/180735218613257?ref=hl
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 11, 2013
Gary, you're computing the CO2 generated by the replacement of "20 year old" windmills at Blyth because...

"The old turbines are being replaced because their useful life has ended"

You're doing the whole calc, including emissions from new fabrication, transport... right? Interesting that 300kW units lasted only 20 years, delivering at most 2MW-years each in 2 decades.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/30/germanys-repower-to-upgrade-blyth-wind-farm-with-23-8-mw-of-new-turbines/#Ai9C81zHsQyfm82Y.99

This is a great example of why wind is a long-term loser.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 11, 2013
Gary, you may not actually understand how much transportation is involved with making & maintaining the 5000 or so windmills, of even 25-year life, that correspond to one nuke plant's average power for decades.

The 'spent' fuel example you gave illustrates your misunderstanding -- we currently have 68,000 tonnes of such from all operations of our 100+ civilian reactors for >50 years. That's 1.3 tonnes per year per nuke plant.

How does that compare to 2000 tons per average MW from wind? Do you realize how many tons of fossil fuel are used by an equivalent wind 'farm' of ~5000 machines demanding maintenance?

Do you realize what it means to lose transmission power even before a wind farm's juice heads off into the grid via a special transmission corridor?

Thought not.

Then too, the 68,000 tonnes of 'spent' fuel is actually >90% reusable for new fuel and advanced reactors, which is why the French have reprocessed their fuel for decades. So, in the future, even that transport will be trivial.

It's really hard to grasp how some folks are so wind-loving, when local solar already outperforms it, uses no land, adds no loss and builds a more robust grid.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
Some turbines at this site will be replaced or upgraded...

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/30/germanys-repower-to-upgrade-blyth-wind-farm-with-23-8-mw-of-new-turbines/
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
Cont...
Such risk considerations cannot be absolutely deemed worse if not the same as locating nuclear closer to population centers.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
Additionally, an even better reason to promote offshore wind (no need to build roads out to sea) Costs to layout DC lines are already happening via submarine cable laying and will more likely happen with economy of scale production via increased demand to install offshore windfarms. These costs are also advantageous over AC lines which require more copper to handle losses related to eddy currents. But despite these promising advantages, some developers have justified installing AC lines utilizing non-submersible rigs. Perhaps some of these more costly installation decisions were made foolishly but all of them, that I cannot see as absolutely true.
Another point to make about remote installations of remote onshore sites is the viability of utilizing the new heavy lifting cargo airships under development if remote siting is considered burdensome. Some problems have been found with earlier implementations of these flying rigs but do have some new unproven contenders entering the market.....

http://event.arc.nasa.gov/airships/index

http://www.gizmag.com/aeroscraft-dirigible-airship/25271/

Key factor with air transport is plenty of demand to support sustainable operations and supply (helium production)

Such risk considerations cannot be absoutely deemed worse if not the same as locating
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
Transportation issues?
What works for nuclear can work for wind.....

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/transportation/
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 11, 2013
Gary, wind "After this initial carbon expenditure, wind is virtually carbon free " -- is false, as we all know.

Wind farms have massive roadways for maintenance. They have massive transmission interconnects and new transmission corridors to make & maintain. They have grid-interface systems and have continual transmission loss 24/365 simply because of their spacial extent and necessary remoteness from loads. And that doesn't even address the massive cost of making up for variability by some addition of flexible power infill within the grid -- yes, dams for pumped storage consume land, steel, concrete, etc. as part of usable wind.

And, a foundation is not today built for a multiplied generator size years into the future. Not is it or the tower built to handle weather extremes, like this example...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o\

Just Google windmill failures. And this is simply disgraceful...
www.keepersoftheblueridge.com/environmental-impact.html?mid=538

And even the Germans have mediocre results...
http://renknownet2.iwes.fraunhofer.de/pages/wind_energy/data/2006-02-09Reliability.pdf

The real question is why the wind fetish? Without subsidies to the few via tax on the many, windmills make no sense for anything but remote-site power. And, they kill installers & maintenance workers -- we lost 2 last year just in Santa Clara Co8unty.Cell tower technicians have similar danger, but at least don't have to rope their way out to service 100ft blades.
;]
Wind power is not environmentally-responsible power.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
Correction, carbon expenditure primarily before and during construction.
Not during construction only....
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 11, 2013
@DrAlexC,
Not all turbines are created equal and cannot be compared equally for their CO2 output. Additionally, the extremely abundant and cheap concrete which actually starts to reabsorbs it's CO2 after forming is only lightly considered a deterrence for it's use. Especially since the 90 plus million tons produced annually here in the USA occupies roughly 1.5 to 2 percent emissions.
This advantage offered by concrete allows windmill developers to not be adversely affected by threats of carbon tax expenditures or negative public sentiment. This reduced concern is offered through strategies of short time to market paired with carbon offsets to negate wind's one time carbon expense initiated during construction.
After this initial carbon expenditure, wind is virtually carbon free and is even more so if recycled/reused into new turbines. However, I do see a concern of developers fraudulently promoting their structures as 100 year lifetimes (based on structures that do last more than 100 years) and capacity to upgrade tower height. Such an incentive to lie about the resale value of these foundations comes with the lack of bonds to cover the occurrence of suckered buyers.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 10, 2013
Gary, not sure what you mean here: "Tons/MW is a baseline that omits certain benefits..."

The specific manufacturing techniques for the components of any system have great influence on net emissions, as does outsourcing across oceans.

Nuclear plants have the same kind of steel & concrete requirements, but not near the same per MWHr delivered, and far lower environmental intrusions, especially now that we have stocks of 'spent' LWR fuel that still has decades of US power in it, if used in advanced reactors.

Wind's emissions are very sensitive to post-construction activities as well, such as maintenance, prop/generator/electrical failures, etc. A 100-acre nuke is far less an emissions source under operation than is an equivalent ~10,000 acre wind 'farm'. The nuke also makes about $1 billion in electricity, isotopes, even carbon-neutral fuels per year, which wind cannot. And there's no cost when climate changes winds, as the chinese have started to see.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 10, 2013
Gary, yes indeed, there is a Japanese utility looking to design & build such somewhere near Tokyo.

The ^MW test reactor (MSRE) ran at Oak Ridge for ~5 years and when shut down in 1969, so the next phase design (true LFTR) could begin, the salt was simply drained by gravity ointo underground storage tanks. It's still there, after 43 years, ready to be heated & pumped back up.

That's what Fukushima could have been, but Fukushioma was a typical bureaucratic/business tragedy, as the independent commission recently reported -- the head of the Commission just addressed an EDF meeting this week...

"The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents.

Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly 'manmade'. We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions, rather than issues relating to the competency of any specific individual."

www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic_report.pdf
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 10, 2013
I think the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a good idea. The best way to win the hearts and minds of others would be to clean up Fukushima and build the first large scale LFTR in the exact same spot and utilize the existing grid!
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 10, 2013
Tons/MW is a baseline that omits certain benefits wind brings and as a result cannot make a completely inclusive comparison with nuclear. Do you have data references that do?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 9, 2013
Gary, there was a discussion on this site not long ago, about the Danish experience with "the best wind power system" in the world. You can likely find it and see that over 9 years, the dozen or so large Danish wind 'farms' barely generated total energy equal to what one standard nuke plant does in 1 year. You can also see reliability figures in that report -- 20-45% uptime/capacity.

And, the woman in charge of Danish renewable energy systems was here at Stanford early last year & explained a few realities, such as them needing 300MW of backup power available each day, just in case their wind forecast is off by about 1 meter per second average.

You can also look elsewhere here to see the examples of standard windmills & their specs, which explain how many cubic meters of concrete are needed per windmill foundation, how many hundred tons of steel are needed per tower, etc. You can do the calculated for yourself -- the amount of limestone to be mined & kilned (via fossil fuel), the amount of rock to be mined & crushed for the concrete, the amount of coal & iron ore needed to make the steel, etc. Then the transport to China/Korea... for fabrication & back to the site here . You can forget the white paint. In any case, those resources consumed amount to ~2000 tons per MW average of installed machinery. Emissions can be calculated from the bill of materials. Example data sheets for windmills are available from Siemens, Mid-American Energy, etc.

If you want recent scientific analyses of why wind power is a waste of subsidy, land, energy & materials, check out the section starting at p132 here: http://tinyurl.com/cxplxx3

And maybe listen to...
www.policyexchange.org.uk/modevents/item/fixing-climate-policy-with-professor-dieter-helm-cbe

We do need a universal carbon tax, and that would indeed put wind to disadvantage re local solar & nuclear.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 9, 2013
@AlexC
The MIT report is too old and obsolete.
To refute it may require hunting down over 11 years worth of articles from various sources.
Don't you have a similar report based on fresh data potential generational performance growth projections?
I'm not finished looking over it but I can tell that there is alot of homework to do to demonstrate what has been overlooked and not anticipated since it was written.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 9, 2013
What I believe Dr Alex is trying to say is the people you get information from are liars and he tries to show other professional sources Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (MIT) thst say differently. However, I do see a Hasty Generalization (logical fallacy) when trying to make a big fuss out of CO2 generated from windmills. Neverless, a sincere evaluation of what he provides is a fair thing to do.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 9, 2013
Acchh, it's a tough life, eh Bob?
;]
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 9, 2013
Alex, forget it.

You and Cliff and a couple other trolls are making this site worthless when it comes to discussions.

I'm tired of wasting my time here trying to discuss things with idiots.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 9, 2013
Oh Bob, you've already seen some yourself, and I gave you two vendors (Siemens & Mid-American Energy) from whom you can get data sheets and build specs that let you calculate the mining, concrete, steelmaking, road-building, transmission building & loss, transport, etc. for yourself.

But, here's another you can find yourself...
"Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms" Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2053–2061, 2010

And, since you love to open yourself, here are some more...
www dot pavlak dot net/BaltimoreSun_rev_2-17-12 dot pdf
http colonslashslash renknownet2 dot iwes dot fraunhofer dot de/pages/wind_energy/data/2006-02-09Reliability dot pdf
portsmouth.patch dot com/blog_posts/wind-turbine-economics-and-failures
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 9, 2013
Oh Bob, you've already seen some yourself, and I gave you two vendors (Siemens & Mid-American Energy) from whom you can get data sheets and build specs that let you calculate the mining, concrete, steelmaking, road-building, transmission building & loss, transport, etc. for yourself.

But, here's another you can find yourself...
"Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms" Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2053–2061, 2010

And, since you love to open yourself, here are some more...
www.pavlak.net/BaltimoreSun_rev_2-17-12.pdf
http colonslashslash renknownet2.iwes.fraunhofer.de/pages/wind_energy/data/2006-02-09Reliability.pdf
portsmouth.patch.com/blog_posts/wind-turbine-economics-and-failures
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 9, 2013
Oh Bob, you've already seen some yourself, and I gave you two vendors (Siemens & Mid-American Energy) from whom you can get data sheets and build specs that let you calculate the mining, concrete, steelmaking, road-building, transmission building & loss, transport, etc. for yourself.

But, here's another you can find yourself...
"Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind farms" Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 2053–2061, 2010

And, since you love to open yourself, here are some more...
www.pavlak.net/BaltimoreSun_rev_2-17-12.pdf
http://renknownet2.iwes.fraunhofer.de/pages/wind_energy/data/2006-02-09Reliability.pdf
http://portsmouth.patch.com/blog_posts/wind-turbine-economics-and-failures
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 8, 2013
CO2, nuclear and wind. You fail.

Show us your Denmark data Alex.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Why must deniers or climate change or anything else always lean on the crutch of "cherry picking"?

It's not even a good metaphor, since the cherries that we want are the good ones, right Bob?
;]
If you want to be honest, Bob, go to the various stats for countries like Denmark. Do you really want to be embarrassed by the facts of why wind 'farms' aren't as reliable as even solar farms and nukes, and why they emit more CO2 in resource mining/processing, transport, construction, fabrication & maintenance?

It's losing argument, Bob. And many others know it.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 8, 2013
Alex - you know very well that cherry-picking is intellectually dishonest.

By talking about only construction CO2 you present others with a false impression of the lifetime CO2 footprint of nuclear.

And your claim that wind turbine lifetime is less than 25 years is also false.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Sorry, Bob, but right, right , right. And, if you don';t know why, you should. Remember those calculations you were assigned?
;]
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
February 8, 2013
"No need for wind or solar 'farms'. And, since windmills require more resources and emit more construction CO2 than nuclear, wind is simply folly -- especially now that true reliability figures are showing the 25-year equipment lives to be fiction."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 8, 2013
Indeed it;s long been known that on-structure solar PV/hot-water is adequate for all peak daytime needs, for the simple fact that more than 2% of all earth;s land is covered by human structure.

No need for wind or solar 'farms'. And, since windmills require more resources and emit more construction CO2 than nuclear, wind is simply folly -- especially now that true reliability figures are showing the 25-year equipment lives to be fiction.

The combination of local solar, EVs, efficient storage and advanced nuclear meet all worldwide needs for power, fresh water and truly carbon-neutral fuels, as for aircraft.

There is reason behind our Calif. "million solar homes" initiative, the Saudis move to nuclear & solar (so they can sell us the oil they have left), the Chinese acceleration of solar & nuclear, and the Russian disposition of special nuclear power plants aboard ships for development along their Siberian coast.

We may not all get why China must choose wisely -- they need >300 new coal plants, but they lose ~4% of GDP to health costs from emissions, and their air pollution kills the equivalent of all San Francisco each year. They don't need 'renewables' hype. They must depend on facts.

And, we are all complicit in outsourcing carbon emissions to China, etc. -- we even plan to ship them Wyoming/Montana coal at the rate of 60, 100-car trains per day. Then there's the pipelines to the Gulf. The situation is far worse than most any 'renewables' promoters understand.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 8, 2013
Additionally, I think that solar heat will play well for integration with solar PV as well. Existing units that utilize mini-splits may find integration opportunities with the solar systems to further free themselves from the utilities.

I agree with the bet some investors are making with offshore wind to realize costs coming down rapidly due to existing supply chains maturing in Northern Europe. With the slow down in shipyard production, this demand for offshore wind opens up opportunities to utilize these assets to further lower costs and increase output.

I'd first concentrate rooftop solar and conservation efforts in cities that share the grid with the shipyards, steel plants, blade fabricators and concrete manufacturers to help free up energy supply for these industries and further increase output.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 8, 2013
Additionally, I think that solar heat will play well for integration with solar PV as well. Existing units that utilize mini-splits may find integration opportunities with the solar systems to further free themselves from the utilities.

I agree with the bet some investors are making with offshore wind to realize costs coming down rapidly due to existing supply chains maturing in Northern Europe. With the slow down in shipyard production, this demand for offshore wind opens up opportunities to utilize these assets to further lower costs and increase output.

I'd first concentrate rooftop solar and conservation efforts in cities that share the grid with the shipyards, steel plants, blade fabricators and concrete manufacturers to help free up energy supply for these industries and further increase output.
Gary Richardson
Gary Richardson
February 8, 2013
I got a feeling that Alta Devices will play a big role in supplying panels to Japan considering that Sumitomo electric industries is one of the investors in that company. And it makes sense, their panels have pretty high efficiency under 1 or 1.5 sun power which plays well into getting the most out of your real estate.

The higher FIT provides excellent incentives for high quality manufacturing to ensure long life. I believe that Sharp also has a panel that operates above 30% under 1 sun power as well but is single junction and may not have as high a capacity factor as Alta's panels.

The other thing to look at is the durability of the other solar components such as the inverters. Can they last as long? Or, at least be designed to have their most easily worn parts be swapped out as quickly and painlessly as changing out a PC card inside a computer?

Perhaps the microinverters can have swappable mounts that plug and play similar to how memory cards are added to current devices if they don't already.
Ken. Bosley
Ken. Bosley
October 12, 2012
Hello-

I have Sumitomo's 150 kw wind turbine blue prints for sale.

I am expert in wind power looking for work. I have over 30 years of experience in wind energy.
www.zwind.com resume
Ken Bosley, M.A.
410 472 1081 410 771 4316
bosley@zwind.com
PO Box 585
Sparks, Maryland 21152 USA
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
October 8, 2012
"I'll discuss thorium reactors when..." -- we'll be waiting with baited breath, Bob.
;]
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 7, 2012
I'll discuss thorium reactors when there is one producing commercial electricity and we can discover the cost.

Japan seems to have decided to install solar and wind. Solar will work especially well for them as it can run the AC they are having to cut back on.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
October 7, 2012
BobW, Wash Post link here works...

www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-japan-energy-saving-takes-its-toll/2012/08/10/3fef736e-dfb3-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_story.html

You say "Japanese people have had it with nuclear", yet the Thorium Forum link is from a Japanese group that haven't "had it" with nuclear power. You can also Google "The FUJI Project" and/or Dr. Furukawa, who ran it until his death this year. And, you can read the reality, say in the Economist, about how present politically-motivated nuclear decisions may be overturned in their next election.

Assuming "nuclear power" = Fukushima is silly. Just as your claim I'm intent "sending us around the web". The Japanese have had a long history of moving ahead to superior forms of nuclear power that don't use explosive, water-related systems and generate more power per lb of Uranium (Thorium is just used to make Uranium233). This is illustrated by you saying: "There are no operating thorium-fueled reactors" -- the 1st US reactor (Shippingport, PA) was refuelled with some Thorium in 1977 under Admiral Rickover's orders. In 1982, when the reactor was decommissioned, it was found to have >1% more fissile fuel in it than when it had been restarted 5 years earlier.

Imagine a high-priced fuel source ($14M of Uranium) used to start a reactor that runs a city, being replaced by something that's near free -- ~5000 tons of Thorium are produced as waste each year from a typical rare-earth mine.

Fuel cost, when operating a Thorium reactor is cheaper than operating the plant's cafeteria. This is one reason the Indians, and many others are so hot to finish the work we started in the 1960s here...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
http://tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw
http://tinyurl.com/bpcrmy7

Fukushima isn't a "nuclear power" disaster, unless ignorance turns off their nukes.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 7, 2012
Alex - your first link states that moving from nuclear to fossil fuel will cost Japan. I doubt anyone would argue with that, but the Japanese people have had it with nuclear. They want it around them no longer. Renewables will likely be cheaper than imported fossil fuel generation. Certainly wind will be. Solar installed on the retail side of the plant will be cheaper than using gas peakers.

I skipped the thorium links as I'm rather skeptical of stuff that thorium advocates post. There are no operating thorium-fueled reactors so we really do not know what the cost might be. At this point in time thorium reactors are an unproven idea.

Your Washington Post link did not work.

If you have information germane to the topic how about posting it rather than sending us around the web trying to find what you're talking about.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
October 7, 2012
Some info is here, Bob...
www.itworld.com/business/140626/legacy-1800s-leaves-tokyo-facing-blackouts
www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Japanese_trade_figures_reveal_cost_of_nuclear_shutdown_2501121.html
http://thoriumforum.com/japanese-utility-mulls-thorium-reactor-safe-nuclear
http://thoriumforum.com/comment/52#comment-52
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-japan-energy-saving-takes-its-toll/2012/08/10/3fef736e-dfb3-11e1-8fc5-a7d
cf1fc161d_story.html
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 7, 2012
Where did you read that Japan's cost of electricity will triple?
Robert Elcox
Robert Elcox
October 7, 2012
Tripling the cost of electricity on top of Japan's huge public debt seems like dangerous policy to me.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
October 4, 2012
Problem isn't simply FIT, it's that no land is needed, since there are plenty of structural spaces available for solar PV & hot water, which will also improve grid reliability.
RAMESH SUTHRAVE
RAMESH SUTHRAVE
October 4, 2012
The FIT of Japan for Solar Energy is excellent compared to FIT of many other contries and Developers happy to establish Solar Projects. It is known fact that the land is scarce to establish Solar Power Projects in Japan, giving priority to generate power at cheaper rate needs attention as there is still a lot of Wind Energy potential (as per JWPA upto 133GW) and also scope for Hydro Power generation.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
October 3, 2012
"As Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and billionaire Masayoshi Son lead a swarm of investors exploiting Japan's solar power subsidies, the world's biggest, Sumitomo Corp. is betting on wind. "

Goldman Sachs didn't get enough out of our taxpayers, so now they and other unenvironmentalists are soaking Japanese. Dude!
ANONYMOUS
October 3, 2012
The Japanese have the largest quantity of pumped storage in the world over 17GWp of installed capacity (there's an excel DB online somewhere. This should integrate very nicely with wind/solar.

http://www.theoillamp.co.uk/
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 3, 2012
The world needs one of the developing battery technologies to work out. Some affordable, easily sited storage would kick the renewable energy revolution into high gear....
David King
David King
October 2, 2012
Japan is a mountainous country so pumped storage or even normal hydro is ideal for compensation of intermittent renewable energy sources. NZ has substantial installed hydro generation which could be used also as a balance for renewable energy sources.
Dennis Houghton
Dennis Houghton
October 1, 2012
A nice FIT probably helps a little. I bet that the Japanese come up with a storage and time shifting solution before anyone else. In the meantime they will conserve at every level as a national duty.
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
Anumakonda Jagadeesh
October 1, 2012
Japan has the resources and resourcefulness to boost Wind and Solar Energy utilisation.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK
  • 3
    Texas Legislature Passes Commercial and Industrial PACE Bill
  • 3
    French and German Ministers Call for 2030 Renewable Energy Targets

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Navigant
  • CleanEdison
  • EcoFasten Solar
  • Array Technologies
  • ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • Quickscrews International Corp.
  • Festo
  • UnThink Solar
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information