national

Japan to build floating wind farm near Fukushima nuclear plant

40 Comments

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

© 2011 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

40 Comments
Login to comment

Sorry, my mistake. The proposal is for 6 x 2 MW turbines = 12 MW capacity.

So that's still 4684 MW less than Fukushima Daiichi would have produced. Not to mention the 4400 MW capacity of Fukushima Daini.

Ideas like this are great toy projects and positive steps, but the problem is that they distract from the real problem of generating capacity.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Btw vinnie,

With the 23% energy savings Japan did this summer - 3 cheers to the Japanese - it is evident that this 54 reactors are not needed at all. We're using 11 at themoment. We're 'sipping a beet and feeling fine', cause the doomsday shortages never came. We don't need more electricity, we need to work on efficiency and reduction.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

and who will build these? and to they get hazard pay?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

A symbolic and somewhat cynical gesture, and I say that as a reluctant proponent of nuclear power.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

75 percent or more of this country is uninhabitable mountain with plenty of wind up there. Give your head a shake.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

why out at sea when it could be constructed cheaper on the land and tidal generators at sea?

“Building wind power turbines on land would be more difficult, because of the problems of noise pollution and city planning regulations,”

That really won't be a problem inside the exclusion zone.

Could get wiped out by a tsunami?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

may face resistance from local fisherman>

We know they won't like it, but since they shouldn't be living or fishin in that area for the several hundred to several hundred thousand years- much less fish and sell it- I can't see how their opinions would be so important. With strontium and plutonium found in the land and waters, a wind farm might not be a bad idea at all.

What concerns me is the workers. How close to the plant will they work, and what kind of exposure will they get when maintaining the thing?

It's true it's expensive for the 2 megawatts Mojibake, but it is much cheaper than a Fukushima radiation problem. And VinnieFav, renewable energies most certainly can replace nuclear energy, and the UN's recent report as well as that done by Greenpeace and a nonprofit Japanese centre reached the conclusion that over 40% can be done by RE. Germany agreed and they aren't worried in he least. That europe's most important economy, they don't play games with profit.

The nuke industry wants us to believe there is no alternative, but a combination of RE along with heavy investment will brig long term benefits. What are you goin to do when you run out of uranium? The mines arent what they were 50 yrs ago. Sorry mate, but nuke is unsustainable. That's a rarely discussed reality. Geothermal, wind, solar, etc and massive conservation with better efficiency is possible, and excellent scientists are saying it in peer reviewed publications.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The dutch have being trying to be wind energy sufficient for 40 odd years and are only at 40% with hundreds of turbines scattered in the countryside and in the ocean.

Your figures are way off. There are close to 2000 wind machines installed, providing about 5% of total electricity produced.

The 6x2 turbines Japan is considering constructing is a very tiny small beginning.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It seems mountains are not ideal for wind power and the regions where wind power has developed well in recent years (Texas, Denmark, northern Germany among others) are rather flat.

However future developments should make wind power more efficient even in mountainous areas. I found the article below is worth reading:

http://www.economist.com/node/21256668

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That's 2 MW out of the 4696 MW capacity of Fukushima Daiichi. Great. Now just 4694 MW left to go...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Off shore wind turbine parks already exist today in many places in Europe and work really well. The thing is that there are locations at sea where you can get very constant high wind speed which makes it a very effective location for wind turbines.

Now if the water is not shallow enough, then traditional off shore wind turbines are difficult to construct and floating ones may be a very good alternative. Norway has some floating wind turbines that seem to be working well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Many of the older nuke plants could be converted to run with other fuels or energies. Over the next 10 years many new ways of energy generation will become available.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

oh screw this, let's go back to burning fossil fuels

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I have suggested this way back: Every newly built detached or semi-detached house ought to be constructed to last for a minimum of 30 years and be equipped with solar PV panels and proper thermal insulation. In only a decade or two this will make a huge difference.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Obama's energy policy is right. Japan's FiT in July is among the highest in the world. Japan's FiT is shaking the renewable energy market. New solutions will be showed in Japan. This is it! Floating Wind Turbine is one of the best solutions for USA and UK. U.K has more install places around its shores than any other in the world. USA has Atlantic Coast. As you know, they have to reduce vibration to install Floating Wind Turbines on the sea. Because, it makes many kinds of problems! Vibration’s caused by wind, waves and external forces. New Floating Body Stabilizer for Floating Wind Turbines has been created in South Korea. The Floating Body Stabilizers generate drag force immediately when Floating Wind Turbines are being rolled and pitched on the water. Recently, this Floating Body Stabilizers have been used to reduce vibration of Floating Solar Panels in South Korea. You can see New Floating Body Stabilizer videos in YouTube. http://youtu.be/O2oys_YHhCc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA_xFp5ktbU&feature=youtu.be.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Great and 250 of those windmills are needed to replace one nuclear reactor.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

ThanksCm7th! Interesting information that I did not know. Still, those technical difficulties can be overcome.

For example, there is the aerofoil type of turbine that is like four airplane wings standing straight up in a circle. It does not matter which way the wind blows with those. There are some in my area of Japan, but only small ones for home use.

Best example I could find: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPeJU3SYE8U&feature=related

A similar concept for large power generation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Qs2gFlt-o

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How stable would these things be? Wouldn't a typhoon blow them over, or strong waves knock them down? I'm glad they're thinking about alternatives, though.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

maybe during a typhoon those wind turbines could produce even more energy? great thinking, japan!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are hiding the cost of this system from us for a reason.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The cost of building these is huge and their efficiency is not great. The dutch have being trying to be wind energy sufficient for 40 odd years and are only at 40% with hundreds of turbines scattered in the countryside and in the ocean. This just seems like the J-pollies bending to public opinion and throwing money into the ocean. They are just replacing one expensive mistake with another. Geothermal energy is the future for Japan, but it is not as glamorous as 500 wind turbines scattered along the cost.

As for the fishermen's complaints: It would upset the professional fishermen greatly, but it would also create a large fish reserve, which the waters around Japan are sadly lacking in.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan plans to build a floating wind farm near the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant as part of the country’s disaster reconstruction effort, a government official said Thursday

Isn't this the location of the Floating Contaminated Water Containment is Located ? Are they going to place the Wind Farm on this ?

The energy agency plans to earmark up to 20 billion yen for the project, with the money coming from a special extra budget intended to finance the rebuilding of the disaster-hit northeast, the official said.

A Govt run renewable energy project is a good thing. But does it really cost that much ? Why not use some of the funds to Convert Incinerators in the area to trash to steam power plants. Waste to Energy just seems an efficient way to utilize waste. It reduces pollution so it's better for the environment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichi Sep. 16, 2011 - 03:19PM JST Could get wiped out by a tsunami?

I believe the tsunami wave height is inversely proportional to the depth of the water, so if they put the farm out far enough a tsunami shouldn't be a problem. A typhoon is a very different question, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

photoman did you just invoke the inverse square law?? lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Floating wind farms? Thats got to be a heck of a float. In Europe where they have been building off-shorre windfarms (e.g. the UK, Germany and Denmark), they have been builing them on massive pylons. Those are huge and heavy contraptions. I don´t know what kind of "floats" the Japanese politicians are thinking of.... if they are thinking at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

good concept. i want to know more in details.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Building wind power turbines on land would be more difficult, because of the problems of noise pollution and city planning regulations,”

How about building wind turbines on "Ghost Town" (no offending here) that will never back to normal. Make a lemondade from a lemon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's a decent backgrond article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine

I don"t think it's such a bad idea, though i wonder about how the construction and maintenance will be done in an area that still has a lot of radioactivity. I know the things will float , but they have to be anchored somehow. Still, it's about the only kind of plant that could be built in the current environment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wind power is a good supplemental source of energy, but because wind never blows at a constant speed - and sometimes isn't blowing at all - it can never be relied on as the primary source of power for a region.

Re excessive wind burning out motors or shattering blades: The newer units have constant-speed technology that "feather" the blades when an overspeed is detected - causing the blades to take less of a "bite" out of the wind and slow back down.

Re wind turbines "devastating" bird populations: Yes, birds are killed by the blades of older turbines that have to move fast to generate electricity, but there are newer turbines that do not have to spin fast to generate the same amount of electricity. Also, the bird populations are only going to be at risk inside the wind farm. Unless this particular species ONLY resides inside the wind farm, their population could never be "devastated". An offshore floating farm would put... seagulls at risk?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How about building wind turbines on "Ghost Town" (no offending here) that will never back to normal. Make a lemondade from a lemon.

Farmboy, I don"t think it's such a bad idea, though i wonder about how the construction and maintenance will be done in an area that still has a lot of radioactivity

This can be done. Well, the reason behind it is this. These who lost their property, farm, business foever will get a guarantee life time income from an electricity distribution to Tokyo along with other government compensations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A national, single-standard grid system, in tandem with more renewable-energy generation, would help solve Japan's power needs in the absence of an increase in nuclear power.But the power supply monopoly of the 10 major power companies needs to be broken. These power companies each operate their own little fiefdoms.

The quickest method for increasing power generated by renewables is solar not expensive wind farms out at sea. If this project goes ahead, the companies involved will make a nice profit.

According to, Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.

"Rice produced on one hectare of land yields a yearly revenue of 1.58 million yen, while a solar plant on the same surface would generate a revenue of 7.5 million yen."

With changes in Japan's land-use law, struggling agricultural farmers could become profitable solar farmers.

This means, with 2,000 sq kms of land in Fukushima contaminated by some level of radiation casting grave concerns for food safety from the prefecture. Farmers with contaminated land could turn them into mini solar farms.

Solar panels don't make a noise, or kill wild birds.

¥20 billion spend on solar panels for Fukushima make a whole lot more sense than six floating wind turbines.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of those Wind-turbines can't handle very strong winds, the Blades will disintegrate or they would burn the generator/motor out. Check YouTube for Videos of the Blades coming apart.

So a typhoon will wreck havoc on a wind-farm. Many other countries also build them off-shore due to the same regulations.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Wind power devastates bird populations.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

We don't need more electricity, we need to work on efficiency and reduction.

Totally agree!

My question is--20 billion yen is a lot of money for 6 turbines. Are they sure this is the best option? Why does it seem that the government either doesn't think about their plans at all or they spend too long pondering and considering?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Renewable energy is still unable to replace nuclear energy in entirety. Small though these steps may be, they represent Japan's efforts to work towards a future where technology allows it to be possible.

Or at least, I hope that's the case.

At any rate, nuclear power won't be going anywhere for now.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

They obviously want this to fail. Wind generators out at sea in a country that has a "typhoon season"? if it fails, they will say our only hope is nuke.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

But he acknowledged the offshore project may face resistance from local fishermen, whose businesses have already suffered from the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Who cares about what they think or want. What happened to Safety First?..I'm sure I won't be eating anything they catch in those irradiated waters. YUCK! Common sense, people!!

Evacuees still have no idea when they will be able to return home.

OK, these people don't seem to give a rat's ass about radiation and the long term consequences to them and their children, so, let them go...just remember to turn down their claims 10~20 years from now when they all get cancer-ridden and stuff.... They will have no RIGHT no claim anything if they went back against advice. Again, Major lack of "COMMON SENSE" plays its role again!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

You see! All it took was the worst possible disaster in modern history for Japan to consider actually doing something. It is a shame though that they are doing the wrong thing. Firstly they should not be building anything in the nuclear wasteland that Fukushima is now. They should also instead focus on geothermal and tidal power as Japan would be a perfect candidate.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So will these fans push the dirty contaminated air out to sea??

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Six turbines at an average cost of over $4.0 billion each. Classic Japanese efficiency. Glad i'm not going to be apying that bill.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites