tech

Gov't threatens to cut solar power subsidies

6 Comments
By Aaron Sheldrick and Osamu Tsukimori

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

© Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

6 Comments
Login to comment

Perhaps the solar power is effective in the private case but nothing for a country´s main electrical production. In Sweden they install in the final end 10 MW solar power and speaking about replacing nuclear. This 10 MW installed effect although giving just a fortune real effect to the net represents just one promille of the installed nuclear power. Where is the overview from the solar bransch. Do they really beleave that solar power could replace nuclear if so they haven´t any overview at all.

Like the solar bransch investigation and development is also ongoing in the nuclear bransch. Sofar build gen III+ avvaiting for gen IV and Thorium-reactors. This have an ability to save our climate while solar power

haven´t.

The radiation from Fukushima is lower than the natural radiation in Norway. The risk for lungcancer will increase to between one and two percent while an astronaut following the Mars Lander is exposed for a radiation level increasing the lungcancerrisk to three percent. Smoking do increase with 1 500 percent.

Summary. The air quality by means of nuclear and electric cars can become improved much more and giving less unhealthy effect than as it is today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Solar industries must become more competitive. Giving them free money will only delay the progress.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-climate-assessment_us_5bf5b31fe4b0771fb6b57ccb

The Fourth Annual Climate Assessment in the USA stated that the US has warmed 1.8 degrees F in the last century, and looks to be on the way to warm up another 3 degrees F in the next 82 years, by 2100. Assuming that this assessment applies generally to the global climate, it would behoove the governments of the world to do what they can to encourage sources of energy production which do not generate green house gases, such as Solar. Our ability to live on this planet may depend on actions taken at this time.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It shows pretty clearly where the J-gov's priorities lay. They are spending billions refurbishing the ageing and outdated nuclear plants, but cut back subsidies for renewables. How many nuclear disasters will it take for the Japanese government and power cartels to realise that, nuclear power is neither cheap or safe?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Because LPG, coal and 40-year-old nuclear technology are the key to an energy dependent future... the Japanese government long ago put industrial and manufacturing interests over the safety of its people by building nuclear power plants, rather than having to trust "foreign" energy supplies. Japan has an abundance of opportunity for renerwable energy - wind, save, hydro, solar, geothermal - but the nuclear industry has a lock on the government.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

One word only to the Japanese government. "Disgusting,"

1 ( +4 / -3 )

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