tech

Gov't to pull out of ¥60 bil wind power project off Fukushima

18 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

This is so funny, the government due to unprofitably pulls out? Uhmmm might want to review a whole lot of things before renewable energy sources. But it's Fucashima so who cares got the Olympics not like it a place to bring up a family. Think the plutonium mocks plant was a bigger cost over a longer period. And that's a go! Pretty sure decision making not based on a monicom of benifit for people, but we know that.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

the government had wasted taxpayers' money 

So what’s new.

Why does anyone ever fall under the assumption that others would spend their own money more effectively than they would they would spend it themselves?

When your job is to spend other people’s money, that’s all you do. You can never hope to spend the money as effectively in the interests of those people than they would do by themselves.

We don’t want to have an economy where unelected bureaucrats are the ones responsible for spending our money wisely. Didn’t humanity learn this already in the 19th and 20th centuries?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

500m USD sounds like a lot of money for three turbines, even offshore ones.

There are lots of questions here. Were they built in the wrong place? Are they going to be moved or scrapped? Are they removing them because the maintenance cost exceeds the power generated?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Classic LDP 'generate goodwill through empty words, then pocket kickback and run' scheme.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

This is a serious mistake. Currently there are wind harvesters that can be attached to the towers and other improvements that will provide more energy from this initial investment. The financial return may be slower but in the long term, power security, in any form, for the nation is going to the greater good...

4 ( +6 / -2 )

How many seabirds got chopped up? But. Commercial wind generation is a typical imbroglio. So-called green energy needs to be localized - imagine the subsidy monies funding that instead of some mondo wind turbine. Such are not cost efficient, though that term begs definition

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Doesn't work does it ?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

installed 20 kilometers off Naraha

I would call that in the middle of nowhere.

Loooooog cables?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The feasibility study was obviously incorrectly based on political point scoring and not wind speeds.....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There are lots of questions here. Were they built in the wrong place? Are they going to be moved or scrapped? Are they removing them because the maintenance cost exceeds the power generated?

Lots and lots of questions that will never be asked and will fade out like a setting sun in the horizon because investigative journo is alien here and practised only on some far off asteriod and would need a mission by hayabusa to capture it,

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes, this is a great example of Corruption, which needs to be followed up. Just as should be the case within any Country.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They were touted as among the world's largest!

It will cost around 50 million US to pull them down, so they must have been HUGELY uneconomical to justify the added expense of scrapping them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Fukushima Minyu Newspaper reports that the project has cost 620億円 to date, with another 50億円 needed to scrap the turbines. Negotiations with two recyclers were broken off after they expressed interest only in the cables.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The bubble is bursting. Wind power do need a huge amount of raw material and with a short lifelength you could burn fossil fuel with less CO2 exhaust. We have just been told a lie.

Do watch the video "planet of the humans"

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Very good that they have come to a decision. To meet the climate change nuclear is the best solution.

As you can find out renewables are just a wet dream that doesn´t effect the climate change at all, The Germany have built a lot of renewables but the result is hardly no elimination of CO2-exhaust.

Fukushimas actual radioactive exhaust yeardoses of 120 mSv. An astronaut joining the Mars lander will reciep a yeardos of 360 mSv and that will increase the risk for lungcancer with 3 percent. The Chernobyl where the animals and flowers have returned will have yeardoses of 800 mSv and 200 persons do still live in restricted area. A 90 years man do live fit for life.

The total radioactive waste in Sweden represents 6 000 cubic metres while three wind power plants with 90 metre long wings will have a volyme of 90 cubic metre. 300 Wind powers will therefore have 50 percent more waste than the radioactive waste. The waste will never become without risk for your health. The epoxi do have a great risk of cancer.

Smoking will increase the risk for lungcancer with 1 500 percent. You ought to have restricted area around every smooker.

If nuclear in Sweden have to de constructed as effect of accidents anywhere in the world wind power ought to be constructed in same way. That is circumstances anywhere in the world must be taken care of by constructing wind power. No operation ackomodation will be allowed without this changes of construction.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

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