History & Exopolitics

Denmark Just Produced 140% of its Electricity Needs with Renewable Wind Power

  • Foggydogbreath

    This is great, but it’s Denmark. A country with a population that’s less than Massachusetts. The question really is, can this scale in major countries, is solar a better technology or what percentage of a hybrid approach would work best?

    • Folasimi Alamudun

      I think a hybrid approach will work for a country like the US because it encompasses a wide variety of climatic conditions. This works for them probably because of availability.

    • Rob Elliott

      Using a Hybrid of Wind, Solar and Hydro Electric power is best.

      The best option are solar roofs. If more houses and buildings in a city and strong solar roofs, mixed with Hydro and Wind Power one could easily produce a great deal of power. The issue we have is our power needs keep going up.

      • http://codemonkeybryan.com Bryan Elliott

        In a mix like that, I guarantee you that over the course of the year, the hydro will be generating the *vast* majority of the power.

        • Rob Elliott

          Really depends on the grid, the country and the infrastructure. Hydro is one of the more efficient forms particularly if you have natural waterfalls like say.. Niagara Falls. But Coastal Countries can produce a fair bit of wind, Places with lots of sunlight (like parts of the US, Africa and the Middle East) can produce a fair bit of Solar. The Key to all of that is the ability to store it. The mix though certainly helps, and is perfectly viable without Coal, or Nuclear, or other fossil fuel options. (at least currently)

        • atomikrabbit

          RE advocates love to take credit for hydro because it does all the heavy lifting for them in terms of providing big generation numbers and decent capacity factors. Never mind that all the really good sites have already been exploited, and half of the existing ones would never have made it through a modern EIS permitting analysis today, let alone the NIMBYs.

          Point out to them that the largest single loss of life from an energy infrastructure failure was from a hydroelectric facility (Banqiao, 1975, 171,000 dead), and they will quickly point out that was a long time ago, in a poorly regulated foreign country.

          Then, mention nuclear as a potential climate solution, and they will, without any trace of irony, slam down their trump card – “Chernobyl!”

          • VooDude

            What happened to the 40% overproduction, beyond Denmark demand?

            I don’t have stats for Denmark, but I do, for Germany.

            When weather-power peaks over demand, Germany sometimes has to pay other countries to take the power. A negative price.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2bf94dcd7d8bf250e1656b906b58b71e9f8e3014f16bf8676c96ac428b555214.jpg

            The above is 2014 – several incidents, hours long.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f53f4d872a54a13b8fae4ce4d1e3c798902ce535f6e73a9a2e5ae0d637c8de4.jpg

            Fewer dips into negative territory, in 2015, but plenty that are darned close.

            Wind turbines don’t throttle back, and we don’t have window-blinds over the photovoltaic panels to moderate the sunshine hitting them. The law in Germany does not permit the curtailment of weather power, anyway. Excess solar and wind power generated in Germany has been such a problem that they have actually PAID other european countries (typically, France) to take their excess power (lest the grid voltage, or frequency soar, and the grid collapse). Germany’s grid is connected to other national grid systems, through “inter-ties”. When Germany is over-producing power, it pays other national grid systems to consume that electricity through the inter-ties.

            Paying other countries to take electricity is an extreme action, meaning that Germany has already placed all the energy storage and generation dispatching margins that it has available, into the mix. The only action left, is the abrupt disconnection of generators from the grid. If the power transient that follows is too large, or too fast to be dispatchable, it will result in grid collapse, and blackouts. That hasn’t happened, though. Germany’s engineering and financial prowess has kept German electricity more dependable than the USA.

            Kiley Kroh, writing in Climate Progress, 13 May 2014: “On Sunday, Germany’s impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion — nearly 75 percent — of the country’s overall energy demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the country’s power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon …”

            http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/

            http://www.renewablesinternational.net/germanys-record-renewable-performance/150/537/78770/

            When Kroh says, “electricity prices actually dipped into the negative” that means they PAID to get rid of their excess power, and for much of the afternoon! How is that for a “return on investment”? This is spun by some media reports, by saying that Germany is exporting electrical power to other nations. Those reports make no mention that sometimes it is exported at a loss. Data for April, 2014, showed a short duration minimum price of -5 €/MWh.

            http://cf01.erneuerbareenergien.schluetersche.de/files/smfiledata/3/7/1/2/4/5/78RIwindPVGin414.pdf

            The price was essentially zero from 06:00 through to noon, then significantly negative for the next six hours. A good twelve hours of generating electricity for free, or monetary losses.

            http://energytransition.de/2014/05/german-power-prices-negative-over-weekend/

            The Economist: “ON JUNE 16th [2013] something very peculiar happened in Germany’s electricity market. The wholesale price of electricity fell to minus €100 per megawatt hour (MWh). That is, generating companies were having to pay the managers of the grid to take their electricity. It was a bright, breezy Sunday. Demand was low. Between 2pm and 3pm, solar and wind generators produced 28.9 gigawatts (GW) of power, more than half the total. The grid at that time could not cope with more than 45GW without becoming unstable. At the peak, total generation was over 51GW; so prices went negative to … protect the grid from over-[frequency, or over-voltage].”

            http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587782-europes-electricity-providers-face-existential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros

            December 2014: German national weekly Die Zeit writes, “In the first half of 2014 power prices were negative for 71 hours.”

            (Translation by By P Gosselin on 9. Dezember 2014)

            Remember, many weather power providers have long term contracts with guaranteed rates, so they are not harmed by negative electric rates. In Germany, the household consumer ends up paying other countries to take away the excess production from weather power. When excess power is exported at a profit, it has little effect on the consumer’s price.

            Reuters: “North Europe’s devastating storms sent wind turbines spinning and helped strengthen a new winter phenomenon for the region – negative electricity prices. [Financially] Damaging [for conventional] utilities losing money making electricity, delighting traders, who cash in on price swings, they will not, however, mean cheap power for households.”

            “In Germany, Europe’s largest renewable power producer, negative prices have appeared more often in recent years, mainly because its renewable energy law requires that green power must be given priority on the network even when supply outstrips demand.”

            “Germany’s role as a benchmark electricity market in the region and its growing power links to neighbouring markets mean its price fluctuations are echoed in surrounding countries, as markets move increasingly in tandem. On December 24, 2013, when industrial and business power demand dropped sharply, the price of German power for intra-day delivery fell to an average of -35.45 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh) between 0000 and 0600 in the morning, touching lows of -62.03/MWh halfway through that period.”

            “In Denmark and Sweden, strong winds also caused negative prices on Christmas Eve, with contracts in western Demark falling to -6.28 euros/MWh as wind farms generated near full capacity. The … Nordpool Spot exchange saw the average price drop to a low of -30 euros/MWh during one hour on December 25.”

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/09/us-europe-power-prices-idUSBREA080S120140109

            “In Germany, where inflexible power generation from renewables is increasing, 56 hours on 15 days with negative prices were observed on the Day-Ahead market in 2012. On the Intraday market there were 41 hours …[over a period of] 10 days.”

            http://www.epexspot.com/en/company-info/basics_of_the_power_market/negative_prices

            The inclusion of weather power “…substantially impacts the dynamics of intra-day electricity prices by increasing the likelihood of negative prices.”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014098831100301X

          • VooDude

            ”… slam down their trump card – “Chernobyl!” …”

            Although power was produced by Chernobyl, that wasn’t the purpose of the installation. It was a Plutonium factory for the nuclear bombs. )I have no proof of that )
            Chernobyl had no containment dome, and the reactor was made with graphite, which burned and scattered darned near everything. Fukushima, on the other hand, had three cores melt, and it only released a tenth of the radionuclides that Chernobyl did. But, compared to the nuclear bomb tests:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a80b1cbd7e7ca4a01a247eb4054e4309d90efb852c7d0cc2770acfe534edb84c.jpg

          • atomikrabbit

            “It was a Plutonium factory for the nuclear bombs.”

            I’ve seen no evidence of that – even from the likes of von Hippel, who would jump on that if it were so. Although the RBMKs were derivative designs of old Soviet graphite-moderated Pu production reactors, by the 1970s the Soviets already had more than ample supplies of weapons-grade (<7% Pu-240) Pu.

            However, the online refueling capabilities (which meant a proper containment building would have been too expensive) and use of very low enriched U, meant that they possibly COULD HAVE converted them to military use if the need arose: http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/2008/04/rbmk-reactors-and-weapons-grade.html

            The design was bad enough – let's not also accuse them of offenses they didn't commit.

          • VooDude

            Well said.

          • cloudshe

            are you taking into account the amount of radiation released into the ocean?

          • VooDude

            “radiation” is not released into the ocean, radioactive material is what was released. Radioactive material, in turn, emits radiation. Kind of like light. Light is emitted by a light bulb, but you cannot ‘contaminate’ water with light; you cannot hold light in your hand.

            “…account the amount of radiation released into the ocean…”
            To consider the release, one must also know how much radioactive material was in the ocean, to begin with. Fukushima’s contribution to the ocean in the vicinity of Japan is unprecedented in the concentration. However, the nuclear or atomic bomb tests released more radioactive material into the oceans – but they just spread it out more.

            Aoyama, Michio, 2015, did a nice compilation of radioactive material spread over the globe. Here is his graphic, but magnified over the North Pacific:
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f27b3281b19bfdb7ddc4e1d7134c8a29d557421a09675c21c9aec0fc261a80c.jpg
            … although the maps are in units of Becquerels per unit area, and monitoring of the ocean is usually in Becquerels per cubic volume.
            The bomb tests contaminated the North Pacific Ocean to levels in excess of 100 mBq/litre

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c42ac8c64477c75a6b0cc04f032b601279aeaa5ec0019ca68a45f002b9d63018.jpg

      • VooDude

        ”… Wind, Solar and Hydro Electric …”

        The intermittent sources (Wind, Solar) can be buffered by “pumped hydro” – in periods of excess production, water can be pumped up into the hydro reservoir, and when Wind and Solar slack up, that water can be used to recover much of the power – recovering about 79% of the energy stored by pumping water. 99% of the world’s grid-sized storage is pumped hydro.

        Trouble is, there aren’t enough storage resources to dispatch and balance the intermittent wind and solar power production.

        This is a really important component to making wind and solar (weather power) compatible with the electrical grid. At any point in time, at all points in time, the electrical generation of power must exactly match the power being consumed on the grid… no more, no less. From this viewpoint, grid storage is considered to be a load, like any other load, when it is storing energy, and a generating source, like any other source, when it is expending stored energy.

        Over-production is a problem in California:
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/071949f3773fc270a9933f7459849d9a179441ddf87c02265be00931884ebaef.jpg

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cc0bde6ccb1c0e255f219292fe6a52c19a7f686eb7c224c93349e06d6e2913e3.jpg

        Somehow, the variable nature of weather power must be dealt with, to keep the power grid stable and within specifications. Methods to deal with that are: Export & import, Storage, dispatching (compensation) by other electrical generation facilities, or, as a last resort, curtailment of weather power input to the grid. Oh, there is one solution that is a bit more extreme, but is growing ever more likely – shut it all off. That’s called a blackout.

        Excess production can be exported to other grids, to the extent that they can accept it. A shortfall in production can be met by importing power across the inter-tie from a grid that can produce it. Unplanned shortfalls in generation capacity, met with purchases from other grids, across the inter-tie, are generally transacted at higher prices. Unplanned exporting of excess production, across the inter-tie to other grids, can sometimes be at negative prices, paying the other grids to take the power. Planning and scheduling production is the most economical way to produce power. Denmark has very limited inter tie capacity with Germany …
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/77a45c09c9a9179cd70ca47bd45f77ad00337b51165d464d97ddeb427d3ae1fa.jpg
        Most of the nations around Denmark also have their own wind and solar … and if the wind is good, it tends to be good over a large region (same with a lot of sunshine) … so, when Denmark has and excess, there are fewer places to export it to. The same is true in reverse; when the wind is slack and the sun isn’t shining, that also tends to encompass a region, making it difficult to “borrow” power. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/810599445999b2b4058ba7fcf44fabe5128c040a16508a7a4b5904e8b992225f.jpg

        Hydroelectric generation is often subject to other conditions and restrictions, such as stream flow minimums and maximums, water storage and release requirements for droughts, lower reservoir water levels before anticipated heavy rainfall, for flood control, and conditions required to be maintained for the benefit of non-human life, humans-be-damned, like the Sacramento River Delta smelt, so not all hydro capacity is available for storage.

        Sunshiny O’ahu-based Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) does not have inter-ties with other countries, and it has NO storage at all. HECO has had problems with home-owners’ rooftop-solar panels. Solar panels seem to be really cool. Solar farms, not so much. Solar farms take up thousands of acres of land. Solar panels on homes don’t seem to take up any space at all. What does a home owner do with solar electricity? Typically, the system is tied into the grid. That is the beginning of the biggest problem – the ability to dispatch the variations in power supplied to the grid from wind and solar… in this case, home-owner solar.

        Hawai’i is a little microcosm of the larger world. Hawai’i is all alone out there in the Pacific Ocean… their electric grid is not tied in to anyone else’s grid. Hawai’i cannot import or export electricity. HECO has stopped allowing any more photovoltaic solar-equipped homes to connect to the grid, because it is unable to adjust its oil-fired generators adequately to compensate for solar and wind power variations. Weather power is produced with absolutely no regards to whether or not power is needed at the moment. Thousands of homes with solar panels on them, don’t have switches available for the grid operator to control, so curtailment of solar production by the grid operator is not an option. New options -which represent additional costs- will divert excess electric production by home solar panels, into the household’s hot-water heater, making some use of the electricity, while keeping the electrical grid under control. Additional expenses, which the rate-payer will have to pay for, is the “early retirement” of the oil-fired equipment of HECO’s generation facilities. Perfectly good oil-fired systems will be replaced by liquified natural-gas burners, which are better able to ramp the generators up, or down, to compensate for highly variable weather power.

        Scientific American: “HECO, in September [2013] told solar contractors on O’ahu that the island’s solar boom is creating problems. On many circuits, the utility said, there’s so much solar energy that it poses a threat to the system and a safety issue.”

        http://www.scientificamerican….

        HECO’s government regulator has demanded that HECO accommodate more homeowners’ requests to tie in their solar panels to the grid. In a sign of desperation, HECO has put up a “wanted, dead or alive” poster; that is, a Request For Proposals, asking for anybody with an electrical energy storage system capable of 60 to 200 MW for up to 30 minutes.

        Honolulu Star Advertiser: “Such a [storage] system would help offset the volatility of solar and wind energy that can negatively affect the quality of power on [the Hawaiian Electric Company’s] power distribution grid.”

        http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140502_HECO_pursues_energy_storage_system_so_it_can_take_more_PV.html

        WSJ: “Energy storage is one of the key missing elements in integrating high levels of renewable energy from variable sources like solar and wind,” said Colton Ching, Hawaiian Electric vice president for energy delivery.”

        http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140505-901204.html

        The grid (itself) cannot store electrical power at all. Any storage capacity, where it exists, is usually a tiny fraction of the grid capacity. It is already allocated, and jealously coveted, though. Likely the best storage facility is called “Electric Mountain” in Wales. http://www.electricmountain.co.uk It was designed and built for that purpose. See this EIA list:

        http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=82&aid=7&cid=regions&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=MK

        for other storage systems).

        The term for adjusting electrical generation, up or down, to compensate for fluctuations in weather power production, or to match demand, is “dispatching”.

        Power companies must have dispatchable generation capacity reserves, available to maintain power production, and grid stability, should any generation facility disconnect from the grid or have reductions in its power output. The reserves must respond rapidly enough to to make up for the wild variations of power production, caused by including weather power on the grid. Hydro power can fill that dispatch requirement, if the facility is able to. Dispatching requires a certain “speed” of response; not all hydro generators were built to do that.

        A number of generation facilities keep many generators for dispatch, and as reserves. “Spinning reserves” – if they are fossil-fueled, are kept fired and hot, but aren’t connected and don’t generate a dime’s worth of electricity. Hydro generators could be kept spinning by letting water flow, just enough to keep the generator ready to respond in the required time frame. “Frequency-responsive spinning reserves” are synchronized, and connected to the grid, but generate only a small fraction of their capacity. Their purpose is to pick up what is expected as a probable shortfall. That might be due to equipment failure, or to cover the expected range of variation of on-line weather power production. These facilities have all the fixed costs, plus most of the variable costs (with fuel costs, for “fired” plants, or water flow, for hydro plants, reduced somewhat) while producing far fewer billable kilowatt-hours of energy.

        Frequency-repsonsive spinning reserves are the first-line defense for drops in electric power production, or increases in demand. When unloaded, they produce zero revenue, yet have all the fixed costs, and all the variable costs associated with personnel, and almost ten percent of water flow or the fuel costs, compared to when they run fully loaded. For those of you who think that carbon dioxide emissions are a problem, –they aren’t– pay special attention – these fossils-fuel fired, dispatchable reserves emit CO2, at about the same rate that weather-power saves CO2 emissions.

        Willem Post: “…in synchronous (3,600 rpm) standby mode (high-speed idling, 24/7/365, no or minimal energy sent to the grid), the fuel consumption is 6 to 8 percent of rated fuel consumption.”

        “…to balance [dispatch] the variable wind energy, adds $17/MWh for natural gas, and $55/MWh for coal, and reduces the [fossil fuel savings] of wind energy, as more and more wind energy is added to the grid.”

        http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/310631/more-realistic-cost-wind-energy

        The best available dispatchable generation technology is natural gas turbine power plants It’s the practically the only kind of power plant that can be dispatched to the extent necessary to keep the grid stable, when weather power is added, beyond, roughly, ten percent market penetration.

        Any generator -hydro or fuel-burning- has a point of operation where it is most efficient, and operating it at some other point is wasteful. If you make it part of your dispatchable reserves, then it is operated away from its optimal economy point, so it is less efficient. It is just like your car, if you have a steady foot on the gas pedal, you get good fuel economy. There is a certain speed for the car, that yields the best fuel economy. But if you floor it, then brake hard, then floor it, then brake hard… or, if it is idled a lot, its fuel economy suffers.

        It takes about ten thousand dollars’ worth of natural gas, and about eight hours, to take a gas power plant from “off” to “on” and ready to connect to the grid… There are similar expenses, and times, for any generation facility that burns fuel. Diesel and gasoline internal-combustion engine generators probably have the shortest time from a cold start to full operation, but at great expense.

        When fuel-burning generators are used to dispatch the flaws of weather power, it is cheaper to keep them on-line, burning fuel, while generating little to no electricity, so that, at any moment, they can jump in and pick up load from slacking weather power facilities… in order to keep the grid stable.

        Electric Mountain is highly dispatchable, pumped hydro storage facility. A hydro facility does not suffer from wasted fuel, as fuel-burning facilities do when dispatched. Hydroelectric facilities still have fixed and variable costs, above and beyond a simple water reservoir.

        Save your reservoirs, make them into pumped-hydro systems.

        • atomikrabbit

          Great explanation of grid stability.

          Apparently the CO2 reduction benefits of wind, especially when it is “backed up” (an odd usage when the “backup” is contributing 70% of the energy) by methane, is so marginal that even the choice of siting can tip the carbon emissions scale: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html

          • VooDude

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cc0bde6ccb1c0e255f219292fe6a52c19a7f686eb7c224c93349e06d6e2913e3.jpg
            This is an executive summary, so the details are fuzzy – apparently, 11,000 MW of weather-power has to be dispatched with 13,000 MW of 3-hour continuous up-ramping capability.

            It takes about 8 hours and $10,000 of methane to take a natural gas plant from cold standby to “ready to accept all loads” … so 13,000 MW is apparently kept hot, just in case the weather power quits. That is a substantial amount of CO2 emissions.

          • atomikrabbit

            Looks like California politicians are determined to take over where Enron left off – but instead of an obsessive pursuit of revenue, they are pursuing an unattainable agenda.

    • Elfa

      Apparently if they built a 10,000 square mile solar plant in the US desert it would be enough to power the nation. Sure, you’d need storage for cloudy days and maintenance would be a pain but compare it to the upkeep and maintenance for all other power plants in the US combined and it makes sense.

      Problem is the security concern of putting all your eggs in one easy to target basket.

      • VooDude

        ”… Problem is the security concern …”

        The problem is the distribution of power, as well as the security, and storage.

  • Bryan Morgan

    At the cost of 41 cents per kilowatt hour its the highest in Europe and because of energy taxes, Denmark has the highest household electricity prices in the world.

  • Alan

    Well done Denmark, I dare say if the UK had a population of about 5.5 million our percentage of renewables would be pretty impressive as well.

    • JenniWest

      Less than NYC…

  • http://codemonkeybryan.com Bryan Elliott

    For a day. That’s not interesting; that’s a windy day. Tell me when they’re generating that consistently for a year. Then I’ll be impressed.

  • JenniWest

    Wind is not as crappy as solar at its ONE JOB, but close. Yay for that “one day.” But the rest of the year? And what backs up that incapable, resource intensive, inefficient, unreliable, expensive wind power when it’s not really windy?

  • zbret .

    E=v^3 The energy generated is proportional to the CUBE of the wind speed. If the same 140% power day had half the wind speed, the output would be 1/8th or about 15% generation. At 1/4 the speed, you get about 2% generation.

  • zbret .

    If you want cheap reliable energy, you need nuclear. The rest of this is just random output generation and wasting money.

    • Elfa

      What we really need is fusion.

      • Michael Ben

        If fusion was available and they could make money off it , it would be here.
        Obviously one of those 2 conditions isn’t being met .

        What we really need is peace .

    • Michael Ben

      Maybe you want to ask Japan how cheap it is ?
      Cheap until you factor in a failure. Of course if lives don’t matter ….
      And scientists will tell you it is safe – until it isn’t .

      • Sam Gilman

        I live in Japan. For Japan, it’s still the cheaper option in both lives and money compared to what would have to replace it, which is fossil fuels. The opportunities for renewable energy are limited because of population density (and thus high power density of demand), high forestation rates over very mountainous country and relatively poor wind resources. Whereas most places the challenge for wind/solar isn’t land availability, but integration, here we would seriously struggle to generate enough power-equivalent on renewables alone even before we deal with intermittent integration – unless we start to do some serious damage to the natural environment.

        • Michael Ben

          Really ? Does you living in Japan make you an expert ? How can you possibly say it’s cheaper in lives ? How can you be so arrogant as to say what human lives are worth? Have you talked to the parents of the children who have thyroid cancer caused by the disaster ? This doesn’t even address the potential cost of radioactive elements leaking into the ocean.

          Aside from all this obviously 70% of your own Japanese neighbors don’t agree with you. Source –

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/11/1499740/-Fukushima-Five-Years-Later

          Also , all of Japan’s nuclear are now shut down. They have been using coal but are switching to NG .

          Japan also has plans to develop offshore and highlands wind , and solar installation is booming .

          Sam , for someone living in japan, you should probably read about what is going around you rather than think you will get the information by osmosis.

          If you were correct in any of your assessments they would be building more nuclear plants , not closing the existing ones down. As for your remarks on alternative sources , they are being developed contrary to what you say .

          • Sam Gilman

            You don’t even live here. Does that make you an expert? Isn’t it even more arrogant to tell someone who lives in Japan that they must be wrong even without asking for evidence?

            As I stated clearly, the lost capacity from the suspension of nuclear power is being replaced by fossil fuels, which is increasingly coal burning. Using American studies as a yardstick, this will kill more people every year through pollution than will ever be killed even including the evacuations, and more every day than will likely ever be killed by the radiation leaks directly.

            The evidence from the thyroid screening programme is that there is no thyroid cancer spike from radiation. All the evidence points to the scary headline figures jumped on by activists being simply the result of intensive screening. Given the levels of exposure, it is unlikely that there would be a spike anyway.

            Japan has 66% forest cover, 12% crop cover, 3.5% roads and 3.5% waterways. None of that is good for solar. Add in parks and other places we’d like sunlight to hit, you’re looking at less than 10% of the land available for solar. Much less than 10%. Japan has a power density of demand of 1.3W/m2. Once you take away unusable land, that rises to a need to generate more than 13W/m2. Solar farms in the south get around 9W/m2. Think of how much of the lived environment would need to be set aside for solar to make a genuinely substantial contribution. Even cutting substantially into current electricity demand is tough. And we’re in one time zone. What happens at night?

            The Japan Wind Power association believes Jaoan could get 20% of current electricity demand by 2050 – onshore and off. Wind speeds are simply not that high. Building along the ridges if mountains that are spiky and with the surface held together by the trees requires a lot of concrete and access roads. The weather is not that varied at any one time. What happens when much of the whole country is pretty calm?

            Geothermal: 1% without a breakthrough, 15% of current electricity with one.

            Remember: current electricity is not all of the demand we need to electrify if we are to reduce emissions properly.

            Aspiration is one thing, reality is another.

          • Michael Ben

            I never claimed to be an expert. You are the one who expert status by proclaiming it . I do live within 30 miles of fracking sites but would never imply that my proximity to them would give me an edge in scientific information about what is going on there. Most everyone has access to the same reports through the internet.

            Your second remark claims I’m arrogant for not asking for your sources .
            You are the one making the claims , you should provide your sources as I did .
            That is simple enough to understand.

            But since you need to be asked … what are your sources ? In your second posting you still have provided none. Yet your claims are specific and absolute.

            So what is your source for saying … “Using American studies as a yardstick, this will kill more people every year through pollution than will ever be killed even including the evacuations, and more every day than will likely ever be killed by the radiation leaks directly.”

            What is your source for saying …. ” The evidence from the thyroid screening programme is that there is no thyroid cancer spike from radiation. ”

            I’ve given you evidence to the contrary here –
            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/03/1456461/-Fukushima-Child-Thyroid-Cancers-Up-Again

            120 of the already operated-upon 152 cancers were confirmed to be thyroid papillary carcinoma. Per Medscape, Thyroid Papillary Carcinoma is the most common form of well-differentiated thyroid cancer, and the most common form of thyroid cancer to result from exposure to radiation. Worse, these tumors tend to spread easily to lymph glands and organs.

            Yes Sam , aspiration and denial are one thing , cancer in children is another .

            Your source of “facts ” seems to be your opinions.

          • Jag_Levak
          • Michael Ben

            LOL , thank you for helping prove my point . At the very best you have given the point of view of the most biased industry viewpoint . I’ve quoted below the
            resume of your author –

            “Experientially, I spent my first career of 21 years as (in order) a nuclear power plant operator, environmental monitoring technician, health physics design engineer, public relations spokesperson, public education coordinator and emergency planner.”

            Interestingly enough when you go to the “about the author ” page , the author does not give his name ! PURE INDUSTRY PROPAGANDA !

            Any scientist doing legitimate work puts his name on his work.
            I went through many website pages looking for the name of the author but none to be found . ACCIDENT OR ON PURPOSE ?

            People reading here should look at the link to see a great example of how distortion of facts and misinformation is spread by a powerful industry.

          • Michael Ben

            Here are cases of what children and parents went through.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu-JQetHRBY

            There is a big difference between what an anonymous writer of
            “scientific facts” tells you and what a video journalist shows you with the real people involved .

          • Joffan

            There is a big difference between what an anonymous writer of “scientific facts” tells you and what a video journalist shows you with the real people involved .

            Yes, there’s a big difference. Science will (eventually) give you reliable information, as in the case of thyroid screening results, which shows Fukushima results to be perfectly normal compared to the same screening process used elsewhere in Japan.

            A video journalist will give you some human reactions. He will pick and choose to make the video as dramatic as possible. It’s useful to see the people involved, but it doesn’t actually tell whether their concerns are valid or not.

            The video itself gives a bit of balance, such as talking to Professor Thomas, but it readily gives weight to concerns and fears that have no actual substance.

          • Michael Ben

            Actually it depends on who is paying the scientists and who is managing them.
            The Challenger exploded in flight because the ” O ” rings failed .
            Management overruled the scientists objections so that the launch would meet the schedule of then president Reagan’s national address. They could have waited for a warmer launch date . The crewed died for political reasons .
            They died because the program was ruled by a political agenda .

            “On January 27, 1986, the forecast for the next morning at the Kennedy Space Center included a launch-time temperature as low as 30 degrees Fahrenheit. NASA had never launched in temperatures that cold and Boisjoly and his four colleagues at Thiokol headquarters in Utah concluded it would be too dangerous too launch.”

            http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/02/06/146490064/remembering-roger-boisjoly-he-tried-to-stop-shuttle-challenger-launch

            Another instance comes to mind – the failure of the computer modules in
            an Ford Explorers that caused more than few deaths. Engineers told management that the module was located too close to the engine manifold
            and might be prone to overheating . A feasibility study concluded that it would cost about $45 to relocate them and decided that the overall cost was too high. So Ford sent them out to the public where they failed time and time again causing accidents and deaths .

            My point is that scientists are always accountable to hires them and it is the choice of the employer what the parameters are of the study and even then whether the study will be released .

            Monsanto has it’s own scientists who declared “round up ” to be safe .
            30 years later the world health organization has implicated it in causing cancer .

            So you will understand if I’m not too comfortable with science (in your words)
            “eventually ” giving reliable information. Perhaps you can tell that to the survivors of catastrophes where the truth came out after loved ones died .

            So when you tell me about concerns and fears that have no actual substance,
            I take it with a grain of salt .

            You could be the voice of management talking to the scientists working on
            the Challenger .

          • Joffan

            Oh yeah, the Conspiracy. Hard to refute facts without that little trick up your sleeve.

            Let’s ignore that what we’re actually talking about here, Tsuda’s paper, has been basically trashed by all other scientists reviewing it, and that the speculation that he used for the screening effect has been proven wrong by the actual measurements undertaken in a properly-conducted study. Of course doing the work properly takes time, hence “eventually”.

          • Michael Ben

            Are you saying the items I mentioned are lies ? To go anywhere form here first tell me if the items I listed are true or false !
            You only want me to respond to your side of the story , only to listen to your perspective .
            By the way , this only started by me saying that Nuclear is not less expensive than other sources of energy when you factor in an accident .
            What do you believe ? It’s still cheaper when you factor in an accident ?

          • Joffan

            I’m saying you’re trying to throw up some distracting smokescreen off-topic junk to avoid facing the reality of the thyroid issue, and your excuse for doing so is that It’s a Conspiracy. I’m not going to discuss your smokescreen garbage,

            Any time you want to agree that thyroid health in Fukushima children is perfectly normal at present, I will congratulate you on your ability to absorb new information and adjust your position accordingly.

          • Michael Ben

            First off, I never asked for any conversation with you, you jumped in on my posting about the expense of nuclear power is far greater than the cost of the plant. That the disaster cleanup and costs make it far greater . The discussion about thyroid cancer was tangent off that topic. I posted Fukushima Dairy because I believe it is a legitimate site . When a$$holes start attacking my comments because they feel he is wrong , I could care less, his point of view deserves exposure .
            If you don’t like it post a general comment , I don’t need to hear
            BS from self absorbed morons like you .

            I never said ” it ” was a conspiracy , I said conspiracies exist quite often and made a list to prove it .

            Oh, and your remark that
            “Any time you want to agree that thyroid health in Fukushima children is perfectly normal at present, I will congratulate you on your ability to absorb new information and adjust your position accordingly.”
            is one of the most self righteous , arrogant, and asinine statements
            I’ve ever heard .

            Moreover , this message is mostly for other people reading so they
            know they are plenty of other perspectives than the ones posted by you and your ” self important ” “science is everything ” buddies .

            Well , I guess you can tell I haven’t ” adjusted my position accordingly ” as you would like
            .
            But I would like to thank you for your remarks, I can print them out as a warning about what can happen to a person’s ego when they spend too much time worshipping science.

            By the way , try to have fun sometime , it’ll do you a world of good.

          • Joffan

            If you ignore the clickbait headline, this Science article has good information on the resolution of the thyroid scare:

            To see what comparable screening would find in a population not exposed to radiation, Takamura’s team used the Fukushima survey protocol to examine 4365 children aged 3 to 18 from three widely separated prefectures. They found similar numbers of nodules and cysts and one cancer, for a prevalence of 230 cancers per million people, as they reported in Scientific Reports in March 2015. Other Japanese studies reported thyroid cancer rates of 300, 350, and even 1300 per million. “The prevalence of thyroid cancer detected by advanced ultrasound techniques in other areas of Japan does not differ meaningfully from that in Fukushima Prefecture,” Takamura wrote in Epidemiology.

          • Jag_Levak

            “LOL , thank you for helping prove my point . At the very best you have given the point of view of the most biased industry viewpoint . I’ve quoted below the resume of your author – “Experientially, I spent my first career of 21 years as (in order) a nuclear power plant operator, environmental monitoring technician, health physics design engineer, public relations spokesperson, public education coordinator and emergency planner.””

            Also from that page: “Now in retirement after my second career teaching science and math on the high school level, I have totally distanced myself technically and financially from the nuclear industry. No vested interest remains, if you will. In addition, retirement on a teacher’s pension, IRA, and Social Security has me in the position of having literally nothing to lose by going public.”

            “Interestingly enough when you go to the “about the author ” page , the author does not give his name !”

            I never give my name either. I’ve dealt with three categories of faith-based zealots who have specifically expressed a desire to see me and/or my family come to grievous harm or die: Christian fundamentalists, Creationists, and rabid anti-nukes. I’ve maintained that policy ever since I found a printout of one of my posts to Usenet affixed to my gatepost with a knife. However, who he is doesn’t matter. You asked for sources, and he listed his sources in the footnotes (at least one of which leads to a notoriously unhinged anti-nuke site by Noel Wauchope). Also, that was just one of the three links I provided. The video was from Ian Goddard, who is actually opposed to nuclear power in its present form, and his work has been cited by no less than Arnie Gundersen (despite the fact that Goddard utterly demolished Gundersen’s pet theory about a moderated prompt criticality in spent fuel pool 3). And the sciencemag article would normally count as a primary news source in its own right.

            Meanwhile, on your side, you have a DailyKos article which got its information from Mochizuki’s Fukushima Diary site. Skipping over the many things Mochizuki has been wrong or irrational about, even the source article he cites included the following: “Hoshi, the chairman of Fukushima health investigative committee comments it is unlikely that it’s related to Fukushima accident because the radiation level was lower than Chernobyl accident and under 6 years old children (at the moment of 3/11/2011) are not diagnosed of the thyroid tumor.”

            The translation is a bit rough, but what he’s saying is that they have found no cases of thyroid tumors in children under 6 years of age–the population group which should have shown the largest effects if radiation had been the source of these tumors. That was covered in the Goddard video link, BTW.

            “People reading here should look at the link to see a great example of how distortion of facts and misinformation is spread by a powerful industry.”

            And I would further invite them to check out the sources he cites.

            Are you still laughing out loud, or have you reached the phase where you get angry because your preferred belief system is being threatened by people presenting ordinary real-world information?

          • Michael Ben

            I still laugh out loud that you would use a source with no name . If you rely on those I can make one up for you. You contradict yourself saying you rely on scientific evidence and then post fictional sources with no author.
            Sorry dude , that is not evidence . And if you take yourself seriously you shouldn’t be posting it .
            About translations being rough , I think your interpretations are a bit rough .
            My belief system is not threatened , it is amused at you and your attempts to
            present fiction as evidence .
            Sorry , your credibility is lost to me . Real world information has authors .

          • Jag_Levak

            “I still laugh out loud that you would use a source with no name.”

            What does his name matter if he gives full references and citations to back up what he says?

            “If you rely on those I can make one up for you.”

            Fukushima Diary has on multiple occasions relayed information Mochizuki got from Enenews–one of the most-cited sources anti-nukes use. (And Enenews returns the favor by relaying posts from Fukushima Diary.) Does your dismissal of anonymous sources extend to Enenews (and anyone who uses them)?

            “You contradict yourself saying you rely on scientific evidence and then post fictional sources with no author.”

            You are grasping at straws. You haven’t shown that anything he said was fictional, and he provided his citations.

            “Sorry dude, that is not evidence . And if you take yourself seriously you shouldn’t be posting it.”

            I’ll leave it to interested readers to decide for themselves whether his articles are adequately supported by his citations.

            “My belief system is not threatened, it is amused at you and your attempts to present fiction as evidence.”

            You didn’t establish that anything in any of my links (or in any of the links they contained) were fiction. You just found an excuse to dismiss a source which said things you didn’t want to hear.

            “Sorry, your credibility is lost to me.”

            If you have already decided to reject any information which conflicts with what you want to believe, no dissenting source will be credible to you.

            “Real world information has authors.”

            Does that mean you will scrupulously avoid any citation that tracks back to Enenews?

          • Sam Gilman

            Hi Michael,

            I can see from other replies that you’re rather attached to the idea that Fukushima is causing thyroid cancer (the “lol” seemed inappropriate, frankly), despite already been shown evidence that it isn’t. I’ll make another attempt with links to academic sources.

            I’ll link to the evidence at the end, which has been laid out in the pages of the research journal Epidemiology. An anti-nuclear activist-researcher Toshihide Tsuda tried to publish an article claiming there was a spike. What the journal did was publish it ahead of print along with a commentary quietly saying that the study was meaningless (from a methodological point of view) and invited responses. This month it published the article with seven separate letters of criticism both from leading international researchers and from researchers in Japan working on the screening programme trashing it pretty much from top to bottom. I’ve never seen an article appear with 8 critical accompaniments before. The verdict is clear: the evidence points to no spike.

            Here’s the biggest mistake you’re making. By citing the headline figure and screaming “Cancer spike! lol!”, you’re completely ignoring something called the screening effect. You’re comparing the results of a comprehensive screening programme with the results of national registries. This ignores the latency period of thyroid cancer which ranges between three or four to thirty years. This means the screening programme will find cancers many years into the future.

            Here’s an analogy that may help. Imagine a hospital administrator wants to plan for next month’s births in a small town. In this town there are around ten births a month, and the hospital has capacity for just over that. So she orders a pregnancy test on all women of childbearing age. The results come back – there are 100 women pregnant!

            Now, for you, going by your method of assessing the thyroid results, this means panic – OMG there are going to be 100 babies born next month!! Thankfully, the hospital administrator has a better grip on the facts of life and knows that this does not mean 100 babies next month because these tests cover women at all stages of pregnancy, including those that sadly will not make it to term.

            What Tsuda did in his study was fix the latency period to only four years – very much like saying pregnancies last two months. There is no justification for this at all. It appears to be a deliberate fix to assume that all thyroid cancers discovered developed after the accident.

            Evidence from Korea indicates that for adults, comprehensive screening resulted in a fifteen fold increase in the detection of thyroid tumours. The rate would be even higher for children. This is because thyroid cancers can have very long latency periods, the regular rate of cancer increases notably after teenage years and it seems likely, given data from analysis of thyroids of the deceased elderly, a lot of thyroid tumours may be indolent – just sitting here pretty much forever not growing. Indeed, the reaction of the researcher who first alerted the world to the thyroid spike at Chernobyl is that the Fukushima results indicate this, and not radiogenic tumours.

            Other evidence that points to the headline numbers being the screening effect:

            – the absence of any difference in incidence between low and high dose regions. Tsuda actually tries to claim there is, but he did so by cherrypicking his comparisons quite blatantly.
            – the low doses compared to Chernobyl: we simply shouldn’t be seeing a spike. Anti-nuclear activists don’t seem to understand that the laws of physics apply everywhere on Earth. Why should Fukushima radiation unit for unit be more than a hundred times more dangerous that Chernobyl radiation?
            – the lack of tumours in the youngest age group, as this is where the incidence should be highest if these cancers are from radiation. Tsuda should know this, as he refers to the ages of victims and the frustration that some of the oldest children will have been missed by the screening because they had the highest rates of tumours. Well, if it’s radiation causing it, that simply shouldn’t be happening.
            – the evidence from comparator screening studies of children within Japan showing similar rates of thyroid cancer in people not exposed to Fukushika radiation, and similar rates of nodules (actually, Fukushima has a lower rate)
            – the presence of a strong gender difference, typical of adult-onset which shouldn’t be there if the cancers were radiogenic
            – the total absence of markers for radiogenic cancer in tumour analysis, and the general presence of markers for normal adult-onset tumours.

            Here is the journal page for the current issue (May 2016) with the Tsuda study and Scott Davis commentary.

            http://journals.lww.com/epidem/pages/default.aspx

            You can click through to get to the letters, but here are the choicest ones:

            On the screening effect and lack of variation between dose areas:
            http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Citation/publishahead/Re__Thyroid_Cancer_Among_Young_People_in.99064.aspx

            http://mobile.journals.lww.com/epidem/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2016&issue=05000&article=00033

            http://mobile.journals.lww.com/epidem/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2016&issue=05000&article=00032

            http://mobile.journals.lww.com/epidem/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2016&issue=05000&article=00036

            On the evidence from parallel screenings:
            http://journals.lww.com/epidem/pages/articleviewer.aspx?mobile=0&year=2016&issue=05000&article=00031&type=Citation

            On concealment of flawed study design
            http://mobile.journals.lww.com/epidem/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2016&issue=05000&article=00030

            On methodological error and suspect formula switching:
            http://mobile.journals.lww.com/epidem/_layouts/15/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2016&issue=05000&article=00034

            I have personally never before seen a paper published alongside eight separate pieces criticising it. I am beginning to suspect that the journal editors wanted to make a point about the abuse of research for political purposes (the lead author is a member of an anti-nuclear activist group).

            Here is the matter discussed in Science magazine and the response of scientists:

            http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/mystery-cancers-are-cropping-children-aftermath-fukushima

            Scientists emphatically disagree. “The evidence suggests that the great majority and perhaps all of the cases so far discovered are not due to radiation,” says Dillwyn Williams, a thyroid cancer specialist at University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. In journal papers and in a series of letters published last month in Epidemiology, scientists have attacked the alarmist interpretations. Many acknowledge that baseline data from noncontaminated areas were needed from the outset and that the public should have been better educated to understand results and, perhaps, to accept watchful waiting as an alternative to immediate surgery. But most also say the findings hint at a medical puzzle: Why are thyroid abnormalities so common in children? The “surprising” results of the screening, Williams says, show that “many more thyroid carcinomas than were previously realized must originate in early life.”

            Here is the matter discussed on the Science-Based Medicine blog by the American Oncologist David Gorski:

            https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/confusing-overdiagnosis-for-an-epidemic-of-thyroid-cancer-in-japan-after-fukushima/

            The letters received by Epidemiology from radiation biologists, physicists, and epidemiologists were scathing. For instance, it was noted that the authors used an unvalidated method to estimate IRRs, that the study design was not clearly labeled as an ecological study (for more on ecological studies and the ecological fallacy that vastly overestimates correlations, go here), and, of course, that there could indeed be a massive increase in prevalence due solely to a screening effect

            .

            To be fair, Tsuda and colleagues replied. But they failed to address the screening effect properly (they (try to?) conflate minimum latency and average latency), fail to dismiss the evidence from Korea, make something up as far as I can tell about an assumed latency period of 20 years still not being enough to explain the figures (it would do, easily), they completely ignore the issue of the lack of difference in incidence between high and low dose populations within the prefecture, and misdescribe the results from other surveys. Their final paragraph reveals their true motivations, which is to make a political statement, and introduce evidence that actually contradicts their view. It’s a hell of a mess.

            Here are some other data they ignored: pathological examination of tumours shows no link to radiation:

            http://www.fukushimaminponews.com/news.html?id=435

            As well as prevalence of nodules in the Fukushima surveys being lower than in comparator studies:

            http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083220

            So I’m afraid all the evidence does clearly point to there not being a rise in thyroid cancers from Fukushima.

            What you have to think about is, even faced with all this evidence from clearly expert sources uninvolved with any industry, how much you actually want there to be a rise in children with cancers. That may sound horrible, but it’s where motivated reasoning on this issue can take people.

          • Michael Ben

            I’m not attached to any idea except possible that money seems to buy all the biased studies that wants . I didn’t even know about the thyroid cancer until
            I stumbled across it in reading about Fukushima Diary. –

            Before we move on to that let me address your comments about me. –
            First – don’t lie about what I said so you can try to make your argument seem valid . I never yelled or cried ” cancer spike ” as you quoted me .

            Second – The sentence that I started with ” LOL ” was addressed to someone other than you and the context was that I couldn’t believe he would provide as evidence or proof a quasi- scientific article where the author’s name was absent. Furthermore that “person” if he even existed had huge financial ties to the plant for over 20 years. So much for non bias .
            Saying that the “LOL “was inappropriate is a low blow , it was directed at the validity of a link , and the stupidity of the person who referred it. it had nothing to do with cancer . That being what it is , anyone who read it and misunderstood it’s intent , I beg pardon.

            Now I can get on with my topic concerning an unbiased reporter –

            http://fukushima-diary.com/health-2/confirmed-effects/

            Fukushima Diary is the news site of a corporation Fukushima Diary SRL and all the articles are written by Iori Mochizuki.
            He was in Yokohama, where is about 300km from Fukushima nuclear plant when 311 took place.
            This site started when he was forced to collect information to decide to go or not to go.
            At this moment, this is the only news site in the world on Fukushima issue written in English, by a Japanese citizen who was there on 3/11/2011.
            Sam , i don’t know if you are an industry sympathizer because you are tied financially or you are just a naive science minded guy but please understand this if you will . Many scientists are owned by politics and politics is often owned by corporations . They slant the studies the way the industry wants them.

            And you , whether on purpose or by accident , you twist the debate to make the argument different than what it is . I never argued the viewpoint that any of Toshihide Tsuda work was or was not relevant yet you found someone from the opposing side who allegedly made a mistake and ran with that “mistake ‘ as though it was the sole argument for the opposing side .
            According to Fukushima Diary ( he sites sources ) there are over 150 malignant thyroid tumors and very possibly more coming . You can call this normal because of screening methods but I certainly don’t buy it . Next you will come up with reasons why the malformed animal and insect life is normal also – must be their screening methods ?

          • Sam Gilman

            If you haven’t got a desire to see or at least convince people that there are cancers in children caused by Fukushima, can you explain why you are siding with Iori Mochizuki rather than the many, many experienced researchers who authored the critiques of Tsuda’s study?

            Mochizuki’s website used to have a countdown clock until the day that Japan would become uninhabitable. That was March last year. We’re all still here. The clock quietly disappeared. Are you sure he’s a reliable witness?

            Anyway, citing the number of cancers suggests that you didn’t understand the heavyweight critiques of the approach where you compare registries of what is a slow-growing cancer grown big enough to be detectable by touch, with systematic screening with highly sensitive equipment able to detect tumours up to thirty years before they’re that big.

            I thought the example of pregnancy tests would make the issue clear to you. Was there something about it you didn’t understand?

          • Michael Ben

            Oh, now I understand , there is no exchange of ideas here, you are simply a propaganda machine .

            You don’t respond to one thing that I’ve mentioned unless it is to distort it.
            I understand that you are trapped in one side of your brain, the other side is
            not functioning . You like to hear yourself talk . Listening is turned off.

            You babble on about things that have no relevance to what we discussed .
            You are a regurgitation machine . You have no understanding of the world other than the the one that has brainwashed you with corporate propaganda and corrupted “science” that seemingly backs it up .

            And yes, there is something I don’t understand … but it would be rude for me to ask it .

          • Sam Gilman

            Look, you think I’m part of some propaganda conspiracy. What I am is someone raising kids in Japan who became shocked and appalled at the way anti-nuclear campaigners were prepared to terrify people with junk science when Fukushima occurred. I can give you loads of examples if you’re interested. (This is how I have become drawn into debates on energy – because these people are disrupting action on climate change.) Someone like Iori Mochizuki is a victim of this. I genuinely feel sorry for him. He’s wrecked his life because of the spell of junk science. He’s clearly wrong. He fled Yokohama, for pity’s sake, which is nowhere near the plant. Last I heard he’s had to move to Romania because he cannot afford the upkeep of living in France.

            I have cited reputable scientific sources showing that the claims you reproduce about Fukushima radiation having caused a spike in cancer in children are, according to the best evidence and expertise, wrong. I have done my best to explain the evidence in simple terms. If you could at the very least have the courtesy of explaining what you don’t understand or dispute about this evidence, we could make progress.

            On the other hand, if you think that all these experts – including possibly the publicly available research they cite from the worldwide research community – are part of some paid propaganda conspiracy, that to me just makes you a conspiracy theorist.

            Do you think you are a conspiracy theorist?

          • Michael Ben

            No ! There you go again distorting what I said and equating it with what I think . Truly you are an arrogant idiot . You don’t debate because you only talk and distort . You never listen or view the opposite side .

            I have provided a link to the “Fukushima Diary ” which is my main source
            but you’ve never commented on it . Obviously you think you know it all already. Why don’t you give me the same courtesy you’ve asked for ?

            And now you try to call me a conspiracy theorist because I said you are part of a propaganda machine . Again twisting my words so you can discredit me .

            I don’t really care if you think I am a conspiracy theorist. It’s a stupid term thrown out to discredit people .

            The definition of a conspiracy is two or more people planning to do something harmful or illegal .

            Playing by your rules , now I’ll say you think that never happens .
            Which makes you look like a complete idiot .

            Here is a link to 11 conspiracies by high government officials that are true.

            http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/11-conspiracy-theories-that-proved-true-150918.htm

            They didn’t include the conspiracy where the US government released radioactive waste into the ghettos in Detroit or the one where the FBI
            infused ghettos with heroin but these are also true.

            Back to you, you are so stuck in one way of thinking that you have either been brainwashed or have a financial interest in your way of thinking .

            You are so brainwashed you think that industries with possibly billions of dollars at stake won’t conspire to hide the truth from people ?

            Seriously , prove to me that you are a human being before you put up any more links because to me you’ve lost all credibility .
            I’m tired of your twisting my words and your writing lies about what I think.

            But this final thought , I’ll criticize myself . Maybe I’m being too hard on you. Maybe I take your twisting my words to seriously. maybe I take your trying to brand me a loon too seriously.

            You told me you are trying to raise kids there and I have no idea what kind of pressure that may or may not put you under . Perhaps if it were me I would be scared half to death. Perhaps there are people all around you freaking out worrying about their kids health. That could be a really
            bad situation . Perhaps there are many people going overboard in both directions. Some feeling it is way worse than it is, some feeling it isn’t bad at all. In the same area the contrast could make a person half crazy.
            Perhaps many parents are in denial that anything could be wrong with their health, they just don’t have time to deal with it.

            So anyway , good luck with however you handle it .

          • Sam Gilman

            I asked you why you preferred to believe the catastrophist views of Iori Mochizuki, a blogger who has got things hugely wrong in the past, over the opinions of the international scientific research community. You didn’t answer.

            Would you like to have another go at answering?

          • Michael Ben
          • Sam Gilman

            I asked you why you choose to believe a blogger who gets things wrong over the combined expertise of the international scientific community.

            Your response is to link to the blog. Again. Without any kind of comment.

            What part of you thought that would be persuasive to me or to anyone else reading this?

          • Michael Ben

            The international scientific community includes way more than you presented and contradicts what you say .

            Since you don’t respond to my comments and links , I see no reason to bother with ones you present .

            It’s not my job to persuade anyone . I presented links opposing the
            “industry and associated political propaganda view ” and people can take it for what it’s worth.

            I made some questions and comments about you and your life and reasons for posting here and you completely ignored it .

            Are you a machine ?

          • Sam Gilman

            I didn’t link to any industry figures. I linked to scientists dismissing your claims. If you have evidence they’re corrupt, produce it. It looks like you’re making things up about them being corrupt.

            Now, you’ve made a claim:

            The international scientific community includes way more than you presented and contradicts what you say.

            OK. Prove it.

          • Enkidu

            Hi Michael,

            Maybe I can help. Let’s take a look at one of the current front page articles from Fukushima Diary, the one entitled “333 of 522 children diagnosed worse than A2 in Kashiwa city Chiba”, dated April 11.

            Here’s Mochizuki’s first sentence:

            On 3/23/2016, Kashiwa city government of Chiba announced 333 of 522 children were diagnosed as A2 ~ C in their thyroid test.

            Now, you might reasonably ask yourself is that number high or low? Thankfully, we can wrap our heads around this by looking at similar thyroid exams that have been conducted on children far from Fukushima. According to Hayashida, et al, who looked at results for children in Aomori, Yamanashi and Nagasaki (paper cited by Sam above):

            Overall, thyroid cysts were identified in 56.88% and thyroid nodules in 1.65% of the participants.

            So, out of the 522 children in the Chiba study, you would expect 306 of them to be diagnosed as A2 or greater. Now, you say, doesn’t that mean there is an increase of 27 kids over what we would expect? Well, not really. For example, if you break down the Hayashida results, you find that the corresponding number if we were to use only the Yamanashi data set (n=1,366) would be 350 kids, which is greater than what was actually identified. In other words, there is a lot of statistical variability given the limited number of subjects, particularly in the Chiba data set. In the end, as I think you can probably see, the Chiba results are where we would expect them and not alarming.

            Now, compare that to the information that Mochizuki provided you. What do you think?

          • Michael Ben

            I think science can make figures say whatever they want you to say.
            I tend to believe the nuclear meltdowns are health hazards and cause mutations in animals and insects . Perhaps you should make your own post
            refuting ” Fukushima Dairy ” . I don’t have tons of spare time to analyze all the information you present . Also , there may be other people out there refuting your assessment of his data.

          • Enkidu

            I would agree with you in that nuclear meltdowns are health hazards and that they can cause mutations in animals and insects depending on received doses (so at least we have that). However, that doesn’t make Mochizuki’s posts any less misleading or wrong. Also, if there are people out there who would refute what I’m saying, then I would love to hear from them–I’m always interested in what others have to say.

            I’ll make you an offer. If you see any new articles on Fukushima Diary (or anywhere else for that matter) that cause you concern or worry, feel free to post them here. I’d be happy to give you my two cents.

          • Michael Ben

            Hi Enkidu, I got onto this website posting board because of comments that nuclear power is cheaper and cleaner than other sources. My comment to that was ” until there is an accident , lives are lost and the environment is polluted with radiation.

            I’ll readily admit that I am no expert on the science of radiation poisoning and radiation causing health problems . I started looking online and saw “Fukushima Diary” by someone how is living near the site and reporting. I do not have the expertise not the time to scientifically evaluate his work. To me , that is the business of the
            scientific community. I would assume that if his work is so far off base, his employer would listen to the criticism of experts. Perhaps all the criticisms here would be better off directed that direction.
            After all, I’m just one person.

            Although I don’t consider myself a scientist in any way , I am deeply interested in the way that things work . All things. And I do listen and think.

            One thing that I hadn’t considered in the nuclear VS coal debate was how many people get killed in coal mining . It was an error of mine I’m not happy to admit but it’s real significant part of the conversation.

            Let me ask you this , it seems like the nuclear industry has been hit pretty hard, now with only 1 reactor still running . I assume if the nuclear industry doesn’t do some great PR work and get more plants back online it will be a huge financial loss.

            Do you think a multi million dollar industry would work to hide the truth and possibly fabricate false stories to sway public opinion ?

            Or do you believe that corporations don’t do that kind of thing ?

            I appreciate your 2 cents .

          • Enkidu

            Hi Michael,

            Good post. I absolutely do believe that corporations do that kind of thing. I’m sure there are those in the nuclear industry, which has billions at stake in this mess, who would work to cover-up its downsides (as there are in all industries; automotive, anyone?), but I’m also sure there are others in their competitor industries (fossil fuels, renewables, etc.) who would work just as hard to overstate those downsides and hide their own, for they have billions riding on the other side of the equation, too. In other words, be skeptical.

            The best way to navigate this, in my opinion, is to go with mainstream science–you will almost always be in the right, whether on vaccinations, global warming [denial] or whatever the scare topic du jour is. If you have time, drill down on the issues like I did with those Fukushima Diary posts (although I realize language can be a barrier there). When you see people talk to “experts”, run their names through google scholar and see if they really are bona fide experts. When people discuss risks, try to keep those risks in perspective–we live in a very risky world and we often don’t do a good job of prioritizing those risks. There are all types of things you can do if you have your head screwed on straight, and it appears to me that you do.

            [On edit, I added “denial” above just to make it clear that my problem was with deniers, not the other way around.]

          • http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com Eclipse Now

            Hi Michael,
            Like you, I used to be suspicious of nuclear power. I mean, anything that can evacuate a town for centuries has got to be bad, right? But recently I learned that other than an initial temporary evacuation for a few months, today’s nuclear exclusion zones could be resettled. In that way they’re about as bad as that particularly Australian natural disaster, a bushfire. Except you don’t have to rebuild all the houses!

            Radiation at Fukushima and Chernobyl is just not that high. Charles Sturt University says that 50 milli-Sieverts (50 mSv) a year of radiation is around the first level to have *any* discernible health impacts on a population: but still very mild. Fukushima only gets an extra 2.5 to 20 mSv per year! Indeed, the Japanese government recently adjusted their allowable limits from the ridiculous 1 mSv per year to 20 mSv per year. Residents are returning home to those zones around 20. Fukushima’s thyroid cancer rates are lower than the average population, and their seafood is safe to eat. Depression and suicide from the evacuation has already killed more people than any extra radiation would have! Chernobyl was far worse than Fukushima, and it *might* one day kill an eventual 4000 people (but this is highly speculative and the No Linear Threshold model is under attack).

            Compare this to Kerala, India, where homes were accidentally built out of radioactive material. Ramsar dwarfs the radiation at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Some places at Ramsar coped an amazing 72 mSv a year and they’re doing fine!

            What isn’t doing fine? Societies based on poorer energy sources, like burning wood and animal dung for cooking, and even modern coal. Coal kills more than 2 Chernobyl’s a day. George Monbiot said: “….when coal goes right it kills more people than nuclear power does when it goes wrong. It kills more people every week than nuclear power has in its entire history. And that’s before we take climate change into account.”

            I’ve collected the links for these claims on my blog. Enjoy.
            https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/radiation/

          • Enkidu

            Hi Michael,

            This may be an even better example. Take Fukushima Diary’s current second most popular article, “1,000,000 Bq/m3 of Sr-90 detected in seawater of Fukushima plant port / Highest in recorded history”.

            The article links to a TEPCO release that shows Sr-90 at “1,000 Bq/L”. Now, it is true that 1,000 Bq/L is the same as 1,000,000 Bq/m3, but can you think of a reason why Mochizuki thought that the original units (i.e., Bq/L) were inadequate and required changing? (I can–you get a “scarier” number.)

            Also, as the TEPCO press release shows, these measurements were not in the open “plant port”, they were within the confines of the nearly completed impermeable wall.

            Don’t you get the feeling that Mochizuki is not giving you the full story?

          • Starviking

            Japan has plans for at least 20 new coal plants in its just-deregulated markets.

            As for Japan’s nuclear plants all being off-line, that is not the case: the Sendai Plant in Kyushu is operating, and more are in the process of getting restart clearances.

          • Sam Gilman

            Jesus H. Corbett. Twenty? Do you have a link?

          • Starviking

            Actually, it appears it’s worse: 41 new plants over a decade.

            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-coal-idUSKBN0TY2TG20151216

            The power produced will be around 23 GW, so I must have confused that with the number of plants.

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-12/japan-environment-minister-says-coal-plant-approval-problematic-iat249wz

          • Sam Gilman

            Yuck.

            When the anti-nuclearists see this happening and the penny still won’t drop, what else can be said?

          • Starviking

            Indeed!

          • Michael Ben

            Pardon my mistake . The article I read was written before August 2015 when the plant was restarted .

            My point being a refutation of the idea that it nuclear power was cheaper and better than the alternatives available. The point is still valid as there were
            5 nuclear plants before the disaster and now there is only one and that start up was protested .

            Nuclear plants operate on a dangerous premise – That they have enough safety
            devices to with stand material degradation, human error , and naturally occurring disasters .

            Sendai’s reactor no. 1 was restarted on August 11, 2015.[10][11] Naoto Kan, former Prime Minister (2010-2011), was among the protesters who were demonstrating in front of the Sendai plant when the reactor was restarted.[12][13]

  • atomikrabbit

    Denmark is also in a fairly unique geographic situation in that they can call on (via short undersea tielines) abundant Norwegian hydro and Swedish nuclear/hydro generation to balance their intermittent wind.

    They are also a very small country, with virtually no indigenous energy resources. Like geothermal Iceland, the Danish example, as modest as it is, is not capable of replication in many other places.

  • SA Kiteman

    Wow! 140% for one “particularly windy day” in a country that barely deserves the name and which has such a high cost of electricity they have a very low demand.
    Oh, and the king owns the windmill factory so this is just a sneaky way to rip off his people.

    • Sam Gilman

      “A country that barely deserves the name”??? Denmark’s a great place. Copenhagen’s lovely. Decent football team, Hans Andersen, Lego, Niels Bohr, free university education, Vikings.

      • SA Kiteman

        Well, it is larger than the Vatican and Lichtenstein, I’ll give them that.

  • MCope

    This is a good thing, and demonstrates how such surpluses can be stored or used elsewhere. Everyone saying “so what, it’s only one windy day” must remember a few things.
    – The electricity feeds into a grid, so it’s not only locally available;
    – There do exist ways of storing it;
    – This is just the beginning – growth of installation of clean energy is exponential;
    – If we don’t get this right, we’re cooked.

    • VooDude

      ”… Everyone … must remember a few things. …”

      ➤The grid must always, always match demand to power production. The grid cannot store power (it is just a bunch of wires, linking sources to loads). Excess production, if not curtailed or used, causes voltage and frequency to rise, which would damage electrical things. “Storage” is either a generating capacity on the grid, or, a load, that the grid supplies. The grid can store nothing. Not even for a second.

      ➤Storage is badly needed. It is about 2%, or less, of grid capacity, and its use is booked up, months in advance. It isn’t available to buffer intermittent solar and wind. Such storage needs to be created, and it is way, way, behind this insane switch to solar and wind power.

      If we don’t get this right, we’re cooked.

  • Bruce Brown

    According to Republican theory, these wind turbines will slow the rotation of the earth and we will all fly off into space.

  • cafeblue

    Good for Denmark. But it has fewer people than Los Angeles . Good luck replicating that in a country the size of the U S.

    • Genevieve Roberts

      I KNOW. THE WIND BLOWS SO MUCH MORE SLOWLY ACROSS WYOMING. AAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • Marvin Miller

    and of course its impossible, can’t be done here. Don’t you ever get tired of hearing about all the things we can’t do when other country’s can

  • Steve R

    So these huge, whale destroying, bird shredding behemoths actually work?

  • Christina Henley-Fayram

    No biggie…who needs birds?

  • gejemica

    The use of “just” in the title leads me to believe this happened in the past 5 minutes.

  • Mauro

    100miles X 100miles of solar is Nevada would power the entire US, so it can be done and with future technology it will be easier and cheaper.

  • James E Tryon

    Nice try!

  • SKroger

    Good job, Denmark!

  • cloudshe

    what about the DEMAND side of the equation? will all this progress be overshadowed by the continuing massive increase in world population? why don’t our politicians and press even Talk about this problem? while energy shortages will hurt in the future, the coming shortages of food and water will be APOCALYPTICAL

  • swampwiz0

    This is wonderful news for Mother Earth!

  • http://eclipsenow.wordpress.com Eclipse Now

    I would love this headline to be true, but the headline “Denmark supplied most of the wind that makes up 8% of the Nordic Synchronized Area” is just not as sexy, is it? Reality just keeps getting in the way!
    http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/energetics/wind-and-solar-how-far-weve-come
    It’s sad. I love the idea of wind, but storage remains the Achilles heel. This is why the world’s most famous climatologist Dr James Hansen said: “Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
    http://goo.gl/8qidgV

error: Sorry, If you need something contact us.