Sharp solar panels to be used in two Japanese mega plants

Sharp has certainly been an integral part of these solar installations before, but the latest endeavor by the city of Sakai and the Kansai Electric Power Company isn't anything to sneeze at. The initiative will see a pair of "mega solar plants" constructed, one of which will crank out around 10,000 kW while the other outputs 18,000 kW. Once the plants go online in 2011, expectations are that CO2 emissions will decrease on the order of 10,000 tons per year. Of course, a staggering ¥5.0 billion ($46.5 million) will be coughed up in order to make it happen, but you can bet Mother Earth will certainly see it as money well spent.

[Via CrunchGear]

[iH8Engadget @ Jun 24th 2008 11:01PM]

Now if only we could do the same in the U.S. without Exxon and Mobile lobbying against it. Too bad those energy companies can bribe the damn politicians better than the average consumer.... Bastards. (The energy companies)

[stephen @ Jun 25th 2008 1:45AM]

i think they should create planes that works with solar energy.

[gunboatdiplomacy @ Jun 25th 2008 11:49AM]

what i find amusing is darren's use of the word "staggering" to describe 46.5 million dollars. how much does it cost to build a nuclear plant? and how much to decommission one and dispose of the waste? i suppose i ask too much from a blog editor to read and question what the writers are writing and suggest better wording.

also, a new texas instruments semiconductor plant cost 300million (sans equipment) and intel built a 3 billion dollar plant in AZ. so how would you describe those costs?

i spent a minute on google and found some "context" for the reader that the writer didn't provide. and i did it for free.

[Macro @ Jul 7th 2008 7:05AM]

I saw this a while back but dunno what happened to the idea

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2004/renew-energy-batt/Stirling.html

Solar panels may cost a lot to setup but that's the only money needed besides some Windex.
Between this, wind, tidal and wave power we should be good I think... Wish India would follow along instead they are spending 400 Million on a new COAL plant.... I wish I could stop this injustice as it is just idiotic...
Yes the US needs to stop following and start leading... we need to spend some money, invest in clean power sources for the power grid first because cars are gonna take a while to catch up.. I know I can't afford a "clean" car.

[LarryLarryLarry @ Jun 24th 2008 11:10PM]

So they're closing down what? Coal plants? Natural gas plants? Japan runs on nuke plants and more nuke plants. So there will be an actual pollution savings of zero tons.

It's great that they're covering square miles of Japanese land with solar panels, though. If there's one thing Japan has too much of, it's flat, dry land.

[Cactus @ Jun 24th 2008 11:38PM]

The full article states it's being built atop an industrial waste landfill. What else would you suggest is more appropriate for said flat, dry land?

[Ken @ Jun 24th 2008 11:53PM]

Only 30% of Japan's power comes from nuclear. Most of the rest is imported fuel (50% oil, 17% coal, 14% natural gas). Where do you get your information?

Also, the drawings make it look an awful lot like they're using reclaimed land, jutting out into the ocean, just like Kansai and Nagoya Airports.

[Ken @ Jun 24th 2008 11:56PM]

Sorry...my numbers didn't add up. Nuclear is down to less than 15% now.

[Agent42 @ Jun 25th 2008 1:36AM]

Do you even realize how "dirty" of a power source nuclear is?

The energy expended simply mining, refining and transporting the uranium negates the CO2 savings. And what do we do with the toxic nuclear waste? well...50 years later and we still have no idea.

[Argot @ Jun 25th 2008 7:46AM]

So the lesson is: Never try.

[Mike K @ Jun 25th 2008 7:51AM]

"The energy expended simply mining, refining and transporting the uranium negates the CO2 savings. And what do we do with the toxic nuclear waste? well...50 years later and we still have no idea."

Recycle it, like a few other nations (France for one). The US has mountains of waste reactor fuel rods because we refuse to recycle them. The byproduct of the recycling is weapons grade material. However if you recycle the rods you can reuse something like 95% of the material, make a new rod, and put it back in a reactor (over and over again). This cuts down on most of the issues you pointed out. Then you just have to store, and protect the byproduct. Apparently the French have been doing it for 30 years, and the cost is pretty small.

Some info:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm

[LarryLarryLarry @ Jun 24th 2008 11:11PM]

So they're closing down what? Coal plants? Natural gas plants? Japan runs on nuke plants and more nuke plants. So there will be an actual pollution savings of zero tons.

It's great that they're covering square miles of Japanese land with solar panels, though. If there's one thing Japan has too much of, it's flat, dry land.

[Totally @ Jun 24th 2008 11:48PM]

@LarryLarryLarry. I'm pretty sure flat dry land is fair low (probably near the bottom) on their "Too Much Of..." list, Real Estate over there is very costly per acre.

Personally, I'd rather see strategically placed solar towers built, like a huge cylindrical one, or an obelisk shaped spire w/ deployable panels. I'd like to see some innovation.

[LarryLarryLarry @ Jun 24th 2008 11:50PM]

It was sarcasm, thanks for playing.

[Craig B. @ Jun 24th 2008 11:18PM]

And individual hypocrisy & greed, too: did you see many Californians investing in Solar when electricity was much cheaper, or demanding hybrid technology when gas was $1 a gallon? Kinda like the trade deficit; people complain about it, but how many of them will forego buying the cheapest nailclippers at Walmart because those nailclippers are made places with a distorted monetary and labour policy? So much for consumer (pro)activism.

[Craig B. @ Jun 24th 2008 11:19PM]

@iH8Engadget

[Cactus @ Jun 24th 2008 11:48PM]

Now that we've almost arrived at the point where the skyrocketing costs of fossil fuels have met the falling cost of solar/wind energy... what you choose to do is to go hatin' on those who waited, and call them greedy.

Sure, some Californians went on buying a Hummer H2 when they could've used that money to go solar, but you can't go taking the misdeeds of the rich few and just call everyone around you "greedy".

You come off sounding like an iPhone early adopter who's pissed that your device is no longer an exclusive status symbol.

[Rob @ Jun 25th 2008 12:33AM]

Well, I'm Californian who spent $26K on solar panels last year, and it will probably take 15-20 years to recoup the cost (the future cost of electricity is hard to predict). I probably won't even be living here that long. Certinaly didn't do it for a monetary reason. I did it when I learned I could create more electrical power than my household consumed, and I liked the idea of powering my life from the sun.

[Craig B. @ Jun 25th 2008 3:03AM]

I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to knock California, I was being a bit dramatic. My point was this: if your decision to switch energy sources (or how you shop) is driven purely by a financial impetus, that's really fine, it's your money. After all, there's also rationality, and reasonable budget constraints. But if you're not going to pay a premium on something because it pulls a chunk more out of your bank account, you're making that personal choice. Even if you argue that oil companies keep prices for new, alternative energy technologies high because the oil companies lobby against funding for new green technology, so on and so forth, if enough people make the decision that this technology is worth the premium, it can be brought closer to market on a larger scale. My point is just that if you don't spend $1 more on your nail clippers, yes, our trade deficit is partly because of our trade policy, but it's also because many consumers - majority of the time, myself included - don't want to make the personal sacrifice. Sure, maybe it's partly oil, but it's also partly us.

I don't think what I said speaks to elitism, quite the opposite. I think the adoption, and the increased interest - for whatever reason - is fantastic. And, I have never owned an Apple product.

[jimmy @ Jun 24th 2008 11:18PM]

$46 mil is not a staggering figure for a power plant

[J @ Jun 25th 2008 12:17AM]

When I read 46M, my first thought was -- that's actually quite reasonable.

According to this website: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower, which may be reliable, Nuclear power can cost $1000 per KW to construct.

The above Japanese plants produce 28,000 KW, which means that if they went nuclear, it would cost $28M. So $46M for a safe, super clean renewable energy source, while certainly a premium, isn't that bad at all. Also, note that the nuclear plant would probably have significant issues building on a landfill waste island. I wouldn't want to be near the reactor while the landfill is settling.

[peshue @ Jun 25th 2008 12:59AM]

Especially one with much lower operating costs.

[d i s @ Jun 24th 2008 11:34PM]

'mother earth' will still be around until the sun engulfs her 5 billion years later ..... not us most likely

[Mr. Fax Sender @ Jun 24th 2008 11:37PM]

How about doing such things in the U.S. where energy consumption causing pollution is actually an issue.

This is why we need nuclear.

[David @ Jun 25th 2008 7:41AM]

Air pollution is a bigger issue in Japan, they have 120m people in tiny island, remember the masks!

[Keith @ Jun 24th 2008 11:53PM]

Well, if i have learned anything from watching Sahara i need to stay the hell away from that place.........damn natzi's

[birwin @ Jun 25th 2008 12:01AM]

Assuming 14 cents(US) per kWH (which is a ballpark figure) these puppies will generate $34.5 million in revenue in one year. Let's say initial cost is completely covered in 4 years (which is feasible) after that you have that $34.5 million straight into the bank after maintenance fees. That is the closest thing to a free lunch that I could possibly imagine (at least until technology improves... or the sun dies). This is about as good of a deal for them as Santa Claus signing them a big fat check every year.

[fh @ Jun 25th 2008 12:02AM]

Nuclear is not a completely clean energy source, either. There are huge heat emissions, and the ecology around rivers (used to cool the plants) are greatly affected. Plus spent fuel is incredibly difficult to handle, and currently no one has any solution for how to dispose of the waste; not to mention security and maintenance considerations.

Solar (and wind) are attractive alternatives, but the cost is high considering they only replace a portion of other power sources that -already- exist. You're spending a lot of money but you're not actually getting any extra energy out of it. Reduced emissions and energy independence are the upshot, but for a big nation like the US, that would take a -lot- of solar fields.

[Agent42 @ Jun 25th 2008 1:36AM]

wow, someone who thinks exactly the same.

Read my reply above. Same thing. There is no advantage to nuclear, although the governments want you to think so.

[loosely_coupled @ Jun 25th 2008 3:31AM]

Nuclear is just another piece of the puzzle along with large-scale Solar thermal/voltaic, Wind, Hydro, Tidal, Wave-action, etc.

I agree that they need to find a safe disposal method for nuclear waste, and to the fact that not only is nuclear fuel running out, but the mining/extraction/processing/distribution of said fuel is bad for the environment, polluting, and consumes a lot of energy. That said, Nuclear technology has been steadily evolving for 30+ years in the time we haven't built a new plant. The new plants are much cleaner and safer, and produce much less toxic waste. Nuclear is certainly no panacea, but we are going to need a multi-pronged approach to the energy crisis.

Although solar, wind, and different forms of tide/wave-action/river currents look to be the cleanest, almost any alternative is going to better than burning coal.

It is up to citizens to GET INVOLVED and make it happen! Apathy or laziness is NOT an excuse! We need to throw the corrupt bums and their Big Energy lobbyists out of Washington! If you need to know who they are, follow the money trail!

[thedesolate1 @ Jun 25th 2008 12:42AM]

I

[Tim @ Jun 25th 2008 1:50AM]

Now that is a great power plant! All they need to do now is put a few wind turbines like this http://www.residential-wind-power.com/2008/06/ditch-the-grid-with-quietrevolutions-10000kwh-vertical-axis-wind-turbine/ around the plant and mother earth really would be singing!

[Daniel @ Jun 25th 2008 1:51AM]

wow...can i have that in my back yard...thanks

[Tim @ Jun 25th 2008 1:51AM]

Now that is a great power plant! All they need to do now is put a few wind turbines like this http://www.residential-wind-power.com/2008/06/ditch-the-grid-with-quietrevolutions-10000kwh-vertical-axis-wind-turbine/ around the plant and mother earth really would be singing!

[BobTurbo @ Jun 25th 2008 2:04AM]

What happens if they get dust on them and stop collecting sun? Hey maybe that is why they built it near the ocean.. geniuses.

[SimbaDogg @ Jun 25th 2008 2:11AM]

why isn't the super douche bag the lowest ranked yet?

[Ethan @ Jun 25th 2008 3:06AM]

Not that staggering, I think. I'd vote for my government to do that.

[ShadowKain @ Jun 25th 2008 8:22AM]

I wonder who the lucky guy is that gets to climb out on those hot panels when a flock of birds takes a load on them?

[James Bowe @ Jun 25th 2008 9:00AM]

"you can bet Mother Earth will certainly see it as money well spent."

Actually, mother earth doesn't give a shit, she'll be just fine regardless. It's our ability to survive on earth that is in jeopardy. So I suppose it's your grandchildren who will see it as money well spent.

[revaaron @ Jun 25th 2008 10:46AM]

this plant will make over $5 million worth of electricity a year.

[Josh @ Jun 25th 2008 11:13AM]

Impressive, thanks to flexible policies and laws, the Japanese always have been able to innovate and stay on top of things. In the U.S. we find it very hard for companies to even switch the light bulbs to eco-friendly!

There are many things companies can do to help reduce their CO2 emissions (and many apply to individuals too).

[thedesolate1 @ Jun 25th 2008 11:27AM]

Well it better be Tsunami proof....

[lakersin2025 @ Jun 25th 2008 12:50PM]

That was funny! I live in Northern Cali and it cracks me up because they CalTrans or whomever is sticking these "Warning Tsnami Zone" signs all over the roads here. What are we going to do if one hits, hold onto the sign?

[Josh @ Jun 25th 2008 11:34AM]

You can try out this website for some interesting discussion about reducing CO2 emissions.

[toyotaboy @ Jun 25th 2008 1:53PM]

perhaps japan can share some of that electricity with china, lord knows they're hurting for power.

[BSakai @ Jun 25th 2008 2:27PM]

Best. City. Ever.

[pathapatti siva kumar @ Jul 13th 2008 9:42AM]

hai,
i am siva kumar.i want some details abt making my bike to run with solar power.some calculators works both by light energy as well as solar power.shall i make my bike like that.please send me some information abt this.