Nuclear Emergency Declared At 2 Plants In Japan 752
Hugh Pickens writes "CBC reports that Japan has declared a state of emergency and called for mass evacuations near two nuclear power plants following cooling systems failures that led to radiation escaping from a reactor at one location. The emergency declarations, which include five reactors at the two plants, followed Friday's 8.9-magnitude earthquake off the country's northeast coast. In a troubling announcement, Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency official Ryohei Shiomi said a monitoring device outside the plant detected radiation that is eight times higher than normal and an evacuation zone has been expanded from three kilometres around the plant to 10 kilometres."
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and if the (unlikely) worst happens and a baboon turns into a massive black hole, the current recession is child's play. What a dumb argument.
Nuclear power plants are safe. Not perfectly safe. Not zero risk. But they kill a hell of a lot fewer people than coal, the usual alternative. The worst-case scenario for this nuclear power plant is bad, but not out of proportion to other problems this exceptionally large earthquake has caused.
Have you seen pictures of Japan? Oil refineries have literally, actually, factually blown up, releasing who-knows-what into the atmosphere and water. People are freaking out because a nuclear power plant has released small amounts of harmful radiation and might release moderate amounts. With plenty of warning.
The story here is not that a power plant was damaged and might release toxic material. It's that everyone is going bugnuts crazy about that when entire towns are inundated and/or on fire.
Re:Dont mean to sound selfish (Score:5, Insightful)
they'll want you there more than ever, feel free to spend extra
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:4, Insightful)
The reactors won't impact the global economy appreciably - it's *highly* unlikely that anything is going to blow up, anyhow. It's sounding like they had a partial scram, with primary coolant system failure afterwards.
Nuclear power *is* safe. You're seeing a disaster the scale of which is nearly unimaginable, and appropriate action is being taken. You don't fix these things overnight.
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let's see... how many anti-nuclear hippies died from doing too much LSD or ketamine or whatever it is they do? Probably thousands. How many people died in coal mine accidents? Beyond count. How many died building hydroelectric dams, which are very "green"? A lot, 112 for just for one dam (Hoover).
Re:Dont mean to sound selfish (Score:5, Insightful)
In a few months, once the influx of foreign rescue workers has abated, you'll see hotel/etc prices plummet. So you should be able to save money. (If that feels machiavellian, remember, you're adding money to a tourist industry that has just been shot in the face. So swing by New Zealand and northern Queensland on your way home.)
((All assuming these nukes don't kablooey.))
(((Headline on local news: "Japan launches monster rescue effort". You know it's bad when even the monsters...)))
Re:Dont mean to sound selfish (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine the savings you would have made after Hiroshima.
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:5, Insightful)
The chances of the reactor blowing up are next to zero. The biggest problem will be either a core breech(aka melting through the core chamber), or a slow uncontrolled cooling of the control rods because of damage by them being too hot. However considering that the CBC article is hours old already, and they've been slow venting, and finally have the ability to turn the pumps back on to get water into the chamber it should be controllable unless something happens again.
Now, let this be a lesson to anti-nuke nuts. Most reactors built within the last decade or two have two redundant systems for moving water. Steam, or mechanical. This series of reactors doesn't. You know why? Because in Japan, anything that could possibly at all, maybe related to nuclear, or radiation makes environmentalists go batshit crazy.
But it doesn't help that the reactors were built to withstand at least a 9.0 and it was hit by a 9.1, and I've heard it may be revised again as high as 9.4.
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:5, Insightful)
People are freaking out because a nuclear power plant has released small amounts of harmful radiation and might release moderate amounts.
No, not people. The news media. Of everything going on in Japan this is what they are focusing on. I'm mildly disgusted at the news coverage all in all. The primary coverage initially was the effect on the stock market, and now it is nothing but these reactors. Far, far more environmental damage is being done by all matter of other noxious things burning and leaking. Oh, and I'm pretty sure people are dead, dying, entrapped, homeless, etc, already. Yet the focus is on what *might* happen with a nuclear reactor, as if the thing is going to go up like a thermonuclear bomb.
Re:Nukes is for real men. (Score:4, Insightful)
I want a MANLY power plant that can create a 30-100 km dead zone of mutants and a death plume that has a global reach.
OK, but why do you think coal is so manly?
Re:Meltdown? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it does, but the scenario is very different.
Re:I've done this before! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:5, Insightful)
You know that you have other options than to watch american media news on the Internet, right ? My recommendation is to get your news from two countries with somewhat opposing political agendas ... it's amazing how the same events have completely different interpretation from one side of the border to the other. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Re:Dont mean to sound selfish (Score:1, Insightful)
"Getting sick" is the least of northern Japan's worried right now. Thousand dead with thousands more likely to be confirmed dead.
Re:I'm Not Worried (Score:1, Insightful)
Fact 1: this was an old nuclear reactor without a satisfactory containment solution;
Fact 2: this was an old nuclear reactor without passive safety: i.e. power is required to prevent meltdown, rather than meltdown being prevented by design;
Fact 3: backup generators and batteries were supposed to deal with Fact 2;
Fact 4: you can only have so many on-site backups;
Fact 5: Chernobyl's failure was the result of a very dangerously planned and even more dangerously aborted attempt to test what would happen if Facts 1 to 3 applied;
Fact 6: while everyone's learnt the lessons leading to Chernobyl's failure, older reactors have not tackled the problems which led to Chernobyl deciding that tests in Fact 5 were necessary in the first place.
Fact 7: one side of the debate will conclude that nuclear power is universally evil; the other side will claim that circumstances were so shockingly unlikely that they could not have been planned for, ignoring in particular Facts 1, 2 and 6.
HTH.
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:2, Insightful)
This 40000 number is valid only for prehistoric coal-burning technology. Modern plants filter practically all of the ill-making substances from the smoke.
Re:BBC just lost all credibility for me... (Score:2, Insightful)
You did notice the space between the "110," and the "350"? Right? Right?
You did not seriously read that as "110,350 missing"? And complain about bad reporting?
Re:Thorium (Score:2, Insightful)
Though desirable, Thorium isn't even necessary; most any modern reactor design is passively safe. Read up on the Molten Salt Reactor for one example: the reactors run at atmospheric pressure, with no active cooling necessary. The reaction naturally stops if it gets too hot, and you can literally walk away at any time.
You can walk away at any time... unless there's a fucking earthquake.
The problem isn't just thermal runaway, it's that the the steel containment vessel AND the outer concrete containment structure might be compromised.
All the safety features in the world aren't going to help if your radioactive materials start leaking out onto the sidewalk.
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:3, Insightful)
The story here is not that a power plant was damaged and might release toxic material. It's that everyone is going bugnuts crazy about that when entire towns are inundated and/or on fire.
The story is actually about explosions in one nuclear power plant, residents warned to stay indoors, turn off air conditioners, not to drink the tap water. If they have to go outside, to cover up completely, wear a mask and cover their face with a wet towel. Radiation released per hour is more than the recommended limit for humans per year. Obligatory link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/12/3162450.htm [abc.net.au]
Re:NHK World is reporting serious emissions (Score:5, Insightful)
1015 microsieverts - that is apparently a year's worth of radiation exposure each hour
Or 30 bananas [wikipedia.org]...
One thing about wind power (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing about wind power. In the event of an earthquake, a terrorist attack, a greedy company cutting corners like BP, incompetence or human error nobody needs to worry about the breeze getting out.
If the Japanese can't do it (Score:4, Insightful)
If people as disciplined and conscientious as the Japanese can't do nuclear power safely, what chance do we have. Would you want a company like BP running a nuclear power plant or building one?
Opportunity costs (Score:2, Insightful)
I've seen a lot of pro-nuclear advocacy on this site, and I feel that people need to have a perspective on what that choice represents. It's opportunity cost. That's a term for when you give up your chances on one side in the pursuit of another. If your choices are poor your loss includes what you did not pursue when you had the chance.
Right now we have gotten wind down to where it has much to offer and very little drawback. Laddermills can provide power 24-7. Offshore windfarms have been heavily studied and show little impact. A better grid could distribute the uneven power effectively. Ribbon generators and windbelts can, in arrays, compete with solar panels.
Where heat is needed we can concentrate solar thermal energy, whether through passive solar buildings, solar towers and troughs which heat molten salts to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit for storage in insulated tanks to drive turbines 24/7. You can even get hot water from running hoses through a compost pile - several compositions yield a proven 140 degree internal temperature and you're getting fertile soil too.
If you do in fact need electricity, solar panels on a microgrid close to their point of demand circumvent our hugely wasteful grid with its losses due to resistance and the unnecessary surplus generated by redundancy of huge, centralized powerplants.
These are not perfect, but when you consider the subsidies fossil fuels and nuclear plants require, the wars being waged to control their supply, and the costs of pollution whether we're paying them now or ignoring it at the peril of future generations, we are being very foolish to waver in the pursuit of a resilient, safe energy supply.
In the words of Bill Maher on offshore wind turbines: "You know what happens when windmills collapse into the sea? A splash."
Supporting links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laddermill [wikipedia.org]
http://www.truth-out.org/wind-energy-can-power-much-east-coast-study-says63637 [truth-out.org]
http://inhabitat.com/windbelt-innovative-generator-to-bring-cheap-wind-power-to-third-world/ [inhabitat.com]
http://gliving.com/power-tower-wind-turbines-a-brilliant-idea-in-this-issue-of-metropolis-magazine-may-2009/ [gliving.com]
http://www.solarreserve.com/ [solarreserve.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic_trough [wikipedia.org]
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-microgrids.html [lbl.gov]
no. (Score:2, Insightful)
quake devastated japan. but meltdown can make any percentage of it, a desolate wasteland. this may be a high percentage.
Number 1 containment is intact (Score:4, Insightful)
Just saw an official press conference on Japanese TV. The containment vessel is intact. The concrete shell was damaged by a hydrogen explosion. Boric acid is being used as a neutron poison. It's not pretty, but it looks still to be under control.
You have to put this in perspective. We just survived one of the biggest earthquakes ever. Hundreds were killed by horrific tsunamis. tens of thousands are homeless in winter conditions. And yet the hysteria in the western media is over a power plant that is still contained. A bit of perspective please.
Luddites are dangerous (Score:5, Insightful)
They only become so because they are staffed with a lot of people that know how incredibly dangerous they are and work hard to prevent accidents.
It's actually idiots like the above that push the fluffy "safe" "clean" image of nuclear power that are counterproductive and holding the entire civilian nuclear industry back. Heavy industry of all kinds is full of incredibly dangerous shit and none of it becomes any less dangerous by pretending the problem has gone away - in fact the opposite happens and people die. Why do these idiots think nuclear is different and run by magic puppies or something?
All of the current leading edge advances in civilian nuclear power are due to knowing how dangerous everything is and taking big steps to reduce that danger. That's a hell of a lot better than the total idiocy of trying to pretend there never was a problem in the first place.
In this story it's about some incredibly dangerous technology being treated with the respect and preparation it deserves resulting in the successful completion of a disaster plan. If the "nuclear is totally safe" idiocy was applied then there would be no disaster plan and most likely another element to the disaster.
The Moorlocks have to work incredibly fucking hard for the stupid Eloi to keep their stupid mindset of a "safe" world.
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, right. Only CO2, H2O, and heat...and SO2. and NOx. and particulate matter. hydrocarbons. Mercury. [ucsusa.org]
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:4, Insightful)
As you will well know, the trouble with nuclear power plants is that when they fail, they fail spectacularly. Just saying there have been 0 deaths lately is not saying much if you've just narrowly escaped a meltdown. And we know what will happen if even a *partial* meltdown happens: Chernobyl. It's then not just the initial meltdown, it's a large area that is rendered uninhabitable for a very very long time. Imagine one of those clouds going over a multi-million city and you know that the whole death count of the tsunami is just *nothing* compared to the fall out.
That and the nuclear waste, which seems to be an unsolved problem that is just silently ignored, we just store it indefinitely in locations meant for "temporary storage" and presto. Look at the way the Fins (very down to earth people) are trying to do to get rid of it. And that is just for a small part of their own nuclear waste. And Germany, where they stored the trash in a salt mine and now have to dig up the leaking containers. These are the countries that actually have the money to do things like that. I'll not go into the situation in Russia, because that just makes me sick to the stomach.
I'm all for safe nuclear energy. Saying that the current power plants are anything near the safety required is simply nonsense. Neither coal or nuclear energy is currently at a level where it can produce clean, safe energy at this time.
Re:Enough is enough (Score:1, Insightful)
I hope the recent coal-mining disasters will put an end to any new coal-fired plants. And the Deepwater Horizon kills oil & gas.
And that Russian hydo dam disaster. Who'd have thought that dealing with enough power to supply a large city or ten could be so dangerous?
Damn it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BBC just lost all credibility for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
In an area as densely populated such as Japan, it is not impossible for 88000 people to go missing in a major catastrophic event like a major earthquake and a following tsunami, which can literally sweep buildings away, especially when you factor in when the earthquake occured, and the tsunami swept in. Missing means status unknown, and the earthquake and tsunami have damaged enough infrastructure that any chance of a proper headcount will be weeks or even months away. The current reported Missing People figure is from families/relatives etc that have reported them as missing.
As it was, it hit during the afternoon, so there were a lot of people out in traffic etc also, which causes further problems, but several small towns have been completely demolished by the tsunami, and they are VERY hard to reach due to the damage that has been caused, with roads severely damaged, fields turned to thick layers of watery mud etc
Before you write another post like that, engage your brain, and actually think things through. And keep in mind what I said: Missing means Status Unknown. It can be as simple as simply not being able to communicate, due to any communications infrastructure being swept away.
Mother Nature can still really kick ass... (Score:3, Insightful)
This calamity shows Mother Nature can still really kick ass...
And that's why we should cooperate more globally and not worry so much about fighting each other with all the advanced technology we have been creating. While this tragedy is horrible, just horrible, something like an asteroid strike on the Earth, a supervolcano eruption like in Yellostone, or a massive plague could kill billions. So, this should be a warning to our global society that we should cooperate more to prepare together for what Mother Nature can still dish out at random times.
See also:
http://lifeboat.com/ex/main [lifeboat.com]
And by me:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html [pdfernhout.net]
Like with Hurricane Katrina where the USA lost a city, this event will be a test of the Japanese character. The good news is, you can see in Japan aspects of what a healthy society looks like (unlike the USA during Katrina or before). Japan prepared a lot for this (good building codes, to begin with). Their leadership has responded immediately. People are helping each other. News is being posted right away through their advanced social networks. (Many individuals wanted to help with Katrina, and were turned back, and parts of the New Orleans area descended into violence and fear...) You can be sure, as a society, Japan will come through this even stronger and healthier and better prepared for the next event. I wish I could say stuff like that about the USA these days? I don't know, even as I have a lot of faith in US individuals in a crisis. But in the USA, government is painted as the enemy. We don't know what good government would feel like anymore, sadly -- government that is accountable, or plans well, or prioritizes human needs over short-term profits to a few.
With that said, more money put into solar energy research in Japan is probably a good idea... And if you are going to have nuclear power plants, designs like Hyperion power might make more sense (ignoring how you still need reprocessing facilities that might be at earthquake risk). That plant design was 40 years old. This book explains why old nuclear power plant designs are riskier:
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter10.html [pitt.edu]
"The nuclear power plants in service today were conceptually designed and developed during the 1960s. At that time, it was deemed necessary to achieve maximum efficiency and minimum cost in order to compete successfully with coal- or oil-burning plants. The latter were priced at 15% of their present cost and used fuel that was very cheap by current standards. In order to maximize efficiencies in the nuclear plants, temperatures, pressures, and power densities were pushed up to their highest practical limits. Safety features were exemplary for that era, and even for current safety practices in other industries. But they were not up to present-day demands for super-super safety in the nuclear industry.
As the public became more concerned with nuclear safety, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission required that new safety equipment and procedures be added on, in the process discussed in Chapter 9 as "regulatory ratcheting." The amount of labor and materials for these add-ons exceeded that for the plant as originally conceived. With this added complexity, the plants became difficult and expensive to construct, operate, and maintain. Moreover, the level of safety was still limited by the original conceptual design.
By the early 1980s it became apparent that a new conceptual design of nuclear reactors was called for. The cost of electricity from coal- and oil-burning plants had escalated to the point where their competition did not require maximum efficiency from nuclear plants. Furthermore, the added efficiency achieved by pushing temp
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:2, Insightful)
The chances of the reactor blowing up are next to zero.
Well it has blown up now, and I was just hearing the Japanese prime minister announcing the evacuated zone to 20km.
The biggest problem will be either a core breech(aka melting through the core chamber), or a slow uncontrolled cooling of the control rods because of damage by them being too hot. However considering that the CBC article is hours old already, and they've been slow venting, and finally have the ability to turn the pumps back on to get water into the chamber it should be controllable unless something happens again.
This sounds reassuring...
Now, let this be a lesson to anti-nuke nuts. Most reactors built within the last decade or two have two redundant systems for moving water. Steam, or mechanical. This series of reactors doesn't. You know why? Because in Japan, anything that could possibly at all, maybe related to nuclear, or radiation makes environmentalists go batshit crazy.
But it doesn't help that the reactors were built to withstand at least a 9.0 and it was hit by a 9.1, and I've heard it may be revised again as high as 9.4.
A lesson to anti-nuke nuts??? Oh I see! Disagreeing on nuclear policy makes one a flaky nut. How then are we going to produce sound policies, if people like you instantly jump on ad hominem attacks, instead of assessing a real situation for what it is: the Japanese have now to deal with a major nuclear disaster, itself in the middle of a horrible natural disaster, and you go on blaming those who dare to ask questions, and you dare come here on Slashdot telling us that those reactors are subpar, not because of industry practices, but because the industry could not build more of them.
Amazing, just amazing...
Oil - Coal - Nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to put this all into perspective for those claiming doom and gloom regarding nuclear power --
How many oil disasters have there been in the past decade? (Spills, refinery fires, etc.)
How many people died?
How many in Japan due to the quake?
How old were the facilities?
How many coal disasters have there been in the last decade?
How many people died?
How many in coal disasters in Japan due to the quake?
How old were the facilities?
How many nuclear disasters were there? How old were the facilities?
Right... so when we look at nuclear power, it's still the safest. They're built with the most oversight, foresight, and regulation AND it took the largest earthquake in recorded Japanese history to damage the 40 year old reactor-- which still likely won't go into meltdown. And there's been plenty of time to evacuate everyone just in case it does.
Do we get ANY of that luxury with oil or coal?
(Note: I use oil, coal, and nuclear energy in this comparison because they are the energy sources that can be created just about anywhere. Geothermal, wind, water, and solar require very specific placements.)
Re:So much for the safety of nuclear energy (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody's claiming the situation isn't already extremely bad. But a meltdown would still make it so much worse - it is not within the capacity of the world's economy to clean up the fallout of such an event, and Japan sure can't afford to have a large part of its land be useless wasteland.
Yes, people are misusing that event to further their own anti nuclear agenda. Distasteful, definitely, but that doesn't mean that the news' focus on the situation is out of proportion.
Re:If the Japanese can't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, the anti-nuclear proponents are their own worst enemies if they actually want to prevent things like this. The demand for power isn't going away...
I don't think that's a reasonable characterization. What we have here is an unproductive stalemate, where the anti-nuclear movement has succeeded in making nuclear power generation politically unpopular, but their preferred solution (increased energy efficiency) is even more unpopular, and decades of cheap petroleum since the 1980s has made breaking the stalemate not worth anyone's while.
What's going to happen is that oil prices will continue to rise, but in a chaotic fashion, and with practical plug-in hybrids coming on the market every time we have a spike they'll become more popular, even though the spike (as in the current one) is meaningless in the long term. The result is that a significant number new nuclear power plants are an inevitability starting some time in the next decade.
That's just political realism.
As I point out elsewhere, conflict can be a good thing for creativity. The interesting new reactor designs are a result of addressing the more reasonable concerns of anti-nuclear activists. That's a good thing, although it has led to some bad feelings. All the legitimate concerns of the anti-nuclear movement haven't been fully addressed, but I think enough progress has been made to start building new plants on these designs.
I favor a measured approach in developing new nuclear technology. If we went on a crash problem to solve our energy problems (as some suggested in 2008), we'd be getting lots of new reactors with this same proven but obsolete design. In a couple decades we'd have a huge number of technological white elephants on our hands. What we should do is invest in building a small number of plants using two different approaches, so as to gain experience with them. That won't exacerbate the as yet unsolved problems of nuclear power unduly (e.g. waste disposal), and if one of the approaches is a bust it's not the end of the world. As we prepare to commit more to nuclear power, we can improve the grid, which will also incent an increase in sustainable sources such as wind and new technologies such as solar thermal.
What I'd like to see is greater dependency on electricity and greater diversity in the electricity supply, spreading the environmental impact and economic risks over multiple energy sources, and fostering competition over greater geographical areas.
Re:Opportunity costs (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been zero deaths in the U.S. associated with commercial nuclear power generation despite it producing nearly 20% of our electricity. Wind has already killed at least 13 people [wind-works.org] in the U.S. despite producing less than 1% of our electricity. All of these have been maintenance workers (the only non-maintenance death was a skydiver in Germany who flew into a turbine). So the quip about a wind turbine at sea collapsing is beside the point since that wouldn't have stopped any of these deaths. In fact I suspect it would have caused more deaths since transferring from a boat rocking in ocean swells to a stationary platform isn't exactly the safest thing to do.
Solar has a huge problem in that roofing is one of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. [aol.com]. If you're imagining every house in the U.S. with solar panels mounted on the roof, you should expect probably about 100 more roofer deaths per year from installing and maintaining them. In terms of direct deaths (i.e. excluding mining and pollution), hydro actually turns out to be the most dangerous power source worldwide due to deaths from dam failures.
Over it's 50+ year history worldwide, in terms of deaths per unit of energy generated [nextbigfuture.com], nuclear power is the safest form of power generation man has ever invented. Yes that includes Chernobyl (a reactor design not used outside of the former USSR). If you accept the high estimate of number of expected cancer deaths from Chernobyl, it's about 4x safer than wind (the safest green technology). If you accept the low estimate, it's 125x safer than wind.
How about pollution? What most people don't realize about nuclear is that it's an incredibly concentrated power source. How much spent fuel (high-level nuclear waste, like we're trying to bury in Nevada) do you think would be produced to power a typical U.S. home for 30 years? A bit less than 10 kg, about a half liter's worth. To power the same home with solar, you'd need about 30-50 square meters of panels, and the panels have an expected lifespan of about 25-30 years. One small water bottle's worth of waste, vs 30-50 square meters of solar panels. Nuclear in the U.S. generates about 20% of our electricity, and produces ~2000 tons of spent fuel a year. That's about enough to fill one tractor trailer. One tractor trailer-full of high-level waste to provide 1/5th of the entire country's electricity for an entire year. And it's not spewed into the atmosphere like coal, it's not spread all over towns and the countryside like solar or wind. It's neatly contained in concentrated form within the nuclear plant. And all this is not even factoring in the waste reduction that can be achieved with reprocessing.
How about compared to wind? The Fukushima Dai-ichi plant which is the cause of the problem today has an overall generating capacity of 3596 MW. How big a wind farm would you need to replace it? The largest wind farm in the U.S. is Roscoe Wind Farm [wikipedia.org]. 781.5 MW peak capacity, 627 turbines, covering 400 km^2. Note however that that's peak capacity - how much electricity the farm generates under ideal conditions if each turbine is running at maximum power and efficiency. In practice, the average power generation from wind farms has been about 20%-25% of peak. Be generous and go with the high 25%. So 627 turbines and 400 km^2 gives you 195.4 MW of power on average. To replace Fuku