Japan just lost about 5 gigawatts of generating capacity. It will be replaced with...

[phantom power]

[RandySF]

1. The Japanese are forward-looking people

I don't see them going in reverse the way we are.

[ixion]

2. generators on the short term, wind, solar, wave geo-thermal hybrid on the long term

I saw many houses replete with solar panels in the tsunami video.

[Kalun D]

3. Whatever they decide to replace it with

a poll like this has zero relevance

[Drale]

4. Androids running on treadmills

:rofl:

[Yavapai]

6. I was going to post "Charlie Sheen on a treadmill with an ounce of coke".

By the way, do you know how much coke Charlie Sheen snorted?

Enough to kill 2 1/2 men!

[jtrockville]

5. Doesn't it take ~10 years to build a nuke?

They're going to be in the dark for a decade if they want to replace those nukes with nukes, no?

[Posteritatis]

7. It'll take awhile to make up that much production regardless. (nt)

[Massacure]

9. It takes four years to construct.

I don't know what the licensing culture is going to be like though.

[kristopher]

17. Some data to consider

"...when the 2009 MIT authors assume a reactor- construction-time period, they again follow the 2003 MIT authors and say (p. 4) nuclear-plant ‘‘construction is planned to occur over a 5-year period’’ (Du and Parsons 2009).

However, most experienced nuclear operators, like Florida Power and Light, say US new-nuclear-plant-construction time is 12 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007), not the 5 years assumed by the MIT authors.

Likewise, the US National Academy of Sciences estimates at least 11 years (Smith 2007).

The average UK-nuclear- plant-construction time is 11 years (House of Commons Energy Select Committee 1990);

in France, 14 years (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007);

in Japan, 17 years (Stoett 2003);

in Eastern Europe, 15 years (Bunyard 2006; International Energy Agency (IEA) 2001)...."

Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette

[FBaggins]

10. Depends on who is building it.

Some nations have more extensive permitting and approval processes than others.

I believe the reference construction period for one of the new reactors (from a Japanese company) is four years.

[jtrockville]

12. Even 4 years is a mighty long time to wait.

Won't they need something in the interim?

[PamW]

15. It takes that long for anything

Even 4 years is a mighty long time to wait.
================================

It takes a few years to build new coal power plants to replace
the damaged nukes.

Nobody has 5 gigawatts of generating capacity sitting in a warehouse
ready to be delivered.

PamW

[jtrockville]

16. It takes about half that long for most types.

New Carlisle, Indiana has plans to build a 600 MW natural gas plant in 2 years, using union labor:
http://www.wsbt.com/news/wsbt-natural-gas-plant-would-be-built-near-new-carlisle-20110310,0,1011498.story?track=rss

[Statistical]

27. They will use natural gas.

Japan has a lot of natural gas generator and they are used sparingly to balance the grid, and provide backup for nukes when refueling. They use them sparingly because the cost is high. Given they have the capacity they will use natural gas.

They can start using more natural gas very quickly (as soon as ports are operational) far quicker than building any plant.

[PamW]

14. 10 years - not in Japan.

Doesn't it take ~10 years to build a nuke?
========================================

The time it takes to actually build and do the construction of
a nuclear power plant is about 3 years.

So why 10 yeaars?

It takes 10 years or 15 years in the USA, because you have all the lawsuits
and it takes that long for the Courts to hear all the lawsuits.

The actual construction is only 3 years.

Japan and France and other nations don't have the litigious process the USA
has. Once the decision is made by the Government regulators to allow the
construction / operation of a nuclear power plant, the anti-nukes don't have
the opportunity to use the Court system to obstruct the construction.

PamW

[kristopher]

19. Well you are certainly well informed.

But perhaps you should see post 17 above where you'll find that the average build time in both France and Japan exceeds the US by a wide margin.

How does that fit in with your persecution complex?

[happyslug]

23. Watch the terms for length of time of Construction

For example the Kinzua Bridge in Pennsylvania was rebuilt as a Steel Bridge in 1900 from being an Iron Bridge in Three Months. Three months for the actual construction, ten years in planning and preparation. When it was destroyed in 2003, the reason for the failure was that while the Iron had been replaced by Steel throughout the Structure, in the area between the Bridge and its base remained the original iron connections, and it was those connections that failed in 2003.

For more on the Kinzua High Level Bridge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinzua_Bridge

My point is while actual construction can be 2-5 years, planning, site selection, site preparation and planning construction can take even longer. Nothing to do with litigation, just making sure everything is in place for construction. In the case of the Kinzua Bridge the Railroad wanted the bridge out of operation the shortest period of time, thus the three months construction period and ten years of planning, preparation and even pre-buying of the parts needed.

The same with any large project, it often takes twice or three times as long to plan, select the site and prepare for the actual construction then it does to actually build what is to be built. In the case of nuclear plants. making sure the plant is NOT on an earthquake fault, or other hazardous location is important (And thus testing of the ground MUST be made before construction, no one wants a leaning tower of Pisa when it comes to a Nuclear plant, the Leaning tower of Pisa, leans for it was built on an old swamp and as such has a bad base which cause the tower to lean). Twelve years sounds about right to build such a plant, from the selection of a site, testing that site, final design around that sight and then the building (and checking on the building to make sure the construction is up to code) can easily take 12 years.

More on the leaning Tower of Pisa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa

[LiberalEsto]

8. Mutant hamsters nt

[GliderGuider]

11. I suspect the main answer will be natural gas

although coal will perhaps be a player over the next 5 years.

I don't hold out much hope for wind - Japan just lost the equivalent of ten times their total wind generating ability. Over the last 8 years they've installed 245 MW/year of wind capacity on average. Even at four times that installation rate it would take them 20 years to replace the generation they've lost - and this would be in the face of economic hard times and a lack of accessible wind resources (offshore is a problem due to water depth and onshore is a problem due to complex geography and population density.

85% of Japan's primary energy is imported, which is what made them strike such a Faustian bargain with nuclear power in the first place. I don't see any straightforward way they can replace their energy requirements if nuclear power is now off the table (and it is, just like it now is in every other country with a renascent nuclear program).

Japan could become the first national casualty of the peaking of industrial civilization.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. They are already securing additional NG supplies from Russia.

So the answer to the op's poll is already available. Carbon emitting fossil fuels.

[GliderGuider]

20. The question is, what happens in the medium term?

The use of imported NG as an emergency measure was inevitable. The question becomes, how do they replace their lost capacity over the next 5 years? I don't see an easy answer to that. NG imports will be expensive and difficult, especially since some of their port LNG facilities burned up.

[kristopher]

18. They have already announced that they are buying more fossil fuel from Russia

to burn in existing generators.

Is your point that you think they will replace this long term with fossil fuel?

[phantom power]

21. That is my guess, but it made me wonder what other people think.

[kristopher]

22. I think they will plaster every roof with solar, delve into deepwater offshore wind and

burn biomass and increase geothermal in the medium and long term.

Two of the three businesses most adversely affected by the whole mess are Tokyo Electric and Toshiba. Toshiba is just launching a push for residential solar in US and Europe. Tokyo Electric is the perfect model for a solar retail, financing and installation organization.

Deepwater offshore wind is already taking root.

Japan is the one of (if not the) most forested nation in the world.

Geothermal is self evident.

I don't know how much underutilized natgas generating capacity they have, but natgas is expensive there.

[jimlup]

24. watch for a bump in the atmospheric CO2 in the next six months...

But I think there will be a bump in the background radiation well before that. I'm considering taking potassium-Iodide and I live nowhere near Japan.

[GliderGuider]

25. Maybe it will be replaced by one of those suppressed technologies of Tesla's

If the Illuminati would only grow a heart and release them...

Seriously, I don't think the majority of their lost capacity will in fact be replaced, and Japan will cope by adapting downward over the next two or three decades. They are the canary in the coal mine of industrial technological civilization, and their future looks more than a bit catabolic to me right now.

[Statistical]

26. Likely a combination.

No coal but a mix of the rest and likely some government enforced conservationism.

In the short term it will be natural gas. Japan has a lot of excess natural gas capacity and Russia has announced it will divert two massive LNG shipment to Japan in April and May.