You’re right that coal doesn’t need exclusion zones—it kills thousands of people a year in accidents quickly enough that that wouldn’t matter; and thousands more by atmospheric contamination far beyond 20 miles. Can’t exclude the whole planet.

That is incorrect. It takes thousands of hundred million dollar turbines just to break even. 13 Billion is a tiny amount of money when your talking about 60+ years of energy generation in the gigawatt range.

As it is costal it should have a natural, consistent back and forth day/night cycle of wind (caused by unequal heating of land/water), that should function independent of weather pattern. Adding Japan’s natural northern(ish) and southern(ish) wind currents will allow for even greater functionality.

a region largely fed up with nuclear energy.

The difference between scientist and engineers.... You need 672 to fully replace the plant. However you have to account for windless days, and add in a few as replacements, then throw in a safety factor of at least 1.2 . So 672, assume 1/3 days are windless so 672/0.6666 = 1018 + 10% spares so 1,120 times safety…

672 to be more exact.

Don’t get the hopes too high. According to this unaccredited source, The Fukishimia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima… generated 4.7 GigaWatts. As shown the wind turbine here generates 7 megawatts. It will take several hundred to fully replace the power plant.