Cost about a quarter of the amount needed for the UK to have sufficient storage and generation for Renewables then.“The government says Fukushima’s decommissioning cost is estimated at 8 trillion yen ($73 billion), though adding compensation, decontamination of surrounding areas and medium-term storage facilities would bring the total to an estimated 22 trillion yen ($200 billion). The Japan Center for Economic Research, a think tank, estimates that decommissioning alone would cost 51 trillion yen ($470 billion) if the water is not released and tritium removal technology is pursued.”
TOKYO (AP) — Japan on Friday revised a roadmap for the cleanup of the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant, further delaying the removal of thousands of spent fuel units that remain in cooling pools since the 2011 disaster...apnews.com
sure…Please show your workings.
how much would it cost for a 8ft diameter, 314km circumference bore / 8ft deep trench centered near cambridge? it’s a relatively flat area. this size optimizes the centrifugal and repulsive forces against the outer wall (~70psi, 95g’s, 45 sec laps) with 6 foot tall, 3inch thick, mach 20 neodymium hypersonic energy storage sleds… it’d be around 1.5M m^3 of earth moved (~95000 m^3 neodymium magnets used which is about 695000 metric tons, or around $53B USD worth of magnets… expensive but 40x less than the material cost of similar amount of energy storage - UK 72 hrs - $2.1T USD with lithium cells)
View attachment 145524
Well the Gotthard Base Tunnel moved 13M m^3 of rock for around $10B USD (5 giza pyramids), so I assume 1/10th the material for 1/10th the price or around $1B USD in digging cost and $53B USD in magnet cost— $54B USD is still 40x less than $2.1T USD it would cost to store enough electricity with lithium cells to power the UK for 72 hours.
I think it comes down to the general realisation that all the things that everyone pretty much HAS to have - kid's clothes, food staples, water, heat and light - if you tax it all that happens is the tax comes in one end and goes out the other in benefits/discounts/subsidies and that's inefficient. Particularly when a government is doing it.. Given as it's somewhat recognised that concepts like universal income appear to be actually cheaper than schemes which seek to give help only to those that need it due to how simple and therefore cheap it is to run them.I am unclear what the problem in discouraging electricity use at home is.
Power companies have to respond to requests from those with income or situational difficulties and offer rebates and price caps. So it can't be an argument based on 'the lowly cannot afford it to be taxed' because they can get rebates to some value.
Well, yes and no.I think it comes down to the general realisation that all the things that everyone pretty much HAS to have - kid's clothes, food staples, water, heat and light - if you tax it all that happens is the tax comes in one end and goes out the other in benefits/discounts/subsidies and that's inefficient.
Of course there is. The footprint for installation of power and energy storage is not CO2-zero.There’s no environmental need to discourage energy use or promote efficiency at home when you have 100% renewables.
Not if the mining, manufacturing, transportation and installation is all electric in a 100% renewable grid.Of course there is. The footprint for installation of power and energy storage is not CO2-zero.
Further, if there is ANY non-renewable use on your grid then you'd be using up electricity that could have helped drop it to zero.
You’re still making nuclear waste, still leaking nuclear waste, still susceptible to accidents that can cause real harm both financial and radiological ( loss of coolant accident - L.O.C.A. - etc.)Nice video from Chief Engineer of Rolls Royce's SMR to the Royal Aeronautical Society.
Talks about design overview, safety, security and economics.
I'll take the risk, it's a climate emergency after all.You’re still making nuclear waste, still leaking nuclear waste, still susceptible to accidents that can cause real harm both financial and radiological ( loss of coolant accident - L.O.C.A. - etc.)