Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner
461 - 480 of 486 Posts

·
Registered
MG5 and Chevy Volt
Joined
·
1,272 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,838 Posts
The concentration levels of tritium in the tanks ranges from about 0.5 to 4 million Bq/L, a total of about 0.76 PBq

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,838 Posts
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.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
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.

Cost about a quarter of the amount needed for the UK to have sufficient storage and generation for Renewables then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,838 Posts
Please show your workings.
sure…

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.
 

·
Registered
2020 BMW i3S 120Ah BEV
Joined
·
665 Posts
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.
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.

However, I do still think that charging cars should be taxed at a higher rate, just as you say to discourage use, just like petrol taxes are supposed to discourage use. I recognise that some people "need" to drive to work to live, but fundamentally people have more need of water, food, heat and light (and now, internet) than of the ability to travel in private vehicles to find work.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
30,282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #474 ·
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.
Well, yes and no.

I do agree with that general sentiment, really, please don't misunderstand that I am sympathetic to that, but the issue is that it is VERY easy to be a careless electricity consumer, but pretty difficult with those other things.

"Oh, I popped out for the kids clothes and accidentally bought TWICE the number of clothes I actually needed!" ....hmmmm ....

"Oh, I've accidentally eaten TWICE the amount of food my stomach can hold!" ....errrr .... well, that might explain record obesity, but not really a 'thing', I don't think, we already apply VAT on cooked (greasy chips and such).

"Oh, I left the tap on last night and accidentally used TWICE the amount of water I usually use!" .... possible, but that would surely be an accident.

"Oh, I accidentally set the heating to 30 C and never noticed!" .... :unsure:

Now try; "Oh, I left the lights, TV and computer on last night and accidentally used TWICE the amount of electricity I usually use!" .... y'see how easy that was!! Some extra cost added to that would make that less likely.

You may or may not recall that some time back one could take electricity tariffs that sunk you with a higher price after "X,000" kWh a month. In fact it is still something that appears in commercial property, though it is more related to a short term average power consumption than specifically energy.

Anyway, I have proposed this before and it is only a matter of time before someone in Gov figures out that this is the way to add VAT to BEV charging; simply increment the VAT from 5% to 20% over 500kWh/month. (Needy households with vulnerable folk can apply for exemptions, as they can already for water, heating and such.)

Simples, innit. Too simple?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,838 Posts
There’s no environmental need to discourage energy use or promote efficiency at home when you have 100% renewables.

The same can’t be said when it comes from nuclear… The more electricity you consume, the more highly radioactive nuclear waste is produced… waste that can & will leak its way into the environment.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
30,282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #476 ·
There’s no environmental need to discourage energy use or promote efficiency at home when you have 100% renewables.
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.

To even get enough wind energy in the UK we will need to increase the total number of wind turbines by a factor over 10 (when most sites are already very stuffed, and the North Sea is becoming increasingly a block of wind turbines from here to Norway, AND install storage.

You're greenwashing. Give us some numbers on how many wind turbines the UK needs, and where they all go.

Have you noticed the cost of electricity recently, and the share price of wind energy companies?

(By pure chance, and not particularly skilful judgment on my behalf TBH, I happened to sell all my Orsted right at its peak. Should I buy back? I am unclear if it is coming back up soon or not.)

146005
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
Nice video from Chief Engineer of Rolls Royce's SMR to the Royal Aeronautical Society.

Talks about design overview, safety, security and economics.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,838 Posts
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.
Not if the mining, manufacturing, transportation and installation is all electric in a 100% renewable grid.

Nice video from Chief Engineer of Rolls Royce's SMR to the Royal Aeronautical Society.

Talks about design overview, safety, security and economics.

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.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
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.)
I'll take the risk, it's a climate emergency after all.

He also points out the high level nuclear fuel waste for the lifetime of a plant the size of HPC is 1.5x Olympic swimming pool in volume, and the design standard is a B777 kamikaze.

He'd also love to go to molten salt, but the global supply chain just isn't in place to process the waste.
 
461 - 480 of 486 Posts
Top