You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #133: Now we're getting somewhere [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-02-11 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #129
133. Now we're getting somewhere
Edited on Mon May-02-11 10:45 PM by txlibdem
I'll take the figure of $244 Billion US because it's silly to think that you have to have two ships when one can just return to port every 6 months to pick up supplies: you wouldn't really need two fleets.

Now we just have to figure out how much it's going to cost to rebuild the devastated areas in the Fukushima area.
By Carsten Germis, Henning Peitsmeier and John Ritter

23rd March 2011 2011-03-23 ​​19:28:00

In Japan faces enormous costs. The Japanese government estimates that by the devastating earthquake two weeks ago, reconstruction costs of fees of up to 25 trillion yen (217 billion euros). /My note: that is $322 Billion US at this moment.


Only in the most heavily devastated provinces of Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima, the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure and destroyed buildings to 12.7 trillion yen to be estimated.


So a little over half goes to those 3 provinces, $161 Billion US. Uh-oh, I might be in trouble because some of that has to go to Iwate and Miyagi provinces and I only calculated the number of evacuees from Fukushima as 120,000.

HuffPo says there are 140,000 evacuees from the exclusion zone around Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushimi Daini.

Great! Now I've got less cash and more people to accommodate on the floating city. If I fudge the math and say that half of the $161 B goes to build the floating cities ($80 B) then I'll have to cut some salaries of the top brass in order to fit all this into the budget.

But how much will the floating cities actually cost? Do they need all of the same expensive stuff that an aircraft carrier needs? Not really. That should make them cheaper. Here's a company that is developing a ship designed for just that purpose but based on the cruise ship model which they call a "seastead":
How much will seasteads cost?

The Seasteading Institute commissioned marine engineering firm Marine Innovation & Technology to design Clubstead, a prototype seastead design. Clubstead has 368,200 ft^2 of room space for 200 guests with staff quarters to accommodate up to 70 people. The total estimated price tag: $114,333,000. Their estimates suggest that Clubstead can be built at a cost of $311/ft2 of usable space, roughly comparable to real estate costs in cities like San Francisco and New York.


That's $114 million for 270 people. But we have 140,000 so we'll need 518 of these. Ignoring any efficiencies of scale and fluctuations in costs from building the first to the last, we can simply multiply $114 million by 518 to get the total cost: $59,224,494,000 ($59 Billion US).

So I couldn't build them all US-class aircraft carriers but I could build them cruise ships and have $21 Billion left over ($80 Billion - 59 Billion). Maybe I'll buy a few helicopters to fly the passengers around, or some speed boats for water sports and visits to see the land lubbers?

Well, it looks like I might just earn that honorary Vice-Admiral title after all.

/edit to correct math error: 322 / 2 is 161, not 166: definitely bed time for this guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Union of Concerned Scientists: radioactive emissions from coal combustion higher than nuclear plants txlibdem  Apr-29-11 05:49 PM   #0 
  - Thanks for posting this interesting information. You have one thing wrong, however.  enough   Apr-29-11 05:58 PM   #1 
  - I still have the capacity to learn, please help me to understand why  txlibdem   Apr-29-11 06:15 PM   #3 
  - Just watch how nonabecquerel's of uranium from Fukushima demand action...  FBaggins   Apr-29-11 06:04 PM   #2 
  - +1  txlibdem   Apr-29-11 06:22 PM   #5 
  - "Whoops! All you anti-nukers better rethink your love of coal power plants..."  jpak   Apr-29-11 06:17 PM   #4 
  - What's the largest amout of tritium that has been reported released?  FBaggins   Apr-29-11 06:22 PM   #6 
  - Because if they counted spent fuel - "emissions" from nukes would be orders of magnitude > coal  jpak   Apr-29-11 06:28 PM   #8 
     - So you're going to dodge ALL of the questions?  FBaggins   Apr-29-11 06:32 PM   #10 
     - Uh  SpoonFed   Apr-30-11 04:18 PM   #29 
        - Wrong again  FBaggins   May-01-11 05:13 AM   #66 
     - Orders of magnitude? What a laugh!  txlibdem   Apr-29-11 06:59 PM   #12 
     - I doubt he knows what an "order of magnitude" is.  PamW   Apr-30-11 03:14 PM   #25 
        - You don't know what an order of magnitude is - do you  jpak   Apr-30-11 04:28 PM   #31 
           - The UCS and all of science disagrees with you  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 04:55 PM   #34 
              - I know what I'm talking about and I stand by those statements  jpak   Apr-30-11 05:05 PM   #36 
              - You stand by statements you don't understand.  PamW   Apr-30-11 05:56 PM   #41 
                 - You obviously have never heard of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act  jpak   Apr-30-11 06:58 PM   #51 
                    - 6.9 is more than 44 in your mind?  FBaggins   May-01-11 05:22 AM   #67 
              - Yeah - all of science  jpak   Apr-30-11 05:54 PM   #40 
                 - Except the "scientists" who are on the payroll of the Koch Bros or Big Coal  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 06:17 PM   #46 
                    - Which ones are those? The ones in Fairy Tales?  jpak   Apr-30-11 06:59 PM   #52 
                       - This may be one of your best posts yet - the one with the most intellectual content anyway  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 07:25 PM   #58 
     - WRONG!!!  PamW   Apr-30-11 03:11 PM   #24 
        - Wonderful, finally a sane recitation of that study...  kristopher   Apr-30-11 03:31 PM   #27 
        - It's fun to watch you just making crap up  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 05:20 PM   #38 
        - Couldn't disagree with you more...  PamW   Apr-30-11 06:07 PM   #43 
        - That's like saying a bullet isn't lethal because lead is present at ore levels in the environment  kristopher   Apr-30-11 06:27 PM   #47 
           - Where did you pull that one out of???  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 07:48 PM   #62 
        - You have obviously never heard of uranium mining and milling or fuel fabrication or enrichment  jpak   Apr-30-11 04:46 PM   #32 
           - Why are you not counting coal mining???  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 05:39 PM   #39 
           - I am not defending coal - only pointing out the convenient amnesia of the pronucular argument  jpak   Apr-30-11 05:56 PM   #42 
              - You ARE defending coal when you use a one-sided argument such as that  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 06:27 PM   #48 
                 - bullshit  jpak   Apr-30-11 07:12 PM   #55 
           - Whatever....  PamW   Apr-30-11 06:15 PM   #45 
              - The scientiifc truth? Can you say Fukushima?  jpak   Apr-30-11 07:02 PM   #53 
                 - Can you say coal kills more people than Fukushima and Chernobyl combined  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 07:30 PM   #59 
                 - Every year  FBaggins   Apr-30-11 07:33 PM   #61 
                 - Sure - Fukushima  PamW   Apr-30-11 09:24 PM   #63 
                    - What an ignorant post - this disaster is still unfolding  jpak   May-01-11 05:26 AM   #69 
                       - Please provide a link to show how many deaths from Chernobyl  txlibdem   May-01-11 04:53 PM   #82 
                          - And you know the number of excess cancer deaths that will result from this?  jpak   May-01-11 07:41 PM   #87 
                             - And if you don't know how many... claims of hundreds of thousands is reasonable?  FBaggins   May-01-11 07:44 PM   #88 
                                - I'm pretty sure this is the same poster who was indeed putting a high number to Fukushima deaths  txlibdem   May-01-11 09:45 PM   #89 
                                - I have never claimed any such number  jpak   May-02-11 05:21 AM   #90 
                                - Wiould you agree that those who do have no basis for the claim? n/t  FBaggins   May-02-11 05:28 AM   #91 
                                   - No one has made those claims  jpak   May-02-11 05:36 AM   #92 
                                      - Arnie did... and more than one poster here parroted it.  FBaggins   May-02-11 05:41 AM   #93 
                                - Apparently it's credible to the likes of...  SpoonFed   May-02-11 12:04 PM   #98 
                                   - You need to tell jpak. Not me.  FBaggins   May-02-11 12:36 PM   #102 
                                   - let me summarize a list of people you believe are credible...  SpoonFed   May-02-11 02:29 PM   #105 
                                      - What an odd use of the word "summarize"  FBaggins   May-02-11 02:42 PM   #106 
                                         - hot fbags air, does not contain radiactive cesium to my knowledge  SpoonFed   May-02-11 03:34 PM   #110 
                                            - Lying? nope.  FBaggins   May-02-11 03:39 PM   #111 
                                   - So you agree with Busby's figure of 400,000 cancer deaths from Fukushima?  txlibdem   May-02-11 02:19 PM   #104 
  - Are you calling the Union of Concerned Scientists a bunch of LIARS???  txlibdem   Apr-29-11 06:25 PM   #7 
  - You have obviously not read the ORNL report - your opinions are based on ignorance  jpak   Apr-29-11 06:30 PM   #9 
     - Do you think the UCS has read it? n/t  FBaggins   Apr-29-11 06:32 PM   #11 
     - You are impervious to facts - even when they come from environmentalists  txlibdem   Apr-29-11 07:02 PM   #14 
  - If so - then they should be reported to the NRC...  PamW   Apr-30-11 03:26 PM   #26 
  - The NRC is well aware of tritium releases from US nuclear plants - you obviously are not  jpak   Apr-30-11 05:03 PM   #35 
     - Of course a scientist would - it is called perspective.  PamW   Apr-30-11 06:36 PM   #49 
     - Do you know how many thousands of nuclear workers have been compensated by the US government  jpak   Apr-30-11 07:11 PM   #54 
        - FAR fewer than those compensated coal miners  FBaggins   May-01-11 05:24 AM   #68 
           - So you admit that the nuclear fuel cycle exposes workers to levels of radiation that kills them  jpak   May-01-11 05:41 AM   #71 
              - Lol! So a death only counts if taxpayers pay for it?  FBaggins   May-01-11 05:53 AM   #73 
                 - Your non-rebuttal speaks volumes - nuclear power is not safe or clean - it is lethal  jpak   May-01-11 06:56 AM   #74 
                    - You being uncomfortable with a rebuttal... and one not existing... are not the same thing.  FBaggins   May-01-11 10:14 AM   #78 
     - The NRC is aware of Tritium leaks -- you should stop using it as a boogie-man  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 06:43 PM   #50 
  - How dare you  SpoonFed   Apr-30-11 04:14 PM   #28 
     - Yeah, the pronuclear contingent is in full ostrich denial mode  jpak   Apr-30-11 05:08 PM   #37 
  - Yes, but  Turbineguy   Apr-29-11 07:00 PM   #13 
  - That is what the coal lobby wants us all to believe anyway  txlibdem   Apr-29-11 07:06 PM   #15 
  - Good. You acknowledge the expertise of UCS.  kristopher   Apr-29-11 08:16 PM   #16 
  - I only posted the one article from them, finally admitting that coal puts out more radiation  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 07:26 AM   #19 
  - This is very, very, very OLD news, but given that it only took the Concerned "Scientists"  NNadir   Apr-29-11 08:31 PM   #17 
  - So DU is a hellhole to you now huh?  madokie   Apr-30-11 08:32 AM   #21 
  - Yeah.  NNadir   Apr-30-11 07:23 PM   #57 
     - How's the molten salt breeder reactor coming along?  jpak   Apr-30-11 07:31 PM   #60 
     - The MSRE was shutdown in 1969. Nobody is working on that technology  PamW   Apr-30-11 09:28 PM   #64 
     - He claimed he invented one in his backyard  jpak   May-01-11 05:29 AM   #70 
     - The MSRE was shutdown in 1969 (but research has continued)  AnEngineer   May-11-11 10:10 PM   #153 
        - Another benefit to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: 1000 year supply of fuel  txlibdem   May-12-11 07:48 AM   #154 
     - Pam's not here man  madokie   May-01-11 07:34 AM   #75 
     - You can say that again - it's DISGUSTING  PamW   Apr-30-11 09:32 PM   #65 
        - Sorry - the Fukushima apologists are disgusting and ignore ((((reality))))  jpak   May-01-11 05:44 AM   #72 
        - Please bring your facts to the table -- you've said nothing of substance yet  txlibdem   May-02-11 07:06 AM   #96 
        - Right-wing conservative hate speech: "There's no limit to the contempt and opprobrium I have"  bananas   May-02-11 06:37 AM   #94 
        - You cite no facts or quotes, not even an informed opinion. Junk posts not needed here  txlibdem   May-02-11 07:10 AM   #97 
        - What unbelievably disgusting crap - and I'm talking about you. nt  bananas   May-02-11 06:39 AM   #95 
        - Deleted message  Name removed   May-02-11 04:47 PM   #114 
  - Hey - welcome back!  jpak   Apr-30-11 04:22 PM   #30 
  - Well now my posts don't sound so silly do they?  Gregorian   Apr-29-11 08:59 PM   #18 
  - Please post more often on the topic  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 07:34 AM   #20 
     - Don't get me wrong. I'm completely opposed to nuclear. For the same reason.  Gregorian   Apr-30-11 12:10 PM   #22 
        - Nothing wrong with that  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 03:04 PM   #23 
           - I can think of another area of disagreement...  SpoonFed   Apr-30-11 04:52 PM   #33 
              - Bringing up things from an entirely different OP???  txlibdem   Apr-30-11 06:14 PM   #44 
                 - Your reply shows you to be a liar  madokie   May-01-11 07:55 AM   #76 
                    - MADokie = Kris??? Now you're just making crap up, too.  txlibdem   May-01-11 08:53 AM   #77 
                       - Deleted message  Name removed   May-01-11 04:15 PM   #79 
                       - Always the gentleman.  FBaggins   May-01-11 04:32 PM   #80 
                       - Who rattled your chain anyway  madokie   May-01-11 04:37 PM   #81 
                       - In the interests of a civil discussion, I'll be the better man and apologize  txlibdem   May-01-11 05:05 PM   #83 
                          - Peace  madokie   May-01-11 05:19 PM   #84 
                       - wow...  SpoonFed   May-02-11 12:16 PM   #99 
                          - Ha ha. Cute attempt to turn reality on its head  txlibdem   May-02-11 02:02 PM   #103 
                             - What paranoia you ask?  SpoonFed   May-02-11 02:52 PM   #108 
                                - Par for the course: another fact-free anti-nuke post  txlibdem   May-02-11 03:20 PM   #109 
                                   - Why can't these floating cities just be hovercities?  SpoonFed   May-02-11 04:26 PM   #112 
                                      - You see what I mean?  txlibdem   May-02-11 04:46 PM   #113 
                                         - hahahaahahaah n/t  SpoonFed   May-02-11 04:49 PM   #115 
                                            - You make a mockery of yourself  txlibdem   May-02-11 05:06 PM   #116 
                                               - It isn't opposition, it is derision.  kristopher   May-02-11 05:35 PM   #118 
                                                  - Kris says he appreciates me! OMG, I'm blushing.  txlibdem   May-02-11 07:14 PM   #123 
  - Here's a USGS webpage on flyash:  struggle4progress   Apr-30-11 07:12 PM   #56 
  - Coal is an environmental problem but uranium content is not the primary reason  txlibdem   May-01-11 05:29 PM   #85 
     - Exactly right. Uranium is WAY down on the list of dangers from coal  FBaggins   May-01-11 07:26 PM   #86 
        - Why not both at the same time?  SpoonFed   May-02-11 12:23 PM   #100 
           - Because together they make up 2/3 of our electricity generation.  FBaggins   May-02-11 12:33 PM   #101 
              - It's impossible to make it simple enough for anti-nukers to grasp  txlibdem   May-02-11 05:19 PM   #117 
                 - Laughing so hard my side hurts...  SpoonFed   May-02-11 06:44 PM   #120 
                    - Everyone is not laughing WITH you, they're laughing AT you  txlibdem   May-02-11 07:22 PM   #124 
                       - I'll show you what's comical  Someguyinjapan   May-02-11 08:27 PM   #128 
                       - That's a nice picture  txlibdem   May-02-11 08:44 PM   #130 
                       - Um, yeah  Someguyinjapan   May-02-11 09:06 PM   #131 
                          - See post #133  txlibdem   May-02-11 10:49 PM   #134 
                             - *Sigh*  Someguyinjapan   May-03-11 08:43 AM   #139 
                       - you are so wrong  SpoonFed   May-02-11 09:12 PM   #132 
                       - I now support your idea... with reservations.  SpoonFed   May-02-11 08:34 PM   #129 
                          - Now we're getting somewhere  txlibdem   May-02-11 10:39 PM   #133 
                             - The only place we've ended up...  SpoonFed   May-04-11 04:49 PM   #146 
                                - You've made a lot of claims but provided no backup at all - should the world ignore your post?  txlibdem   May-04-11 05:12 PM   #147 
  - Here's Gabbard's estimated global total radioactivity release from coal, 1937 - 2040:  struggle4progress   May-02-11 02:50 PM   #107 
     - Thanks for the post n/t  SpoonFed   May-02-11 06:39 PM   #119 
     - The source link you provided proves you are wrong  txlibdem   May-02-11 06:46 PM   #121 
        - Please please please  SpoonFed   May-02-11 07:00 PM   #122 
        - Only because you are so special to me...  txlibdem   May-02-11 07:27 PM   #125 
           - Clearly you are incapable of common courtesy...  SpoonFed   May-04-11 04:47 PM   #145 
              - Yes, clearly our interchanges on DU have proven that "I'm the jerk"  txlibdem   May-04-11 05:28 PM   #148 
                 - Let me just continue to correct your errors...  SpoonFed   May-05-11 02:56 AM   #149 
                    - Your answer is in post #148  txlibdem   May-05-11 09:10 PM   #150 
                       - Translation...  SpoonFed   May-05-11 09:26 PM   #151 
                          - Your post was nothing but repitition ad nauseum  txlibdem   May-05-11 10:20 PM   #152 
        - The Gabbard webpage at ORNL is the source of the whole discussion, and it is linked  struggle4progress   May-02-11 07:39 PM   #126 
           - Coal emissions into weapons...?  SpoonFed   May-02-11 08:05 PM   #127 
              - Coal ash consists mainly of compounds like silicates, alumina, and iron rust:  struggle4progress   May-03-11 12:09 AM   #135 
              - You've got your facts exactly backwards  txlibdem   May-03-11 07:44 AM   #137 
                 - Table 2.--Comparative results for EPA-NBS interlaboratory trace element study  struggle4progress   May-03-11 10:01 AM   #140 
                    - It depends on where the sample is taken: Uranium in coal varies from 1 to 10 ppm  txlibdem   May-03-11 04:15 PM   #142 
                       - You stoop to putting words in my mouth, so we're done here.  struggle4progress   May-03-11 04:57 PM   #143 
              - If you want a crude cost estimate, the US has spent something like 5.5 trillion  struggle4progress   May-03-11 12:30 AM   #136 
                 - That means that any oil rich nation can do it with just a few days worth of oil profits  txlibdem   May-03-11 07:52 AM   #138 
                 - This idea's been knocking around for over a half century. ORNL looked at it in the early 1950s.  struggle4progress   May-04-11 09:30 AM   #144 
                 - Are you willing to sign an NDA?  SpoonFed   May-03-11 11:09 AM   #141 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC