3 ms·

> nuclear uses a vastly less [...] land per energy It really depends on which particular installation we're talking about, doesn't it? https://medium.com/soci

by _jal 6y ago

> nuclear uses a vastly less [...] land per energy It really depends on which particular installation we're talking about, doesn't it? https://medium.com/social-innovation-japan/fukushimas-nuclear-exclusion-zone-7-years-on-5b1998a1d560 https://medium.com/social-innovation-japan/fukushimas-nuclea... There are some other ones occupying rather a lot of land as well...

acidburnNSA 6y ago
The people who study these kinds of things consider accidents as well. We've been running nuclear reactors for 70+ years and can still see that on average they use a truly tiny amount of land, very compatible with ecosystem conservation. That's why a lot of conservationists do like nuclear. Keep in mind that Colorado is naturally more radioactive (due to cosmic rays at elevation and uranium in the rocks) than almost all the area surrounding Fukushima today. Thus you can find people who say that nuclear accidents create permanently uninhabitable wastelands, but that is simply not true. Below 100 mSv/year of radiation, no one has proved that any harm is done (or not done). Antinuclear institutions have formally used the strategy of terrifying people into thinking that even levels of radiation close to the natural background (3-6 mSv/yr in most places) are deadly. It is unjustifiable. There are some interesting arguments to be made about Chernobyl as well. It is not really a wasteland, as you can see in the pictures and discussion here [1]. Wildlife has returned incredibly with the absence of humans. Climate change has pretty large potential land impacts so that should be factored into fossil like natural gas too. [1] https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...
- _jal 6y ago
  > The people who study these kinds of things consider accidents as well "Consider" is a lovely word. I would certainly consider how they accounted for things like a ~220 sq/mi exclusion zone in Japan, if I had any idea what was being referenced. > Wildlife has returned incredibly with the absence of humans. It is true that many animals find radiation more tolerable than people. You can make similar claims about mountain top removal - thanks to devastated ecosystems, Kentucky is repopulating their elk. When you get around to looking at the costs of these wildlife havens, enthusiasm for diving down this line of inquiry in any serious fashion tends to evaporate on the nuclear-booster side, though. "Something can live in any hellhole humanity can create" isn't the best of bumper-stickers, I guess. > Climate change has pretty large potential land impacts Anything that encourages taking these externalities more seriously than now...
  - acidburnNSA 6y ago
    The key question is: how many square miles of Japan have annual dose rates higher than, say, 10 mSv/yr? If people knew the science and units of radiation dose response, I believe many would absolutely choose to live and play and raise children in that kind of environment. When you can detect a single atom decaying, dose rate numbers and health models matter.
    - _jal 6y ago
      At some point this starting sounding like a timeshare sales pitch. "...And our more senior members find the hotter zones a very economical tradeoff..."
imtringued 6y ago
That's an interesting argument. I've always seen people downplay the exclusion zones but if you are accepting them as a cost of doing business then they clearly should be counted towards the footprint of the power plants.

by _jal 6y ago

acidburnNSA 6y ago

The people who study these kinds of things consider accidents as well. We've been running nuclear reactors for 70+ years and can still see that on average they use a truly tiny amount of land, very compatible with ecosystem conservation. That's why a lot of conservationists do like nuclear. Keep in mind that Colorado is naturally more radioactive (due to cosmic rays at elevation and uranium in the rocks) than almost all the area surrounding Fukushima today. Thus you can find people who say that nuclear accidents create permanently uninhabitable wastelands, but that is simply not true. Below 100 mSv/year of radiation, no one has proved that any harm is done (or not done). Antinuclear institutions have formally used the strategy of terrifying people into thinking that even levels of radiation close to the natural background (3-6 mSv/yr in most places) are deadly. It is unjustifiable. There are some interesting arguments to be made about Chernobyl as well. It is not really a wasteland, as you can see in the pictures and discussion here [1]. Wildlife has returned incredibly with the absence of humans. Climate change has pretty large potential land impacts so that should be factored into fossil like natural gas too. [1] https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive-wastelands-a-look-at-chernobyls-effects-on-nature/ https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...

_jal 6y ago
> The people who study these kinds of things consider accidents as well "Consider" is a lovely word. I would certainly consider how they accounted for things like a ~220 sq/mi exclusion zone in Japan, if I had any idea what was being referenced. > Wildlife has returned incredibly with the absence of humans. It is true that many animals find radiation more tolerable than people. You can make similar claims about mountain top removal - thanks to devastated ecosystems, Kentucky is repopulating their elk. When you get around to looking at the costs of these wildlife havens, enthusiasm for diving down this line of inquiry in any serious fashion tends to evaporate on the nuclear-booster side, though. "Something can live in any hellhole humanity can create" isn't the best of bumper-stickers, I guess. > Climate change has pretty large potential land impacts Anything that encourages taking these externalities more seriously than now...
- acidburnNSA 6y ago
  The key question is: how many square miles of Japan have annual dose rates higher than, say, 10 mSv/yr? If people knew the science and units of radiation dose response, I believe many would absolutely choose to live and play and raise children in that kind of environment. When you can detect a single atom decaying, dose rate numbers and health models matter.
  - _jal 6y ago
    At some point this starting sounding like a timeshare sales pitch. "...And our more senior members find the hotter zones a very economical tradeoff..."

imtringued 6y ago

That's an interesting argument. I've always seen people downplay the exclusion zones but if you are accepting them as a cost of doing business then they clearly should be counted towards the footprint of the power plants.