3 ms·

Which large parcel of land in Japan is unusable for hundreds of years ? I am not aware of any large area declared unusable that way.

colordrops 6y ago
http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/evacuation-orders-and-restricted-areas http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclea...
- drivebycomment 6y ago
  Where does it say the evacuated areas are off limit for hundreds of years ?
  - colordrops 6y ago
    After doing a bit of searching around, it looks like 20-40 years: https://www.brainscape.com/blog/2015/06/how-long-take-to-recover-from-a-nuclear-accident/#:~:text=More%20than%20100%2C000%20people%20remain,at%20least%2020%2D40%20years https://www.brainscape.com/blog/2015/06/how-long-take-to-rec.... So one of my assumptions was incorrect - but only about Fukushima. Chernobyl is estimated at 20,000 years. So it depends on the nature of the contaminaation.
    - drivebycomment 6y ago
      I have no doubt that all advocates for nuclear would agree Chernobyl is not acceptable, and that Chernobyl can't happen in more modern reactor designs. If Fukushima is the worst case (and newer designs may even avoid/prevent Fukushima style event entirely), I'd say the cost is acceptable. ~300 square km area that's affected is relatively small, given the grand scheme of things - it would be certainly much, much less impact than coal mining has on land use and pollution (by mining itself, not counting the effect of burning coal). So if I have a magic wand, I'd happily remove all coal mining and power plants, and replace them all with nuclear power plants (though not necessarily put them on the same location), and I think humanity will be better off. In the really long term, if/when there's enough energy storage solutions, I think we may not need much of nuclear power plants anymore. But I think we can not wait for that to be viable as the climate disaster is already on its way.

colordrops 6y ago

http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclear-accident/evacuation-orders-and-restricted-areas http://fukushimaontheglobe.com/the-earthquake-and-the-nuclea...

drivebycomment 6y ago
Where does it say the evacuated areas are off limit for hundreds of years ?
- colordrops 6y ago
  After doing a bit of searching around, it looks like 20-40 years: https://www.brainscape.com/blog/2015/06/how-long-take-to-recover-from-a-nuclear-accident/#:~:text=More%20than%20100%2C000%20people%20remain,at%20least%2020%2D40%20years https://www.brainscape.com/blog/2015/06/how-long-take-to-rec.... So one of my assumptions was incorrect - but only about Fukushima. Chernobyl is estimated at 20,000 years. So it depends on the nature of the contaminaation.
  - drivebycomment 6y ago
    I have no doubt that all advocates for nuclear would agree Chernobyl is not acceptable, and that Chernobyl can't happen in more modern reactor designs. If Fukushima is the worst case (and newer designs may even avoid/prevent Fukushima style event entirely), I'd say the cost is acceptable. ~300 square km area that's affected is relatively small, given the grand scheme of things - it would be certainly much, much less impact than coal mining has on land use and pollution (by mining itself, not counting the effect of burning coal). So if I have a magic wand, I'd happily remove all coal mining and power plants, and replace them all with nuclear power plants (though not necessarily put them on the same location), and I think humanity will be better off. In the really long term, if/when there's enough energy storage solutions, I think we may not need much of nuclear power plants anymore. But I think we can not wait for that to be viable as the climate disaster is already on its way.