4 ms·

Chernobyl won't be habitable in the next 20.000 years. I doubt there's a hydropower disaster comparable to that.

by luibelgo 6y ago

Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
The way things are going, large part of the planet (say, latitudes -30...30) won't be habitable in the next XX years
- drran 6y ago
  Nuclear can cover the gap at poles. Anyway, nuclear power GENERATES heat and electricity, so it increases global temperature, while renewables are CUTTING part of solar energy, so they decrease global temperature.
  - Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
    > while renewables are CUTTING part of solar energy, so they decrease global temperature Do you know why solar panels looks dark, almost black? Because they absorb as much solar as they can. IN real life if you cover surface with panels, albedo would decrease and system as a whole would absorb MORE solar energy. But part of absorbed energy would be converted to electricity and do some work. At the end it all would be heat, so on pure heat basis solar panels would increase temperature
    - drran 6y ago
      Problem with solar panels is solvable: a special material to emit heat in a narrow infrared region, to which Earth atmosphere is transparent, is already invented in India. It will keep solar panels cool, which will increase their efficiency. Per watt price for this material is unknown for me.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    The direct thermal energy output of human industry is small compared to the indirect effect of greenhouse gases: • https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2017-state-climate-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2017-s... • http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15%20terawatts%2F%28surface%20area%20earth%29%20in%20watts%2Fsquare%20meter http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15%20terawatts%2F%28sur...
Ericson2314 6y ago
Tell that to the ton of wildlife around everything but the refactor proper? And also even taking your argument at face value, I fully believe a handful of 20,000 year dead zones would be superior to global warming at our current rate. The alternative we get now is way more than 20,000 years of wrecked biodiversity almost everywhere. How is the orange website so full of self-avowed rationalists so incapable of comparing sudden and quick vs slow and steady harm...
- luibelgo 6y ago
  Point is, current energy sources can be stopped and reworked, once you go with nuclear disaster you assume the 20k year scenario. Tell me you won't change your opinion in that time span.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    "can be" isn't good enough. There's a lot of stuff we could do, but won't. I'll take my chances with the nuclear powerplants, thank you.
    - luibelgo 6y ago
      Don't take mine, please
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Quarter-million people killed, 7 million houses destroyed. Thats enough to wipe a small coutry, like Czech Republic, off the map.
- Frondo 6y ago
  Both these disasters are pretty horrible, of course, but I think the OP's point was that Chernobyl and nuclear disasters leave an area uninhabitable for periods of time that far outstretch the entirety of human civilization up to now. Horrible dam failures don't do that, though of course there's a massive human cost for infrastructure failures like that. There's nothing like the "this is not a place of honor" warnings (for regions contaminated with nuclear waste) for dam failures, e.g.
MagnumOpus 6y ago
In fact fair few parts of the exclusion zone are under discussion to be reopened very soon, and Chernobyl is quite habitable for some definition of habitable. Thousands of people stay and live there (decontamination workers, and a big tourist trade), though they are only allowed to stay three months at a time. They are exposed to less radiation than an airline pilot or a stewardess receives in the course of their job -- so "habitable" is relative.

Chernobyl won't be habitable in the next 20.000 years. I doubt there's a hydropower disaster comparable to that.

Iwan-Zotow 6y ago

The way things are going, large part of the planet (say, latitudes -30...30) won't be habitable in the next XX years

drran 6y ago
Nuclear can cover the gap at poles. Anyway, nuclear power GENERATES heat and electricity, so it increases global temperature, while renewables are CUTTING part of solar energy, so they decrease global temperature.
- Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
  > while renewables are CUTTING part of solar energy, so they decrease global temperature Do you know why solar panels looks dark, almost black? Because they absorb as much solar as they can. IN real life if you cover surface with panels, albedo would decrease and system as a whole would absorb MORE solar energy. But part of absorbed energy would be converted to electricity and do some work. At the end it all would be heat, so on pure heat basis solar panels would increase temperature
  - drran 6y ago
    Problem with solar panels is solvable: a special material to emit heat in a narrow infrared region, to which Earth atmosphere is transparent, is already invented in India. It will keep solar panels cool, which will increase their efficiency. Per watt price for this material is unknown for me.
- ben_w 6y ago
  The direct thermal energy output of human industry is small compared to the indirect effect of greenhouse gases: • https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2017-state-climate-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2017-s... • http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15%20terawatts%2F%28surface%20area%20earth%29%20in%20watts%2Fsquare%20meter http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=15%20terawatts%2F%28sur...

Ericson2314 6y ago

Tell that to the ton of wildlife around everything but the refactor proper? And also even taking your argument at face value, I fully believe a handful of 20,000 year dead zones would be superior to global warming at our current rate. The alternative we get now is way more than 20,000 years of wrecked biodiversity almost everywhere. How is the orange website so full of self-avowed rationalists so incapable of comparing sudden and quick vs slow and steady harm...

luibelgo 6y ago
Point is, current energy sources can be stopped and reworked, once you go with nuclear disaster you assume the 20k year scenario. Tell me you won't change your opinion in that time span.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  "can be" isn't good enough. There's a lot of stuff we could do, but won't. I'll take my chances with the nuclear powerplants, thank you.
  - luibelgo 6y ago
    Don't take mine, please

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Quarter-million people killed, 7 million houses destroyed. Thats enough to wipe a small coutry, like Czech Republic, off the map.

Frondo 6y ago
Both these disasters are pretty horrible, of course, but I think the OP's point was that Chernobyl and nuclear disasters leave an area uninhabitable for periods of time that far outstretch the entirety of human civilization up to now. Horrible dam failures don't do that, though of course there's a massive human cost for infrastructure failures like that. There's nothing like the "this is not a place of honor" warnings (for regions contaminated with nuclear waste) for dam failures, e.g.

MagnumOpus 6y ago

In fact fair few parts of the exclusion zone are under discussion to be reopened very soon, and Chernobyl is quite habitable for some definition of habitable. Thousands of people stay and live there (decontamination workers, and a big tourist trade), though they are only allowed to stay three months at a time. They are exposed to less radiation than an airline pilot or a stewardess receives in the course of their job -- so "habitable" is relative.