5 ms·

I'm wondering if the OWID data takes the 3,400km^2 of exclusion zone from Fukushima and Chernobyl (more like 5,000km^2, see below) into account when calculating

I'm wondering if the OWID data takes the 3,400km^2 of exclusion zone from Fukushima and Chernobyl (more like 5,000km^2, see below) into account when calculating the average size of a nuclear plant? I think if we're saying the space beneath the blades can count towards aggregate wind-power land use, an argument can be made to include nuclear wasteland in the aggregate nuclear-power land use.

soperj 3y ago
Chernobyl's exclusion zone is 4143km^2, and Fukushima's is 807km^2.
s0rce 3y ago
Shouldn't you include in the average nuclear sites that didn't explode?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mulmen 3y ago
  Why? Nuclear plants can and do melt down.
  - aerzen 3y ago
    There are nuclear plants that have been decommissioned and have not exploded. So using just this data, there is a probability that a given nuclear plant will melt down in its lifecycle. And that probability is greater than 0, but far less than 1.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      Yes but wind turbines can’t melt down in that way. Even in a worst case scenario the literal blast radius is smaller. This has to factor in to the possible locations.
xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Should we consider the potential blast radius of the catastrophic failure of wind turbines as well? You literally cannot build structures in the path of a wind turbine if you want it to function.
- OtherShrezzing 3y ago
  >Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion. I'm not suggesting we assign 5,000km^2 to each individual nuclear plant, just in case they explode. I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland should be included in the total land attributed to nuclear energy. That would bring down the average generated energy per km^2 pretty significantly. The dataset does what I've suggested for hydroelectric. The dams are relatively tiny (and in fact, would outperform both wind and nuclear in this dataset), but they render huge areas unusable. The unusable collateral land is attributed to hydroelectric power, as it should be. It stands to reason that collateral damage caused by nuclear should be included, if collateral damage by hydroelectric is too.
  - beebeepka 3y ago
    > I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland Aren't you exaggerating by quite a bit?
    - renewiltord 3y ago
      It appears it's not far from the truth. According to https://www.britannica.com/story/nuclear-exclusion-zones https://www.britannica.com/story/nuclear-exclusion-zones it's 4100 sq.km. for Chernobyl and 371 sq.km. for Fukushima (800 sq.km. at peak) which isn't an exaggeration. Interesting.
      - beebeepka 3y ago

soperj 3y ago

Chernobyl's exclusion zone is 4143km^2, and Fukushima's is 807km^2.

s0rce 3y ago

Shouldn't you include in the average nuclear sites that didn't explode?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mulmen 3y ago
Why? Nuclear plants can and do melt down.
- aerzen 3y ago
  There are nuclear plants that have been decommissioned and have not exploded. So using just this data, there is a probability that a given nuclear plant will melt down in its lifecycle. And that probability is greater than 0, but far less than 1.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    Yes but wind turbines can’t melt down in that way. Even in a worst case scenario the literal blast radius is smaller. This has to factor in to the possible locations.

xyzzy_plugh 3y ago

Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Should we consider the potential blast radius of the catastrophic failure of wind turbines as well? You literally cannot build structures in the path of a wind turbine if you want it to function.

OtherShrezzing 3y ago
>Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion. I'm not suggesting we assign 5,000km^2 to each individual nuclear plant, just in case they explode. I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland should be included in the total land attributed to nuclear energy. That would bring down the average generated energy per km^2 pretty significantly. The dataset does what I've suggested for hydroelectric. The dams are relatively tiny (and in fact, would outperform both wind and nuclear in this dataset), but they render huge areas unusable. The unusable collateral land is attributed to hydroelectric power, as it should be. It stands to reason that collateral damage caused by nuclear should be included, if collateral damage by hydroelectric is too.
- beebeepka 3y ago
  > I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland Aren't you exaggerating by quite a bit?
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    It appears it's not far from the truth. According to https://www.britannica.com/story/nuclear-exclusion-zones https://www.britannica.com/story/nuclear-exclusion-zones it's 4100 sq.km. for Chernobyl and 371 sq.km. for Fukushima (800 sq.km. at peak) which isn't an exaggeration. Interesting.
    - beebeepka 3y ago