3 ms·
>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 as
by 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 agoIt 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 agoi guess we think of different things when we read "barren nuclear wasteland".
- renewiltord 3y agoI see. You weren't saying the size was exaggerated. You were saying that the unusable land was being exaggeratedly described as "barren nuclear wasteland". It's unusable land, so it is nuclear wasteland, but it isn't barren AFAIK.
- mcmoor 3y agoAt least we can put lots of nuclear plants in that 5,000 km^2 area so that definition becomes irrelevant for this discussion. Maybe putting the absolute maximum power generated if we turn all available lands to that purpose only is the best metric
- perilunar 3y ago> 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 It's definitely not 'barren'. I'd suggest it should be counted as nature reserves. See: "How Chernobyl has become an unexpected haven for wildlife" https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-ha...