News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate Change. Parent comment

Re:Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate ... by pmontra on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @12:55PM (#22171992)
Nuclear is safe until it isn't, then you lose a large area of the country around the power plant (Chernobyl, Fukushima.) Personally I don't think it's worth the risk, plus the building times you write about and the costs of decommissioning.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate ... by bazzert on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @01:26PM (#22172443)
Fukushima, "1 death from radiation, 2202 from the evacuation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate ... by pmontra on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @02:39PM (#22173256)
As awful as it can sound it's not about the deaths. It's about people not being able to enter that area basically forever, on their time scale.

If Fukushima was in New Yersey the USA would have lost New York City.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate ... by beerandt on Tuesday January 28, 2020 @11:00PM (#22177270)
I'm starting to think the permanent evacuation zones are based more on arbitrary scare tactics than actual danger, at least after the acute event is under control. Maybe you don't want to live there. But entering doesn't seem to be the death sentence it's made out to be, based on the people that never left Chernobyl and returning population in Japan.

If global warming is as certain and as dangerous as what's being claimed, the risk of contaminating a few thousand acres (or even miles) with radioactivity is certainly worth it to save the world.

Plus Fukushima basically disproved the China syndrome scare we've been fed for 40+ years.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate ... by keanzu on Wednesday January 29, 2020 @03:34AM (#22178555)
"This solar farm in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in India has a capacity of 648 megawatts and covers an area of 10 square kilometres." [1]

That's 10sqkm that's been lost basically forever, or as long as it humans require solar power for only 648MW during the day when the sun is shining.

Fukushima Daiichi was 5,306 MW and generated that 24hrs a day.

[1] https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/5-largest-solar-farms-i...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deep Decarbonization: A Realistic Way Forward on Climate ... by bazzert on Wednesday January 29, 2020 @09:13AM (#22180622)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/11...

Michael Shellenberger is one of my favorite writers on this topic. The radiation around Fukushima is less than the naturally occurring radiation in Colorado.

[ Parent | on HN ]