While I personally support nuclear energy as part of the solution, I am keenly aware that the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) (currently 1600 square miles) if applied to either of the decommissioned reactors in South East New York State would constitute a crisis of epic proportion.
The CEZ applied to the Shoreham reactor would make most of Long Island uninhabitable and in the event of a disaster there would be no practical way to evacuate the bulk of Long Island. In fact this evacuation concern lead to the decommissioning of the plant.
The CEZ applied to the Indian Point reactors would potentially make New York City north of Upper Manhattan similarly uninhabitable with similar evacuation issues.
I think Indian Point particularly should not have been decommissioned and replacing it with natural gas was a mistake but I am also empathetic to the concerns others have around safety.
I found this on pinterest. It is a 100km (60 rather than 40 mile) radius drawn around nuclear reactors in Europe so this is more coverage than the CEZ but you get the idea.
> Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, for example.
And yet nuclear is still safer per unit of energy than any other sort of power.
> Or the fact that we don't really know where to store 'normal' nuclear waste safely.
The quantities are tiny, especially compared to the fossil fuel plants they'd be replacing (said plants happily spewing their far larger quantities of waste into the atmosphere).
> And the fact that it takes ages to build a nuclear plant.
> And they are always late, and over budget.
Due to regulatory hurdles, NIMBYism, and the usual government expenditure bloat that affects all public works projects (at least here in the US).
> And that solar power and wind power apparently are cheaper.
Per kilowatt, that's doubtful - particularly once you factor in the batteries needed to make solar/wind a suitable replacement for nuclear.
If you're going to advocate we skip nuclear, then the best bet would be to advocate a push for geothermal. The Earth is hot 24/7, and using that heat for power is "simply" a matter of digging a sufficiently-deep hole.
uberman|3 years ago
The CEZ applied to the Shoreham reactor would make most of Long Island uninhabitable and in the event of a disaster there would be no practical way to evacuate the bulk of Long Island. In fact this evacuation concern lead to the decommissioning of the plant.
The CEZ applied to the Indian Point reactors would potentially make New York City north of Upper Manhattan similarly uninhabitable with similar evacuation issues.
I think Indian Point particularly should not have been decommissioned and replacing it with natural gas was a mistake but I am also empathetic to the concerns others have around safety.
uberman|3 years ago
I found this on pinterest. It is a 100km (60 rather than 40 mile) radius drawn around nuclear reactors in Europe so this is more coverage than the CEZ but you get the idea.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/72/55/bf/7255bfbc39be961a2742...
dotcoma|3 years ago
Or the fact that we don't really know where to store 'normal' nuclear waste safely.
And the fact that it takes ages to build a nuclear plant.
And they are always late, and over budget.
And that solar power and wind power apparently are cheaper.
yellowapple|3 years ago
And yet nuclear is still safer per unit of energy than any other sort of power.
> Or the fact that we don't really know where to store 'normal' nuclear waste safely.
The quantities are tiny, especially compared to the fossil fuel plants they'd be replacing (said plants happily spewing their far larger quantities of waste into the atmosphere).
> And the fact that it takes ages to build a nuclear plant.
> And they are always late, and over budget.
Due to regulatory hurdles, NIMBYism, and the usual government expenditure bloat that affects all public works projects (at least here in the US).
> And that solar power and wind power apparently are cheaper.
Per kilowatt, that's doubtful - particularly once you factor in the batteries needed to make solar/wind a suitable replacement for nuclear.
If you're going to advocate we skip nuclear, then the best bet would be to advocate a push for geothermal. The Earth is hot 24/7, and using that heat for power is "simply" a matter of digging a sufficiently-deep hole.