Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but… [View all]madokie
(51,076 posts)20. Back of napkin, early morning half assed asleep figures
The Chernobyl exclusion zone would encompass roughly 950 square miles. Thats a lot of wasted land mass in anyones book.
Maybe my math is off? If not then who wants to take a chance on that
30 k radius, 18 mi
Fukushima exclusion zone would encompass roughly 250 square miles. Pretty good size chunk of land for an island that is badly in need of more land, wouldn't you say.
Again maybe my math is off, if so someone correct it for me please.
15 k radius, 9 mi
Damn I hope I'm way off with these figures
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
people of chernobyl are anxiously awaiting the arrival of "cheap, low cost" nuclear nt
msongs
Jun 2013
#1
Kiev, Ukraine, 20 April 2011 - Secretary-General's remarks at "25 Years after Chernobyl Catastrophe:
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 2013
#23
Non sequitur - I thought the topic was the safety of nuclear fission plants
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 2013
#57
Nuclear never cheaper once total life cycle including waste & decommission included
on point
Jul 2013
#39