>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.
At 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
It appears it's not far from the truth. According to 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.
I 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.
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.