|Fukushima nuclear power plant|
So I did some very rough calculations.
Take the evacuation area, set at 30 Km (30,000 metres) around Fukushima as the radius.
Take Pi (22/7) as 3, because these are very rough calculations.
Area of a circle is Pi R squared.
3*30,000*30,000 = 2.7 billion square metres.
But half of this area is in the sea (you thought I was going to forget that, didn't you?)
So we have 1.35 billion sq metres to work with.
Insolation of Japan is 4.3KWh/m2/day, so this area gets 5.8 billion KWh/d.
Assume the area is covered with PV panels which are 10% efficient (market leaders are breaking 40% at present, but no matter) the contaminated area would therefore produce 0.58 billion KWh per day, which I make to be 580 GWh/day, or 211,120 GWh per year.
Now. Now then. The output of Fukushima Daichi Nuclear power plant is quoted as 29,981 GWh per year. Say 30,000 GWh/y.
It therefore appears, as a result of the above calculations, that the solar power output of the area contaminated by the Fukushima tragedy is 7 (seven) times greater than the original power output of the nuclear station.
I may be wrong.
My field is psychiatry and general practice. I can only do basic maths. I do not have the calculus.
I may have got decimal points sliding around all over the place.
But I have used conservative calculations all around, and I have done my best.
If you are a nuclear engineer, you will be able to check my calculations, I'm sure, and I stand to be corrected.
For the avoidance of confusion, I am not advocating that we should encourage nuclear power development, whether uninsured (as is the case at present) or not, on the grounds that if they blow up, we can use the contaminated ground to collect sunbeams.
I am advocating that we do the solar/renewable thing without going through the nuclear stage.
See also: Could we trust Iran not to attack us with the sharp corners of photovoltaic panels?