Just started the anim, pretty gud' show. But the science is pretty off.
Realistically, Earth after 3700 years where all current residents are cast in stone would be incredibly inhospitable.
Especially in the case of Jpn. They're on a small island right next to all them reactors. Nooqlear fuel would be EX-dangerous even after 100,000 years.
So if this actually happened, and they woke up after 3700, They would probably die instantly from the radiation that has spilled out over the years.
The majority of the northern hemisphere would be a radioactive wasteland where only bugs/ small animals can survive, but only because their replication rate is quick enough to beat radiation death..
The vibrant grass fields, large arbor and pristine water where the characters are happily eating fish and wild animals from is complete fantasy.
The majority of China's and Jpn's reactors are along the coast. The entire pacific would be contaminated, and it's unlikely large sea-life would've thrived.
That bullcrap article about chernobyl's wildlife returning and thriving was fake-news churned up by the nooqular industry. In reality, Independent scientists who chart the biosphere of the area noted that only 1/2 of the species which would naturally occur in the area remain. The ones that are still alive have significant radiation induced genetic damage, and THIS is with ACTIVE Human effort put into containment of the chernobyl breach.
WITHOUT any effort in containment, and all the world's reactors going up @ once. It's game over for the northern hemisphere.Show Image(https://i.imgur.com/HmeSYmM.jpg)
I would not think that most reactors would go up in that time, most of them have security features to prevent meltdowns (you know after one famous that did) so even with no humans it would most likely shut themselves down. true radiation will leak out after 3kyears of not being maintained but i do not think it would be as bad as you describe (and seas communicate so if the pacific ocean is contaminated all of them are).
Also some plants do a really good job at absorbing radioactive material so yeah most likely do not want to go near reactors anymore but the leakage will get, at least partly, trapped by natural causes near them.
It would most definitely be a wasteland but not that radioactive (or at least not much more than today).
edit:btw i have not seen the show, just think you are a bit pessimistic.
yes they do eat up for a long time, but for that they need to be in a critical mass
However, Nooqular fuel (in) working reactors are fundamentally ON FIRE, and they burn for Hundreds of years < technically thousands >.
Even spent fuel has to be kept in above ground pools with active cooling for YEARS.
we are no longer using Chernobyl tech reactors (for good reasons) nowadays rods can pretty much render a reactor dead (if you have control over them that is) and it should not produce any real heat
Even in the case of full control-rod insertion for Shutdown, the reactor must be powered by diesel engines and actively cooled . IF NOT, The fuel would melt through containment extremely quickly.
ok reactors contain much more fuel, but are designed to fail "safe", aka not explode and definitely if they do disperse as little fuel as possible, bombs are made in a completely opposite way, aka explode and disperse all of what you've got, so much more deadly for much less fuel, reactor fuel will go down in the ground in cases of meltdown making it dangerous but not too far, bombs are an entirely different kind of thing.
Remember containment is only just a few inches of steel and concrete beneath. A reactor is fundamentally nothing more than a big boiler vessel.
If you took all humans out in an instant, EVERY working reactor in the world would Explode.
Reactors are Much More dangerous than boom booms. A weapon is only using 10s to 100s of pounds of material, While reactors have generated MILLIONS of pounds of high lvl waste.
Right now, until we find a good way to store energy for the night nuclear is probably our best option(never said it was good but we don't have many way to spin rust during the night (main advantage of nuclear/coal, huge inertia in their turbines), no wind and no sun and water currents are not everywhere).
that is what i was talking about with spinning rust, nothing is instantaneous so for the reaction time the inertia of those huge spinning turbines are the thing keeping the grid up.
I can understand why you'd think that. But it is not how our electrical grid is designed/ works.
For over a Century, Our grid has been a distributed system. THERE ARE no 24hour power plants, they all break for months at a time.
The system is designed to back up down plants with working plants.
the problem right now with solar and wind is that it is only available during the day, we could spin turbine with solar otherwise, util we find a good way to store that energy the only renewable sources during night are hydroelectric dams.
Forecasting of output accuracy is far higher than Demand. Built correctly, the system is far more resilient with distributed wind + solar than with big nooqs.
well that is a strange thing cause France do have too much energy, and is exporting it as well just that our providers sell more renewable that what we produce, so we export nuclear electricity and import solar basically.
In practice, Germany is a net exporter of electricity to France which also has an economically bankrupt nooq industry. After turning off all the nooqs in Germany, 3/5 of the lost capacity was replaced with renewables and all lost capacity replaced within 2 years.
Wind works Night and Day.At least in France we already use a distributed and completely overbuilt system (we have a problem that we produce way too much and so our wind farms stay off most of the time) so if one central need to go down the other can keep up no problem (and we may use a bit of wind, yay).
In distributed situations, it's far more reliable than ANY singular power plant.
With wind it's always blowing somewhere, 1 turbine breaks, NP, with downtime on regular plants, you lose 1000MW for months.
The current central station scenario is far less reliable.
As for warehouses full of batteries, Again, Safer than coal plants, and Everything is safer than nooq.
ok reactors contain much more fuel, but are designed to fail "safe", aka not explode and definitely if they do disperse as little fuel as possible
At least in France we already use a distributed and completely overbuilt system (we have a problem that we produce way too much and so our wind farms stay off most of the time) so if one central need to go down the other can keep up no problem (and we may use a bit of wind, yay).
And wind blows because of differential heating of the atmosphere from the sun, so yeah there is a tiny bit of wind at night because of the leftover energy in the ground, but it is nowhere near the same wind as what the sun produces. And it is always day somewhere, but electricity is not efficient to transport, else we already would have the orbital solar arrays that are in development since the the dawn of time (maybe not that far) and we would use those huge deserts as solar farms (either CSP or photovoltaic).
For batteries, one is not dangerous by itself but then a small landmine will not level a city, it is a story of scale, such large battery installation would be incredibly dangerous (it only take one samsung battery and all goes up in flames, releasing tons of dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere), and incredibly inefficient (from Wikipedia we would lose 10 to 20 percent of the energy)
and anyway the sun is a big ass nuke high in the sky so everything is nuclear anyway.