3 ms·

Simply comparing lifespans is extremely misleading. We need to look at the potential risk associated with waste. Solar panel waste: grind and reuse. Health ris

Simply comparing lifespans is extremely misleading. We need to look at the potential risk associated with waste. Solar panel waste: grind and reuse. Health risk: negligible. Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. Nuclear waste: highly radioactive for thousands of years. No way to recovery leaks in the environment. Health risk: very high.

Ygg2 7y ago
Here is a link: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue... > Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. How long are rare metals (used in some battery/electronics) toxic for? Indefinitely. How long is nuclear waste toxic? 92% for 40 years, 0.2% for thousands of years.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Let me pull a pro nuclear style argument. Future batteries won't need rare earth metals. Actually this isn't a fair comparison. Batteries that don't need rare earth metals already exist today. Thorium reactors or next gen nuclear plants don't exist at all.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    Kinda missing the point. We already live with way more dangerous material than nuclear. Only difference is that most toxic stuff kills us slowly, so we don't notice. Even if new batteries are made of non toxic and recyclable materials, our phones, our electronic is littered with it. And future materials are probably going to be even more exotic.
    - politician 7y ago
      Not only that, but the only reason nuclear waste is dangerous is that it's radioactive. That is, it's a radiating source of energy. In other words, nuclear waste is dangerous because it's full of unused energy. The French use breeder reactors to extract this unused energy for more energy. We are literally choosing not to burn all of the nuclear material we have. It's like taking a train that's got 20 cars full of coal, burning the coal in the first car, and then disposing the "waste coal" in the rest of the cars in a landfill while wringing our hands about the environmental problems that causes. Future Breeder Reactor Plants on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants
gamegoblin 7y ago
> Solar panel waste: grind and reuse. Health risk: negligible. Do you have a source that solar panels can simply be ground up and reused? The article linked in the top level comment implies that recycling solar panels is much harder that one might think, and that solar panels are full of toxic heavy metals that are not "negligible" health risk.
- imtringued 7y ago
  Seeing that completely dishonest article over and over again gets tiring. Cadmium telluride solar cells only make up 5% of the market and there is no reason they couldn't just be banned outright so that we only use the more environmentally friendly crystalline solar cells (which we already do).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
asdff 7y ago
Orders of magnitude different amounts of waste. The dose makes the poison.

Ygg2 7y ago

Here is a link: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue... > Battery waste: empty, disassemble and reuse. Health risk: very moderate. How long are rare metals (used in some battery/electronics) toxic for? Indefinitely. How long is nuclear waste toxic? 92% for 40 years, 0.2% for thousands of years.

imtringued 7y ago
Let me pull a pro nuclear style argument. Future batteries won't need rare earth metals. Actually this isn't a fair comparison. Batteries that don't need rare earth metals already exist today. Thorium reactors or next gen nuclear plants don't exist at all.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  Kinda missing the point. We already live with way more dangerous material than nuclear. Only difference is that most toxic stuff kills us slowly, so we don't notice. Even if new batteries are made of non toxic and recyclable materials, our phones, our electronic is littered with it. And future materials are probably going to be even more exotic.
  - politician 7y ago
    Not only that, but the only reason nuclear waste is dangerous is that it's radioactive. That is, it's a radiating source of energy. In other words, nuclear waste is dangerous because it's full of unused energy. The French use breeder reactors to extract this unused energy for more energy. We are literally choosing not to burn all of the nuclear material we have. It's like taking a train that's got 20 cars full of coal, burning the coal in the first car, and then disposing the "waste coal" in the rest of the cars in a landfill while wringing our hands about the environmental problems that causes. Future Breeder Reactor Plants on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Future_plants

gamegoblin 7y ago

> Solar panel waste: grind and reuse. Health risk: negligible. Do you have a source that solar panels can simply be ground up and reused? The article linked in the top level comment implies that recycling solar panels is much harder that one might think, and that solar panels are full of toxic heavy metals that are not "negligible" health risk.

imtringued 7y ago
Seeing that completely dishonest article over and over again gets tiring. Cadmium telluride solar cells only make up 5% of the market and there is no reason they couldn't just be banned outright so that we only use the more environmentally friendly crystalline solar cells (which we already do).
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

asdff 7y ago

Orders of magnitude different amounts of waste. The dose makes the poison.