3 ms·

This thread is a quintessential anti-nuclear circular argument. Sorry for bad paraphrasing, but basically: A: Nuclear is dangerous because bad things happen i

This thread is a quintessential anti-nuclear circular argument. Sorry for bad paraphrasing, but basically: A: Nuclear is dangerous because bad things happen if a jumbo jet crashes onto it. B: Is there anything that doesn't cause bad things when a jumbo jet crashes onto it? A: Irrelevant, these things aren't as dangerous as nuclear. I get that there are issues with nuclear. This isn't one.

DoctorOetker 6y ago
did you read my comment about Southern Airways Flight 49? its not just about things being bad when an airliner crashes, but about the additional risk incurred. if I can choose between a nuclear power plant getting hit 10km from me, or some silane also 10km from me, I'd know what I'd dissaprove of most. if I can choose between leaving for the next generations a location where surface storage was hit by an airliner, or where some silane gas was used being hit by an airliner, I'd know what I prefer to leave behind for them... chemicals are easier to sort than isotopes
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  Nuclear waste sits in sealed concrete containers, and is stored by burying it in bedrock with no aquifer. There's so little of it that we can store it securely. Solar panels on the other hand... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19301245#:~:text=The%20International%20Renewable%20Energy%20Agency,%5D%2C%20%5B19%5D%5D https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1.... Nuclear waste is measured in the tens of thousands of tons. Solar waste is in the tens of millions of tons. Most of it just dumped in landfills. If your concern is about wanting to minimize the amount of waste left to future generations, then there is absolutely no reason to choose solar over nuclear power. The energy density of nuclear power is such that it generates orders of magnitude less waste.
  - DoctorOetker 6y ago
    From the abstract: > End-of-life (EOL) solar panels may become a source of hazardous waste although there are enormous benefits globally from the growth in solar power generation. It is good that people worry about this new waste stream, and argue incentivizing recycling of this waste stream. That said, the harmfulness of different types of waste is not compared in kilograms...
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      > That said, the harmfulness of different types of waste is not compared in kilograms... Absolutely, the harm from solar panels dumped in landfills is vastly greater than uranium buried 300 meters deep in bedrock. Uranium's energy density is such that we can afford to spend money on tightly securing the little waste it produces. By comparison, most plans for renewable power generation involve covering 2-4% of the Earth's land in solar panels. This is a vast amount of waste to dispose of, and it's not remotely close to feasible to secure it like nuclear waste.

DoctorOetker 6y ago

did you read my comment about Southern Airways Flight 49? its not just about things being bad when an airliner crashes, but about the additional risk incurred. if I can choose between a nuclear power plant getting hit 10km from me, or some silane also 10km from me, I'd know what I'd dissaprove of most. if I can choose between leaving for the next generations a location where surface storage was hit by an airliner, or where some silane gas was used being hit by an airliner, I'd know what I prefer to leave behind for them... chemicals are easier to sort than isotopes

Manfredo_1 6y ago
Nuclear waste sits in sealed concrete containers, and is stored by burying it in bedrock with no aquifer. There's so little of it that we can store it securely. Solar panels on the other hand... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X19301245#:~:text=The%20International%20Renewable%20Energy%20Agency,%5D%2C%20%5B19%5D%5D https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1.... Nuclear waste is measured in the tens of thousands of tons. Solar waste is in the tens of millions of tons. Most of it just dumped in landfills. If your concern is about wanting to minimize the amount of waste left to future generations, then there is absolutely no reason to choose solar over nuclear power. The energy density of nuclear power is such that it generates orders of magnitude less waste.
- DoctorOetker 6y ago
  From the abstract: > End-of-life (EOL) solar panels may become a source of hazardous waste although there are enormous benefits globally from the growth in solar power generation. It is good that people worry about this new waste stream, and argue incentivizing recycling of this waste stream. That said, the harmfulness of different types of waste is not compared in kilograms...
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    > That said, the harmfulness of different types of waste is not compared in kilograms... Absolutely, the harm from solar panels dumped in landfills is vastly greater than uranium buried 300 meters deep in bedrock. Uranium's energy density is such that we can afford to spend money on tightly securing the little waste it produces. By comparison, most plans for renewable power generation involve covering 2-4% of the Earth's land in solar panels. This is a vast amount of waste to dispose of, and it's not remotely close to feasible to secure it like nuclear waste.