6 ms·

> "Solar panels produce ~300x more waste than nuclear reactors when providing the same amount of energy." Didn't know it was so much better. That's awesome. I'

> "Solar panels produce ~300x more waste than nuclear reactors when providing the same amount of energy." Didn't know it was so much better. That's awesome. I'm happy to read recent developments in the approval for small nuclear reactors. Hope to see this stuff become more popular.

pvaldes 6y ago
Totally different type of waste.
- sparkie 6y ago
  Both are toxic waste, but one often ends up in landfill or flytipped, and the other is safely contained underground because its developers are legally obliged to plan for its disposal and long-term storage as part of the design process. The cost of disposal is often ignored when pricing solar (PV). https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-millions-of-toxic-solar-panels-that-cant-be-recycled-destined-for-landfills/amp/ https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-mill...
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Indeed, one is the kind of waste you can drop a few oil drums of into Yucca Mountain and never have to worry about it again. On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically because developed nations are not interested in bearing the ecological burden. Solar panels frequently contain cadmium and tellurium, which both have to be mined (see above) and then leech out into the environment [3]. Then there's the human toll. Nuclear energy ends up with about 1/4 as many deaths per TWh generated as wind, 1/10 as many as rooftop solar, and 1/2 as many as industrial solar. [4] [edit] The nice thing about nuclear waste is that radiation is easy to detect. All you need is a Geiger counter and some lead underpants. Cadmium, tellurium, the run-off from refining rare earths? That's what I'm really scared of. [1] https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/ https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-en... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-ra... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607867/ [4] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
  - Klinky 6y ago
    Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site. Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration of the waste, but then you have the eternal political problem of where to put that waste.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because "where would we put the waste?" The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010. Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is relatively minuscule because of the sheer energy density of uranium as compared to the neodymium magnets used in wind generation. Nuclear power plants last 40+ years, while wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 or when damaged.
      - ebalit 6y ago
        There are research on extracting uranium from seawater instead of mining it [0]. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6g5pj9QfMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6g5pj9QfMg
      - Klinky 6y ago
        NIMBYism is everywhere, even for solar and wind. Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain. Uranium mining often uses leeching techniques, similar concerns to fracking and groundwater contamination, along with general mining hazards. Additionally rare-earth minerals are needed for a variety of things, even including components within a nuclear plant. I highly doubt a Nuclear plant could be built "rare earth metals free". Fuel rods also may contain a mix of rare earth metals. Rare-earth metal mining and refinement practices need to improve, but they will never go away.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Would you think that the waste type from solar panels is comparable to the waste type from nuclear?
- ianai 6y ago
  Yes. Solar is probably way more hazardous to work with at plants.
  - brazzy 6y ago
    Holy fucking shit are you nuclear fanboys delusional (or well paid).
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      No my dude, you can find yourself on the other side of an argument without your opponents needing to be well-paid and delusional ;) Nuclear energy accounts for about 6% of the world's energy mix. It is the safest source of carbon-free energy in terms of deaths per TWh in the world, leading to half a many deaths as industrial solar, 1/4 as many as wind and 1/10th as many as rooftop solar. [1] The genuinely tiny amount of generated waste can simply be dropped into Yucca Mountain and never worried about again. How afraid are you of, for instance, hydro power? Not very? Did you know Chernobyl, the worst radiological incident in the world killed 4,000 people in total? The worst hydro power accident, Bangqiao Dam, killed between 85,000 and 200,000 people [2]. I would also caution you against personal attacks, they're not welcome here. [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
      - brazzy 6y ago
        Great, you regurgitated all the standard talking points. Have a pat on the head. Except even if all of that were true (which it isn't), it still wouldn't make nuclear waste "less hazardous to work with" than other kinds of waste. As for Yucca Mountain, funny that the "genuinely tiny amount" of nuclear waste produced in the USA as of 2011 was already more than the approved capacity of the site, and "never worried about again" is clearly not true given that there was a magnitude 7 earthquake near it last year.

pvaldes 6y ago

Totally different type of waste.

sparkie 6y ago
Both are toxic waste, but one often ends up in landfill or flytipped, and the other is safely contained underground because its developers are legally obliged to plan for its disposal and long-term storage as part of the design process. The cost of disposal is often ignored when pricing solar (PV). https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-millions-of-toxic-solar-panels-that-cant-be-recycled-destined-for-landfills/amp/ https://stopthesethings.com/2020/10/10/lingering-legacy-mill...
arcticbull 6y ago
Indeed, one is the kind of waste you can drop a few oil drums of into Yucca Mountain and never have to worry about it again. On the other hand wind requires huge quantities of rare earth metals mined in open-air hellscapes in the far western reaches of China -- devastating the environment [1, 2]. So, why is it all mined in China you might ask, knowing rare earths are distributed all over the world? Specifically because developed nations are not interested in bearing the ecological burden. Solar panels frequently contain cadmium and tellurium, which both have to be mined (see above) and then leech out into the environment [3]. Then there's the human toll. Nuclear energy ends up with about 1/4 as many deaths per TWh generated as wind, 1/10 as many as rooftop solar, and 1/2 as many as industrial solar. [4] [edit] The nice thing about nuclear waste is that radiation is easy to detect. All you need is a Geiger counter and some lead underpants. Cadmium, tellurium, the run-off from refining rare earths? That's what I'm really scared of. [1] https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-environment/ https://earth.org/rare-earth-mining-has-devastated-chinas-en... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-ra... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607867/ [4] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
- Klinky 6y ago
  Yucca Mountain waste depot doesn't actually exist. You put it in holding pools indefinitely and wait for the DoE to superfund the site. Nuclear fuel does not have to be mined or go through costly and toxic refinement processes? Reprocessing waste creates even larger amounts of radioactive and toxic wastes. Nuclear is far far far away from being clean. It does allow for potentially better containment and concentration of the waste, but then you have the eternal political problem of where to put that waste.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Well sure, so long as anti-nuclear campaigners continue to prevent the construction of Yucca Mountain, they can then continue to point to why we can't have nuclear because "where would we put the waste?" The only reason Yucca Mountain doesn't exist is because of anti-nuclear campaigners. It was funded and shovel-ready until 2010. Of course nuclear fuel has to be refined and mined, however the ecological impact is relatively minuscule because of the sheer energy density of uranium as compared to the neodymium magnets used in wind generation. Nuclear power plants last 40+ years, while wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 or when damaged.
    - ebalit 6y ago
      There are research on extracting uranium from seawater instead of mining it [0]. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6g5pj9QfMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6g5pj9QfMg
    - Klinky 6y ago
      NIMBYism is everywhere, even for solar and wind. Maybe it's a flaw of Nuclear that you have to stuff its waste in a giant pit inside a mountain. Uranium mining often uses leeching techniques, similar concerns to fracking and groundwater contamination, along with general mining hazards. Additionally rare-earth minerals are needed for a variety of things, even including components within a nuclear plant. I highly doubt a Nuclear plant could be built "rare earth metals free". Fuel rods also may contain a mix of rare earth metals. Rare-earth metal mining and refinement practices need to improve, but they will never go away.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

Would you think that the waste type from solar panels is comparable to the waste type from nuclear?

ianai 6y ago
Yes. Solar is probably way more hazardous to work with at plants.
- brazzy 6y ago
  Holy fucking shit are you nuclear fanboys delusional (or well paid).
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    No my dude, you can find yourself on the other side of an argument without your opponents needing to be well-paid and delusional ;) Nuclear energy accounts for about 6% of the world's energy mix. It is the safest source of carbon-free energy in terms of deaths per TWh in the world, leading to half a many deaths as industrial solar, 1/4 as many as wind and 1/10th as many as rooftop solar. [1] The genuinely tiny amount of generated waste can simply be dropped into Yucca Mountain and never worried about again. How afraid are you of, for instance, hydro power? Not very? Did you know Chernobyl, the worst radiological incident in the world killed 4,000 people in total? The worst hydro power accident, Bangqiao Dam, killed between 85,000 and 200,000 people [2]. I would also caution you against personal attacks, they're not welcome here. [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
    - brazzy 6y ago
      Great, you regurgitated all the standard talking points. Have a pat on the head. Except even if all of that were true (which it isn't), it still wouldn't make nuclear waste "less hazardous to work with" than other kinds of waste. As for Yucca Mountain, funny that the "genuinely tiny amount" of nuclear waste produced in the USA as of 2011 was already more than the approved capacity of the site, and "never worried about again" is clearly not true given that there was a magnitude 7 earthquake near it last year.