4 ms·

> What waste does a solar panel generate? Or are you talking about the manufacturing process? I'm talking about the panels themselves after they reached their

> What waste does a solar panel generate? Or are you talking about the manufacturing process? I'm talking about the panels themselves after they reached their end of life. > So you’re saying building nuclear plants generates less waste than building solar farms? That’s unintuitive Nuclear power density is incredibly high: you build 1 concrete bunker and 3 supporting buildings and you have more than a gigawatt of power. For solar you need a square kilometer of solar panels to get 0.1GW. Compare those two places next to where I live: - the nuclear plant: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/47.7311/2.5188 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/47.7311/2.5188 - the solar farm: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/47.7229/2.6665 https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/47.7229/2.6665 Roughly the same area. The solar farm has 55MW of power. The nuclear plant has 3.6GW, 65 times higher. And the nuclear plant's life will be 60 years at least, which means that over its lifetime the panels would need to be changed 3 times. And that's if there's no hail to damage them… And this calculation only counts Power, if you did the same calculation for actual energy produced the difference would be around ten time worse.

onethought 3y ago
Panels need to be changed every 20 years? 20 years is their minimum. What over time causes a panel to fail? I think counting a nuclear plant specifically without also counting the uranium mine required to support it is not completely honest. And also the storage facility for the waste should be counted as well. Uranium is typically huge open pit mines.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > What over time causes a panel to fail? During a thunderstorm this spring, the solar farm I'm talking about above suffered significant damage from hailstones, losing around 10% of the panels (the farm had only opened in summer 22). That's one anecdotal example. > I think counting a nuclear plant specifically without also counting the uranium mine required to support it is not completely honest. You're vastly underestimating the energy density of Uranium: France, which produces close to 80% of its energy with nuclear imports less than 10 000T of Uranium each year. That's one kilo for 44 MWh of nuclear energy. (And most of it, the U238 part, isn't actually being used, but instead stored until the advent of breeder reactors). A solar panel weights a few dozens of kilograms per MWh/year (let say 20kg/Mwh/year, conservatively, even though from a quick search it's likely more) so you'd need to have your solar panel for 44x20 = 880 years for the mass of the solar panel to be of the same order of magnitude as the same mass of Uranium. > And also the storage facility for the waste should be counted as well. As mentioned earlier, there will be hundreds of time more waste from Solar panels than from nuclear. Solar panel's waste are actually toxic wastes[1], full of heavy metals, BTW. (And unlike nuclear radioactive wastes, heavy metals have an infinite half-life: they don't live from hundred of years, they remain toxic forever) > Uranium is typically huge open pit mines. Only 12% of Uranium mining actually happen in open pits mines[2]. Also, do you think Silicon grows in trees? France alone extracts 12 times more silicon that what we import of Uranium. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Mining_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Mining_techniqu...
  - onethought 3y ago
    Do you really want to quote some nuclear anecdotes? XD So there’s this place in Ukraine… Silicon is in sand… which is also a good place to put solar panels. Are you really weighing uranium vs solar panels? What kind of measure is that? How much does a nuclear plant weigh? What about the water pumped into a plant? What does that weigh? Do you need to weigh the people required to run a plant to get your kg/Mwh measure? XD
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > So there’s this place in Ukraine Oh yeah let's talk about the soviet union again and do if it was a nuclear problem … By that metrics hydro power is absolutely terrible as well, given that we've had two major dam incidents (including one in… Ukraine) this years causing much more death than Tchornobyl ever did… Also should you count all nuclear incidents that resulted in reactor being damaged, you'd still be far lower than 10% of installed power being destroyed. > Silicon is in sand… Because open pit sand mining causes no issue somehow? Uranium is also in sand (at least in Kazakhstan, #1 producer) so what? > Are you really weighing uranium vs solar panels? What kind of measure is that? Measuring environmental impact of both energy production mean. Which is the opposite of the “solar good for the planet/ nuclear bad” irrational argument that you're having. > How much does a nuclear plant weigh? Much less than the equivalent solar farm, that's been my point from the beginning. > What about the water pumped into a plant? That water goes in and out, is that all you have as an argument left? Do you count the air going through wind turbines as a waste when evaluating wind power as well or the double standard only applies to nuclear for some reason? > Do you need to weigh the people required to run a plant to get your kg/Mwh measure? Ohoh, very clever >_<
      - onethought 3y ago
        You raised all the points you now deride. I agree they are dumb. Glad we got there.
        littlestymaar 3y ago

onethought 3y ago

Panels need to be changed every 20 years? 20 years is their minimum. What over time causes a panel to fail? I think counting a nuclear plant specifically without also counting the uranium mine required to support it is not completely honest. And also the storage facility for the waste should be counted as well. Uranium is typically huge open pit mines.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> What over time causes a panel to fail? During a thunderstorm this spring, the solar farm I'm talking about above suffered significant damage from hailstones, losing around 10% of the panels (the farm had only opened in summer 22). That's one anecdotal example. > I think counting a nuclear plant specifically without also counting the uranium mine required to support it is not completely honest. You're vastly underestimating the energy density of Uranium: France, which produces close to 80% of its energy with nuclear imports less than 10 000T of Uranium each year. That's one kilo for 44 MWh of nuclear energy. (And most of it, the U238 part, isn't actually being used, but instead stored until the advent of breeder reactors). A solar panel weights a few dozens of kilograms per MWh/year (let say 20kg/Mwh/year, conservatively, even though from a quick search it's likely more) so you'd need to have your solar panel for 44x20 = 880 years for the mass of the solar panel to be of the same order of magnitude as the same mass of Uranium. > And also the storage facility for the waste should be counted as well. As mentioned earlier, there will be hundreds of time more waste from Solar panels than from nuclear. Solar panel's waste are actually toxic wastes[1], full of heavy metals, BTW. (And unlike nuclear radioactive wastes, heavy metals have an infinite half-life: they don't live from hundred of years, they remain toxic forever) > Uranium is typically huge open pit mines. Only 12% of Uranium mining actually happen in open pits mines[2]. Also, do you think Silicon grows in trees? France alone extracts 12 times more silicon that what we import of Uranium. [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Mining_techniques https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Mining_techniqu...
- onethought 3y ago
  Do you really want to quote some nuclear anecdotes? XD So there’s this place in Ukraine… Silicon is in sand… which is also a good place to put solar panels. Are you really weighing uranium vs solar panels? What kind of measure is that? How much does a nuclear plant weigh? What about the water pumped into a plant? What does that weigh? Do you need to weigh the people required to run a plant to get your kg/Mwh measure? XD
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > So there’s this place in Ukraine Oh yeah let's talk about the soviet union again and do if it was a nuclear problem … By that metrics hydro power is absolutely terrible as well, given that we've had two major dam incidents (including one in… Ukraine) this years causing much more death than Tchornobyl ever did… Also should you count all nuclear incidents that resulted in reactor being damaged, you'd still be far lower than 10% of installed power being destroyed. > Silicon is in sand… Because open pit sand mining causes no issue somehow? Uranium is also in sand (at least in Kazakhstan, #1 producer) so what? > Are you really weighing uranium vs solar panels? What kind of measure is that? Measuring environmental impact of both energy production mean. Which is the opposite of the “solar good for the planet/ nuclear bad” irrational argument that you're having. > How much does a nuclear plant weigh? Much less than the equivalent solar farm, that's been my point from the beginning. > What about the water pumped into a plant? That water goes in and out, is that all you have as an argument left? Do you count the air going through wind turbines as a waste when evaluating wind power as well or the double standard only applies to nuclear for some reason? > Do you need to weigh the people required to run a plant to get your kg/Mwh measure? Ohoh, very clever >_<
    - onethought 3y ago
      You raised all the points you now deride. I agree they are dumb. Glad we got there.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago