• @RealFknNito
      link
      English
      -74 months ago

      I love this graph because what it illustrates is that instead of going with the option that has virtually no waste, nuclear, everyone is fine with ramping up one that still is making a rather concerning amount of waste.

      Celebrating taking the second best option seems really dumb when the even better one is right there.

        • @RealFknNito
          link
          English
          -6
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          It wouldn’t show up because nuclear waste is beyond miniscule and nearly every atom is accounted for. No other industry can claim that.

            • @RealFknNito
              link
              English
              -44 months ago

              390,000 metric tons since nuclear was started. In 1954. It wouldn’t even register a .5 on this chart.

              It’s fucking insulting you know so little about what I’m talking about yet still disregard it. I shouldn’t need to hunt down something that should be readily apparent yet here I am.

              • @[email protected]OPM
                link
                fedilink
                7
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Please be polite instead of hostile .

                You’re also only looking at spent fuel quantity and not the reactor parts and tailings which constitute the bulk of radioactive waste.

                • @RealFknNito
                  link
                  English
                  -54 months ago

                  Handwaving the topic at hand to focus on tone policing. Typical.

                  • @[email protected]OPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    44 months ago

                    Not really. Both solar and nuclear produce small amounts of waste compared with the fossil fuels industry. This makes them both reasonable choices from that perspective.

                    The problem with nuclear has always been cost.