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.
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.
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 cost and waste per GW/H of power is also staggeringly different. Even if we took spent reactor parts into account for waste and calculated the cost, would it fall short for solar or wind? I haven’t seen any data that would suggest renewables could compete with nuclear in terms of power generation per waste or cost, let alone beat it, but I’m willing to examine anything you put forth.
In fact, I’ve only ever seen the opposite. That nuclear has a superior ratio in nearly every metric and that’s not considering where fusion could end up taking us.
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.
This doesn’t actually say anything about nuclear waste volumes though
It wouldn’t show up because nuclear waste is beyond miniscule and nearly every atom is accounted for. No other industry can claim that.
Hand-waving instead of numbers. Typical.
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.
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.
Handwaving the topic at hand to focus on tone policing. Typical.
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.
The cost and waste per GW/H of power is also staggeringly different. Even if we took spent reactor parts into account for waste and calculated the cost, would it fall short for solar or wind? I haven’t seen any data that would suggest renewables could compete with nuclear in terms of power generation per waste or cost, let alone beat it, but I’m willing to examine anything you put forth.
In fact, I’ve only ever seen the opposite. That nuclear has a superior ratio in nearly every metric and that’s not considering where fusion could end up taking us.