• evranch@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    When considering these externalities for nuclear, you have to do the same for renewables as well. i.e. scrap turbine blades, concrete in dams, weathered PV panels, land use taken up by panels and turbines.

    Remember that the materials used in most renewable generation are also shipped around the world and many have very dirty refining processes.

    I’m a firm renewable energy supporter but you have to be fair to both processes.

    • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You neglect the problem that the stuff from a nuclear reactor is literally unusable forever and becomes Special waste while the remains of renewables are recyclable, yes even turbine blades, there is just not enough market for it to attract a business so far, that will change of course with time, also the stuff is not toxic or radioactive…

      Remember that the materials used in most renewable generation are also shipped around the world and many have very dirty refining processes.

      Depends, newer version of the stuff don’t need rare earths, or much less, meaning the dirtiest of it falls out of the equation.

      I am fair, nuclear is just not future proof for large scale usage. It also takes to long to be “effective” 10 years to build one powerplant, and is waaaay to expensive. you could build more actually renewables for less money in the same time and the electricity from it is basically free as there are almost no operational costs.