• RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      30 days 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.

          • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            29 days 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.

              • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                29 days 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.

                • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  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.