Three Mile Island was the worst nuclear accident in US history. Was mainly caused by poor design of human feedback systems which caused operational confusion and lead to a catastrophic failure.

  • datendefekt@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Solar panels are mostly aluminum and glass and about 90% recyclable. More importantly, they are inert and not radioactive.

    You can’t seriously compare nuclear waste to solar panels.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Maybe they’re 90% recyclable, but 90% of decommissioned solar panels are not recycled and end up in landfills. The silver lining of nuclear waste storage being limited is we recycle the heck out of it. I guess solar does have a better solution already, though.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m not comparing them, I’m saying that it’s inaccurate to ignore the effects that solar has.

      The chemicals in producing PV panels are toxic. Part of why production got shifted to countries like China is because without regulation on the waste disposal they are so much cheaper to make there. Sucks for the residents, but that’s capitalism.

      Energy is used to make PV. True of everything, but when solar is advertised it leans heavy on the free energy that the device generates, not how much it took to make it. But at least that energy can come from solar too…except it comes from fossil fuels.

      The heavy metals that make up part of the other 10% are the later waste problem. I don’t know if you can consider those metals inert since they are considered hazardous waste, but they can’t be discounted either. A recycling program to recover everything possible and then controlling the hazardous leftovers would make this less of a point, but we’re not doing that fully yet, so there are things going in the landfills now that could leach into the environment.

      All of this can be improved of course. I’m just introducing the fact that solar, like anything we do to keep our society at its level, has drawbacks too.

      Nuclear has its problems, as I mentioned. I didn’t pretend that solar is bad and nuclear is all flowers. But the issues it faces are much different and have their own solutions, and nuclear energy density and flexibility is far better than solar ever could be.

      I never understand why people pick their sides and then try to make other choices seem like the antithesis to help their cause. Why not find the best solutions for all of the non-fossil fuel sources, and have them all where they make the most sense? Diversity and redundancy is far better than a monopoly won by falsehoods.

      • andyburke@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The market found the best solution: renewables.

        You are the one here arguing we should be doing nuclear. You are the person here with an agenda.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Of course the market selected renewables as the favored child. “Renewable” and “green” are marketing terms, as is “net zero” and “recycling”. I’m not here with any agenda, I just brought up some points about environmental damage that solar can do on both sides of its existence. I guess I ruffled some feathers.

          Did you miss my points about having some of both? Or did you just read the first few lines and rage post? I figured this was a forum where we could discuss the pros and cons of all sides, not just hate on anyone with a differing view.

    • medgremlin@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The restrictions on nuclear fuel recycling might be lifted soon, so that argument may very well become moot as well.