> The other reason we don't do it is that it is just cheaper to buy more Uranium than setup reprocessing plants
Is it cheaper to buy more Uranium and deal with the so-far-and-growing half-trillion dollar cleanup liability than to set up and operate reprocessing plants? Of course I wouldn't be surprised if that liability is considered "tomorrow's problem", so no one in power cares about it.
> I wouldn't be surprised if that liability is considered "tomorrow's problem", so no one in power cares about it.
I was talking to an environmental scientist that other day who was lamenting that the liability for solar panel waste was being treated as "tomorrow's problem", and no one in power cares about it.
If we factor in the tomorrow problem nuclear looks even better, because we have a chance of being able to deal with it. Nobody attempts to solve the decommissioning problems of most waste, there is too much of it so we just dump it in landfill and hope there isn't anything too nasty in it. There is no plan at all to deal with it beyond 100 years or so, and it doesn't get less toxic over time.
You should inform that environmental scientist that Veolia in France has a pilot facility that can recycle 95% of the materials recovered from retired solar panels. The other 5% can be used as feedstock for asphalt aggregate.
Keep in mind, panel longevity is upwards of 25-30 years, at which point they'll still be producing 80-90% of their rated output. Inverters (single or micro) can be recycled in traditional electronics recycling processes.
Solar does not have the special handling and proliferation issues that nuclear waste does. Disposing of or recycling broken solar panels is significantly less complicated than spent nuclear fuel and waste byproducts.
Recycling and disposal does need consideration for renewables, as well as nuclear. You cannot just say "Well no one is looking into it for solar, so nuclear should get a free pass too!", especially when nuclear waste is so much more hazardous. Also when considering the infrastructure costs associated with setting up proper reprocessing facilities, no it does not obviously come out ahead. It's incredibly expensive upfront.
> Solar does not have the special handling and proliferation issues that nuclear waste does.
That is also what I'd expect to see if people aren't taking the issues seriously, so it isn't really evidence of anything.
> You cannot just say "Well no one is looking into it for solar, so nuclear should get a free pass too!"
Sure I can. The evidence to me suggests that, for equivalent amounts of effort and adjusting for the energy produced, nuclear waste dumps will do far less damage than solar waste dumps after adjusting for the energy produced. The amounts of waste are tiny to the point where it is unclear to me why anyone cares. If proliferation is a problem, bury it 2km underground in a desert and don't tell anyone where it is. Good luck recovering that on the sly.
Are you suggesting I am not taking it seriously, while also saying "Sure I can" when it comes to ignoring nuclear waste storage issues? Waste amounts are "tiny", and "bury it in a hole somewhere", ignoring time and cost components. Hard to take you seriously.
> Are you suggesting I am not taking it seriously[?] .... [it is h]ard to take you seriously.
I was sorely tempted towards sarcasm by that combination.
But I'm suggesting exactly that, and that we should standardise to not taking the waste of either solar panels or nuclear particularly seriously, given they are both very minor problems that can be handled by the people involved.
Given how we've so far failed to deal with our nuclear waste in a reasonable way, after decades of opportunity to figure it out, I think it's a mistake to call that a "minor problem".
I don't know much about solar waste handling, though someone upthread suggests there's a French company that can recycle 95% of the components of retired solar panels with the remaining 5% going to other uses. Of course, no idea how much that process costs, but I'd bet it's nowhere near as hazardous to deal with as nuclear, and doesn't have any of the nuclear security requirements since I don't expect people can make nuclear bombs out of retired solar panels.
Is it cheaper to buy more Uranium and deal with the so-far-and-growing half-trillion dollar cleanup liability than to set up and operate reprocessing plants? Of course I wouldn't be surprised if that liability is considered "tomorrow's problem", so no one in power cares about it.