> Probably a roughly similar amount to what is created building a nuclear, or any other, power station.
I'd love to see some figures that prove or disprove that. I'm inclined to disagree and say that more waste is produced making solar panels and wind turbines due to the sheer volume of them that are being mass manufactured.
> What's your point?
My point is that everyone talks about nuclear waste, but no one talks about the toxic chemical waste produced the mass manufacture of hundreds of thousands of solar panels and turbines, versus the one-off construction of a few hundred nuclear power stations, and the extraction of a relatively small-by-weight amount of fuel.
Nuclear power is always under minute scrutiny compared to "green" power.
The sheer mass of nukes is revealed by their cost. That cost is for concrete and steel, both with well-documented impact. The cost of solar and wind equipment is concentrated in high-grade material refinement involving very small actual mass.
So, your inclination misleads you, and you seek to similarly mislead others.
The effective opposition to nukes is based on thoroughly rational analysis of costs. Simply, by any rational accounting, nukes cost much more than favored alternatives.
I'd love to see some figures that prove or disprove that. I'm inclined to disagree and say that more waste is produced making solar panels and wind turbines due to the sheer volume of them that are being mass manufactured.
> What's your point?
My point is that everyone talks about nuclear waste, but no one talks about the toxic chemical waste produced the mass manufacture of hundreds of thousands of solar panels and turbines, versus the one-off construction of a few hundred nuclear power stations, and the extraction of a relatively small-by-weight amount of fuel.
Nuclear power is always under minute scrutiny compared to "green" power.