Comment by bapak
4 days ago
Sorry if I'm mistaken but I reckon solar panels (and especially batteries) produce much more waste. Also they require vast areas for the same energy. You should keep all the variables in the equation and not just say how quickly you can dish out some panels.
Probably not reliable but this is what ChatGPT outputs over 100 years, assuming equal output (100 TWh total):
Type Nuclear_Waste(tons) Solar_Waste(tons)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Solid_Total 12_000–23_000 6_000_000–20_000_000
Hazardous_Toxic 2_000–3_000 (HLW) 600_000–1_000_000
Longevity >100_000 years ~500 years (some metals)
Land_Required ~0.1–0.2 km² ~5–10 km² For 1 TWh/year of continuous output
I still dream of a future where nuclear batteries can be fitted in every item that needs it, but we can't get there without development. There's only so much energy a square meter of panels can output.
I want to highlight two things as counterarguments - 1) nuclear waste is not comparable with solar panel waste and 2) Land use for solar is not comparable with land use for nuclear.
Solar panel waste does not require army supervision to prevent it being used for terrorist acts. The US army has personell permanently stationed at plants that have been closed for several decades by now. They keep costing money for decades after they stopped producing any power.
As of 2025 there isn't a single nuclear site that has ever been in operation that has stopped costing money for the population of the country it is in, simply because of the waste. And there is no end in sight.
As for land, solar panels are usually deployed on land that can still be used for other things. (Rooftops of homes and office buildings, grazing grounds for sheep and farmland for crops that need shade).
The last point is of course why many countries have been able to deploy solar that matches the output of their nuclear generation in just a few years. You have hundreds of thousands of carpenters and electricians that can work simultaneously on building solar panel installations and they get approved by homeowners without any bureaucracy.
Looking at China, the US, the EU, Japan and even a nuclear pioneer like Canada, you see that Solar adds the equivalent of several new nuclear power plants per year, and the power is available immediately.
The only argument with merit is that nuclear works at night and during winter - but so do many other things, much cheaper things, things that don't take a decade+ to build and don't require eternal expensive vigilance.
"Waste" is a nebulous term; it usually means "is not currently recycled". But you can't build a waste-recycling industry until after there's lots of waste to recycle, for simple economics of scale. Using waste as a justification to not build new stuff is just stupid.
Batteries especially are just absurd - they're ~10% lithium (and it's mostly in the electrolyte, which realistically means the electrolyte is 100% electrolyte, excuse the tautology), whereas 'lithium ore' is mostly 1-3% (there's some higher, even as high as 8%, but it's mostly 1-3% IIRC). With sufficient scale, that stuff will disappear like scrap copper left on the curb for an hour.