I haven't found any cost comparisons for energy sources that include factors such as recycling or handling of waste. Certainly this should be another aspect to consider when choosing one type over another.
There is an inherent assumption that nothing could possibly be worse than fossil fuels. But there is a logic problem with that assumption, in that fossil fuels are already here, we do not have to make them.
all these materials can be recycled properly, when countries like china stop taking our electronic waste, and poisoning their own people with it.
"The study defines as toxic waste the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear plants and the solar panels themselves, which contain similar heavy metals and toxins as other electronics, such as computers and smartphones." So, we should stop using phones and computers along with solar panels then? The plastic in cars, specially that soft touch stuff, can't be recycled. Then what about all those batteries in plug in cars? Everything we make is going to end up as waste at one point. It is best to address it from the beginning than waiting. As for using a nuclear power plant for the study, that is probably chosen because people find it scarey while also being relatively clean. A coal plant exposes the surrounding communities to about 50 times the level of radiation as a nuclear plant, while also spewing toxins out into the air. Plus, there are already mountains of toxic fly ash that need to be addressed.
Yes there is a shocking disparity in solid waste production by solar and coal. We have mojo to thank for inadvertently drawing our attention to this. Solid waste from coal combustion is about 880 million tons per year globally. For production of photovoltaics it is about 0.07 million tons per year globally. The latter figure will certainly increase with growth of solar sector. If it increased by 4 orders of magnitude it would be very near to current coal. First cited source managed to not mention coal. They did mention nuclear, but in a somewhat odd way. Certainly annual volume (or weight) of spent nuclear fuel rods is relatively small. But they demand very specialized storage etc. This problem remains to be solved globally and certainly contributes to slow sector growth. For all the unpleasantness of coal fly ash, it is much less hazardous than spent fuel rods. One could certainly imagine a complete and objective accounting of all solid waste streams of all power technologies. Not a particular impressive first step by this cited source but at least it brings the issue to our attention.
Tons and cubic meters can certainly be counted. Relative risks of a unit of production waste, decommissioning waste, etc. across sectors may be controversial. So, I would agree. It does seem hard to accept though that no progress could be made. It seems especially hard to accept that the incomplete, low-effort first posted link is best that can be done.
The source is a pro-nuclear group. Not that I am against nuclear, but they have fought to keep nuclear plants that should probably be closed opened. Nuclear waste is an issue, but the small amount does make containing and storing it easier. We could improve upon that be recycling fuel rods. There is just so much fly ash, that the industry is scrambling for ways of disposing it that may not be the best for the public or environment. It is already used has a filler in synthetic carpet, but they want to increase the amount currently allowed.
