Solar and wind are increasingly outpacing nuclear power globally, with solar generation surpassing nuclear for the first time in 2025, according to WNISR 2026. The report highlights nuclear’s slow (…)
a) provide information on the total energy generated by the waste materials in pictures 1 and 2, just so we can be sure this is an apples-to-apples comparison and we can be sure that we’re looking at roughly the same amount in both pictures?
b) assess the capacity of the waste materials in pictures 1 and 2 for 1) further damages to the environment and human health, as well as 2) their potential for being recycled?
c) fast-forward these images about 250-500 years and then reasses which one depicts the greater environmental problem and cost factor?
The Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Wiscasset, Maine, produced approximately 119 billion kilowatt-hours (119 terawatt-hours) of electricity during its operation from1972to1996.
The Sweetwater Wind Farm is a 585.3-megawatt (MW) wind farm in Nolan County, Texas. Annual production estimates are1,700,000 MWh, or approx 1.7 terrawatt hours peryearon average
So giving the Wind farm the most generous output figures, in a ten year span it produces less than 20 Terrawatt hours, almost 1/6th (one sixth) of the power the single reactor nuclear plant produced in it’s life time.
Now let’s see which of these waste materials I can recycle, and which of them I could, theoretically, leave untouched in their current state for 250-500 years without investing a single Dollar. (The illegal Sweetwater dump was cleaned up, btw. Picture 1 is supposed to be the clean-up.)
From the turbines? Basically nothing. Millions have been spent and best has been figured out is shredding them and using them as filler, which no one is going to use when dirt and sand are cheaper and no risk of break down. All other attempts to recycle turbine blades has resulted in just better ways to crush the down to bury them, which funnily enough is what most of the ‘clean up’ for Sweetwater was.
For nuclear? They can be recycled today if the incentive was there, France recycles almost all of it’s nuclear waste with something like an 80% recovery rate and predict they could go 95% if that ever became economically viable. Most of the nuclear waste in the above picture will be inert after 100 years, though there is no data publicly available of the make up the waste though it should be fewer than 1% plutonium which could be recovered for use else where, such as if thorium reactors ever become viable or for space probes as NASA loves to use it for.
The main reason the US doesn’t recycle is because US’s flawed policy of no radiation exposure means setting up a reprocessing and recycling facility would never become viable for the amount of waste produced annually. And as other posters have pointed out, even stuff that can’t be recycled or reprocessed for other uses could still be simply buried and used to boost a geothermal powerplant.
20 years of nuclear waste vs less than 10 years (2017-2023) of wind turbine blades (dumped illegally no less)
Which one is the unsolved problem again?
To help answer your question, could you first
a) provide information on the total energy generated by the waste materials in pictures 1 and 2, just so we can be sure this is an apples-to-apples comparison and we can be sure that we’re looking at roughly the same amount in both pictures?
b) assess the capacity of the waste materials in pictures 1 and 2 for 1) further damages to the environment and human health, as well as 2) their potential for being recycled?
c) fast-forward these images about 250-500 years and then reasses which one depicts the greater environmental problem and cost factor?
The Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant in Wiscasset, Maine, produced approximately 119 billion kilowatt-hours (119 terawatt-hours) of electricity during its operation from 1972 to 1996.The Sweetwater Wind Farm is a 585.3-megawatt (MW) wind farm in Nolan County, Texas. Annual production estimates are 1,700,000 MWh, or approx 1.7 terrawatt hours per year on averageSo giving the Wind farm the most generous output figures, in a ten year span it produces less than 20 Terrawatt hours, almost 1/6th (one sixth) of the power the single reactor nuclear plant produced in it’s life time.
So yeah, balls in your court.
Uh, that’s energy, not power. Also, it’s means it is.
You could transfer that apostrophe to “ball’s”.
Unless you really mean balls. In my court.
That’s fair.
Now let’s see which of these waste materials I can recycle, and which of them I could, theoretically, leave untouched in their current state for 250-500 years without investing a single Dollar. (The illegal Sweetwater dump was cleaned up, btw. Picture 1 is supposed to be the clean-up.)
From the turbines? Basically nothing. Millions have been spent and best has been figured out is shredding them and using them as filler, which no one is going to use when dirt and sand are cheaper and no risk of break down. All other attempts to recycle turbine blades has resulted in just better ways to crush the down to bury them, which funnily enough is what most of the ‘clean up’ for Sweetwater was.
For nuclear? They can be recycled today if the incentive was there, France recycles almost all of it’s nuclear waste with something like an 80% recovery rate and predict they could go 95% if that ever became economically viable. Most of the nuclear waste in the above picture will be inert after 100 years, though there is no data publicly available of the make up the waste though it should be fewer than 1% plutonium which could be recovered for use else where, such as if thorium reactors ever become viable or for space probes as NASA loves to use it for.
The main reason the US doesn’t recycle is because US’s flawed policy of no radiation exposure means setting up a reprocessing and recycling facility would never become viable for the amount of waste produced annually. And as other posters have pointed out, even stuff that can’t be recycled or reprocessed for other uses could still be simply buried and used to boost a geothermal powerplant.