The turbine blades are made of fiber glass or carbon fiber. There is no process in effect to deal with them. Too big to crush, not worth scraping or recycling. They all go landfilla.

Are you implying there is a form of energy that doesn’t?

The single most energy dense source of power we have that uses the least amount of land including mining and refining compared to everything else, and still preferred method by NASA for powering anything bigger than a camera… is outdated? Yeah okay.

Had a boss that refused to give me full time cause that would cost company more money, but would harass me if I ever called out. Would remind him that he refused to make me full time and didn’t give me a raise that year so I sure as hell wasn’t driving through a blizzard to come to work a night when I hadn’t been scheduled until 15 minutes before he called.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

Nuclear land use is still below all other forms of energy generation when you take the whole lifecycle, from mining to refinement to production and construction, lile I said in my above post.

Most nuclear plants contain all their nuclear waste during their lifetime operation and transport after decommissioning. Yucca mountain was designed as a backup and assumed 30 years to fill if fuel rods were not reprocessed.

Cheap, safe batteries

Oh you sweet ignorant child. Industrial scale battery storage to offset solar for continues power during night time hours is horrifically expensive when you’re talking gigawatt grids, to say nothing of the severe safety hazard they are.

Nuclear only has one caveat is the price.

It’s the safest, bar none. More people died constructing the Hoover Dam than died in relation to Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.

It uses the least amount of land per megawatt produced. This applies both in raw terms of reactor size to generators, turbines or solar panels, or if you include all land needed to mine, process, refine, construct and decommission a form of energy. Cadmium based roof top solar is the only thing that comes close, which is not just niche use as no single building footprint can hope to produce enough power for a single floor, let alone high density structures, but cadmium based solar is also ridiculously expensive. And this metric fails to mention how inefficient battery storage for things like solar is, which further inflates the land use.

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, be it carbon, methane and other climate devastating, Nuclear is the lowest in terms of emissions, and those emissions are all front loaded as part of the construction and mining process, which can theoretically be lowered with more RnD into greener practices for those industries.

So we have a source of power that is safe, efficient and proven that would allow us to put more land aside for conservation efforts which would help with carbon capture as well as lower emissions. And the only major downside is the higher upfront cost? Take a guess what’s going to happen to energy costs if we continue the current course and climate collapse continues to happen.

Brb gettig my Nuka cola

Wind Turbine’s problems is we have to replace the blades every 3-7 years depending on the model and there is no good way to recycle or break down the fiberglasse components. So every every 3-7 years you have 3 XL tractor truck trailer size turbine blades going into landfills.

Wind and Solar are still good, don’t get me wrong, but lets not pretend they have no downsides or drawbacks.

We’re just gonna set up a vat of molten metal and send it out Terminator 2 style. /s

Yeah this ain’t relatable at all. The only time ever spent a night in a hotel with a family member was when my dad chaperoned a school trip.

Well they are Greek.

How are there more bronze medals than silver, and more gold medals than silver?

Me who bought AMD cpu and gpu last year for my new rig cause fuck the massive mark up for marginal improvement on last gen stats.

Enormously long when compared to those tiny hands.

Not to defend him (can’t really stand his videos at all) but he’s not a journalist. He’s just a freelance spokesman for products that will sponsor him.

https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Land-use-of-energy-technologies_1350.png

I’m not against renewables but utilizing them as our main source of energy just is not practical for long term, there are serious ecological issues that have been sidelined because of global warming/climate change. Things like rooftop solar only become viable in low density housing, but low density housing is also not good use of land.

I don’t know to laugh or cry when I see peole quote the thousands of years waste storage of nuclear. That’s never been a thing, and never will be.

Land usage is what makes nuclear the most ecologically sound solution. Solar and wind play their part. But for every acre of land, nuclear tops the chart of power produced per year. And when you’re trying to sate the demand of high density housing and businesses in cities, energy density becomes important. Low carbon footprint is great for solar and wind but if you’re also displacing ecosytems that would otherwise be sucking up carbon, its not as environmentally friendly as we’d like.

If you calculate the cost of nuclear and include that you need to store the waste for thousands of years i

This hasn’t been true for decades.

High Level Nuclear waste, aka spent fuel, can be run through breeder reactors or other new gen types to drastically reduce their radioactive half-life to decades and theoretically years with designs proposed in the last few years. Only reason reactors don’t do this is lack of funding and demand for such things, the amount of high level waste produced is miniscule per year. And there are theories proposed already that could reduce ot further but nuclear phobia pushed by the oil lobby prevents proper funding and RnD to properly push those advancements to production.