Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrmanner | Hacker News Reader

“Nano PV particulates” are mostly sand, and mostly harmless. All forms of electricity production have negative externalities, we want to minimize those so internalizing them is good policy. Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan) and PV waste (large amounts, maybe reusable, there’s no mid-term plan), as well as fossil fuel waste (all of the above).

View on HN

And plastic is mostly oil. But that's not the whole picture is it?

PV aren't just sand, if they were my windows would be PV. Small impurities matter over long times and large quantities.

Also wrong on long term plan for nuclear. Long term plan is wait. Radioactivity reduces itself with time.

> Impurities matter

Yes, we need to recycle the materials. Landfill is not a viable solution for any waste, none of that is unique to solar power.

> Long term plan is wait

Waiting a lifetime is easy. Waiting hundreds of generations after we’re dead is not. Is that an argument against nuclear power? Not in my opinion. There’s still no finalized plan describing how waiting will work in practice though.

> Goes for nuclear waste (dangerous, there’s no long-term plan)

90% of nuclear waste is harmless within a year or two. The rest is so dense, that it fits a couple of trucks, and can be stored indefinitely long in a very small storage

Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila. I’m convinces we’ll solve storage by reusing the waste - but it’s not a solved problem by any stretch.

> Stored indefinitely until a curious explorer decides to investigate the unknown tomb of the gods of the third millennium, and… voila.

Voila what? If you're concerned about people degrading so far down that whatever we leave behind is "tombs of the third millenium", then storing a truckload of nuclear waste isn't really an issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com