wait... seriously?

@ArishMell Yep, the concrete or steel structures to contain spent rods, etc., are much bulkier than the waste itself.

It's the long-term storage that is the real problem... steel rusts and concrete fails. Containment containers are good for a hundred or so years, and the waste remains hazardous for thousands of years.

Not something that can't be managed, but for sure the thing that needs the most attention.

actually, nuclear power has the least environmental impact of any power generation as the majority of the waste is low level & intermediate that decays rapidly becoming inert after a few years. Only about 1% of it is highly radioactive and is stored on site in steel casks.

On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person's electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper.

Meanwhile, wind turbine blades and solar panels continue to pile up in landfills when they're replaced every 3-5 years...

@wildbill83 The irony of wind-turbines of course is that they require a range of petroleum-derivative materials in their design, installing, operating and maintaining - and eventual removal. Even more so for offshore ones.

I don't know how recoverable the active materials in a solar array are, but the cases and frames are all metals, so those at least are salvageable.

Three to five years seems a very short life, beyond maintenance. Is that right?

@Matt85 Okay, tell us a better way.

@Nitedoc like im gonna give away my billion dollar idea

@Matt85 Good point!

@SunshineGirl ... to make tea!