Havent bothered to be back in a while but seriously discussing nuclear vs non nuclear in the civil power arena? o.0 Yes Solar and Wind has more waste in a shorter time period but said waste isnt going to give some one cancer or allow a terrorist to create a dirty bomb while nuclear for the thousands of years of long term risks provides a bloody huge amount of power in a tiny amount.
@Takao "cough, Germany cough " really? they freaked out after Fukishima and shut down reactors leaving Fossil fuel reactors with spare capacity ramp up. Hardly an indication at all the turning away from nuclear will lead to increased CO2 emissions but rather blindly jumping in one direction or the other will bugger it up. As for the waste, Yes there is a boat load and a half of old renewable systems to be recycled which developments are advancing towards as we chat here... Comparing a few acres of waste with the tiniest if any at all health risks for solar and wind vs nuclear waste that quite literally with current tech and solutions will still need thousands of years and then some... Not a great argument at all. as fpr the amount of waste decreasing.. Yes because nuclear power plantso have managed to advance from a 30 odd % efficiency to pushing 40%.. In 2012 France was still producing 2kg of radioactive waste per a person or iff easier in 2010 the had enough radioactive waste stpckpiled to fill 1.32 million cubic metres, So that small factory would be the 13th largest in the world by volume.
@MrConservative Yes a large amount of copper goes into wind turbines but the claim of 'average 30%' generation usage tends to be the lower end smaller scale turbines. Not to mention completely ignores the Uranium also has to be mined, or that copper can surprisingly be recycled.
Yes in some regions and economies nuclear power potentially has a place but at the end of the day like it or not renewables are cheaper with a LCOE often less then 1/3 of nuclear.