> The land used for the mining isn't land that we're just getting back--given the costs of making it useful again for anything else, space used for a lithium mine is in almost all cases essentially going to be gone for good. This is of course true for other mines as well, but your notion that lithium is an exception is a curious one.
Solar panels aren't made of lithium.
> Nuclear reactors require relatively small inputs of these metals compared to the metals used in solar panels, and the huge capital invested in making solar panels less resource-intensive could also be applied to nuclear, if we wanted to do so.
[Citation needed] Solar panels don't need tonnes of indium per GW or gadoliunium or an ongoing 100kg of copper per MW per year. Modern panels on a modern racking system have a higher capacity weighted specific power than an EPR and a lower metal fraction. The cells (which are still over 90% silicon) are only about 2% of the total mass of a module and weigh less than the raw uranium for an equal energy output, let alone the rest of the reactor and supply chain.
That last is just more lies. All of the solar panels ever produced could fit in the tailings pit of Husab dug out for a single year of operation. Half of the US dragging their feet doesn't discount the fact that most new PV in the civilized world is recyclable and mandatory to do so.
Do you have anything honest to say or just the same slimy lies?
Solar panels aren't made of lithium, but they are made of a wide variety of other things that have to be mined (which, again, uses up space and has to be taken into consideration), and the batteries which will be necessary to make them a viable part of the total transition to renewables will require massive amounts of it--lithium mining is expected to double in the next few years, and renewables are a major driver of that.
Nuclear reactors use less copper overall than renewable energy sources. (https://help.leonardo-energy.org/hc/en-us/articles/360010919...) Uranium, by the way, is also recycleable--most fissile material can be reused, and the amount of waste produced is tiny.
And yes, the total amount of waste produced by nuclear energy is miniscule, and could fit in a much smaller amount of space than is taken up by solar panel waste, which is well over a quarter of a million metric tons. Both are small compared to, say, coal ash, but solar disposal does have significant costs and can and does produce significant waste.
And one last thing--you're hypersensitive and pathetic. I started this discussion agreeing with your main point and trying to observe something straightforwardly relevant and you've been having a tantrum in response the entire time. Log off.
Again, quantify them rather than vague hand waving. 1kW net of PV module has about 100g of metal in it and lasts 25-50 years. 1kW of fuel rod lasts 3-6 years and requires 130g of enriched uranium, a bunch of rare earths, 2kg of copper and steel for handling and requires extracting 1kg of raw uranium. The amount of lithium 'required' is zero, but if you choose to use LFP for diurnal storage, you need about 1kg. Roll together mining impact for battery, PHES, and solar and you've still not covered the uranium mine, let alone all the steel, extra copper, indium, gadolinium, chromium and so on. Inkai is over 460km^2 with a much larger zone in which the ground is too poisonous to inhabit. If you want to see how much copper is actually needed, maybe rather than using an unsourced article from 2018, look at the most recent IRENA or Frauenhofer PV reports. Racking systems have changed completely, modules are higher power and have less metal, and connection voltages are in the kV range now.
> And yes, the total amount of waste produced by nuclear energy is miniscule, and could fit in a much smaller amount of space than is taken up by solar panel waste, which is well over a quarter of a million metric tons. Both are small compared to, say, coal ash, but solar disposal does have significant costs and can and does produce significant waste.
Again. Compare for me the volume of the tailings pit of a typical open pit uranium mine like Husab with the volume of every solar panel ever produced. A few hundred grams of metal encased in glass for an entire lifetime of energy is not 'significant waste'.
> And one last thing--you're hypersensitive and pathetic. I started this discussion agreeing with your main point and trying to observe something straightforwardly relevant and you've been having a tantrum in response the entire time. Log off.
Projection much? You tried to push lies and propaganda, now you're having a tantrum when challenged. Every topic where nuclear shilling isn't immediately banned is full of the same set of talking points that have been debunked between years and decades ago.
What on earth do you mean by 1kw of fuel rod? Your quantifications make no sense and cite no sources. You're going to need to be more specific than "read the latest reports"; this report (https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Technical-P...) from 2021 for example makes it very clear that copper is not a trivial concern for renewables at all. If you have serious evidence for your unclear and uncited claims of "how much is actually needed", then go right ahead. none of your other numbers are cited either; your assumption of 1kg for lithium battery looks like you just made it up on the spot the way you did with your bizarre earlier falsehood about how much copper a nuclear reactor consumes--and a transition to a renewable-centric energy system will require significant battery storage capacity, so it's not a question that can just be dismissed.
A fuel rod assembly with 500kg of uranium produces about 200,000,000 kwH over its lifetime (https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi...), which comes out to 400k kw per kilogram of uranium, or 400 kw per gram. The amount of rare earths in each solar panel may be relatively low, but it also uses a significant amount of silicon, which as a metalloid has to be mined. Beyond that, none of this even addresses the differences in intensity of production; because nuclear produces its lifetime energy much more quickly than a solar panel does, the relative density of solar that you need in order to provide a comparable level of power over time is considerably unbalanced.
"Again. Compare for me the volume of the tailings pit of a typical open pit uranium mine like Husab with the volume of every solar panel ever produced. A few hundred grams of metal encased in glass for an entire lifetime of energy is not 'significant waste'."
I'm at a loss for how to explain to you that this a fallacy on your part. I'm talking about waste production, and you're trying to compare apples to oranges by bringing up uranium mines instead of comparing waste production of the different methods. That you're so intent on repeating this obvious fallacy suggests to me that it's the best you can do. I'd like to say it doesn't matter, but the anti-rational fanaticism of green energy cultists is going to push the world off a cliff.
You can't even distinguish between energy and power, now you're mixing kw and kWh. A reactor with about 100t of fuel rods produces around 1GW and refuels every 3-6 years. Ergo 100g of refined uranium (plus zirconium and gadolinium, then caesium indium and silver for control rods).
The toxic slurry in a uranium mine is waste from producing energy. It outmasses everything else you are talking about combined by orders of magnitude and is rarely dealt with in any permanent or safe way, see the Indian village of Kadapa or any of the mines in Niger or Uzbekistan for examples.
Then bringing up the most abundant element on earth as if mining it is a relevant impact is another huge stretch. Quartz mining doesn't even need the same grade of sand as concrete. What an utterly intellectually bankrupt claim.
You're the one trying to concern troll over the space and minerals used by PV. Demonstrate that the total land use and mining impact of the entire supply chain is actually higher.
I also note you've cherry picked a report that talks largely about vehicle batteries but tangentially mentions thin film panels (an obsolete technology being abandoned) rather than monocrystalline, and then doesn't quantify it per MW (hint: the numbers in it are nowhere near your claimed 4t/MW). Where is all this copper supposed to be? You're claiming that there's 100kg of copper hiding in this photo https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
You're very narrowly trying to compare SNF with the entire solar module, ignoring the reactor, the upstream fuel supply, the low level waste, and the waste containment. The sheer stupidity of thinking you have a coherent enough lie is mind boggling.
Solar panels aren't made of lithium.
> Nuclear reactors require relatively small inputs of these metals compared to the metals used in solar panels, and the huge capital invested in making solar panels less resource-intensive could also be applied to nuclear, if we wanted to do so.
[Citation needed] Solar panels don't need tonnes of indium per GW or gadoliunium or an ongoing 100kg of copper per MW per year. Modern panels on a modern racking system have a higher capacity weighted specific power than an EPR and a lower metal fraction. The cells (which are still over 90% silicon) are only about 2% of the total mass of a module and weigh less than the raw uranium for an equal energy output, let alone the rest of the reactor and supply chain.
That last is just more lies. All of the solar panels ever produced could fit in the tailings pit of Husab dug out for a single year of operation. Half of the US dragging their feet doesn't discount the fact that most new PV in the civilized world is recyclable and mandatory to do so.
Do you have anything honest to say or just the same slimy lies?