Oh yeah let's talk about the soviet union again and do if it was a nuclear problem … By that metrics hydro power is absolutely terrible as well, given that we've had two major dam incidents (including one in… Ukraine) this years causing much more death than Tchornobyl ever did… Also should you count all nuclear incidents that resulted in reactor being damaged, you'd still be far lower than 10% of installed power being destroyed.
> Silicon is in sand…
Because open pit sand mining causes no issue somehow? Uranium is also in sand (at least in Kazakhstan, #1 producer) so what?
> Are you really weighing uranium vs solar panels? What kind of measure is that?
Measuring environmental impact of both energy production mean. Which is the opposite of the “solar good for the planet/ nuclear bad” irrational argument that you're having.
> How much does a nuclear plant weigh?
Much less than the equivalent solar farm, that's been my point from the beginning.
> What about the water pumped into a plant?
That water goes in and out, is that all you have as an argument left? Do you count the air going through wind turbines as a waste when evaluating wind power as well or the double standard only applies to nuclear for some reason?
> Do you need to weigh the people required to run a plant to get your kg/Mwh measure?
You got stuck to the point of not being able to make actual points so you eventually fell back to mocking my arguments, bringing this fruitless discussion to its conclusion. Glad we got there too.
Oh yeah let's talk about the soviet union again and do if it was a nuclear problem … By that metrics hydro power is absolutely terrible as well, given that we've had two major dam incidents (including one in… Ukraine) this years causing much more death than Tchornobyl ever did… Also should you count all nuclear incidents that resulted in reactor being damaged, you'd still be far lower than 10% of installed power being destroyed.
> Silicon is in sand…
Because open pit sand mining causes no issue somehow? Uranium is also in sand (at least in Kazakhstan, #1 producer) so what?
> Are you really weighing uranium vs solar panels? What kind of measure is that?
Measuring environmental impact of both energy production mean. Which is the opposite of the “solar good for the planet/ nuclear bad” irrational argument that you're having.
> How much does a nuclear plant weigh?
Much less than the equivalent solar farm, that's been my point from the beginning.
> What about the water pumped into a plant?
That water goes in and out, is that all you have as an argument left? Do you count the air going through wind turbines as a waste when evaluating wind power as well or the double standard only applies to nuclear for some reason?
> Do you need to weigh the people required to run a plant to get your kg/Mwh measure?
Ohoh, very clever >_<