>>11429970>Cheaper than solarThe sheer size of the solar farm you would need to make it remotely practical as a large scale energy source makes it far, far more expensive. Not to mention how much more land it would take up.
>Cheaper than windSame issues as with solar.
>Just endless uranium mining You would need far more lithium to sustain a solar farm that comes remotely close to a nuclear plant in terms of efficiency. The whole point of using radioisotopes as an energy source is that, going on to our next point;
>Thousands of times more efficientPic.
>b-b-but solar runs on fusion, doesn't that provide access to even more energy density than fission?Sure, maybe if we were closer to the sun and receiving 1500% more photons per square meter, but even then it's only good for powering things on a small scale, because the amount of materials required to build enough batteries to store any of that energy on a large enough scale to matter makes it completely impractical.
>Ends up producing less waste in the long run>wrong not to mention the fact it's all radioactive extremely hazardous waste"Oh shucks what are we gonna do with all this harmful lithium from our now defunct solar panels and failed batteries that we didn't consider would eventually break down? Guess we'll just toss it over here."
Usually waste fuel is at most a beta emitter, meaning less than a foot of dirt on top of it will render it completely harmless. Not to mention that the waste is already stored inside far more secure containers.
Oh, and modern reactors also end up reusing like 96% of that anyways. Even better, proper thorium breeders wouldn't produce waste at all, period.
Also anybody crying about how "it'll last millions of years into the future tho!" don't understand how a half-life works. Anything with a half-life on that time scale is also decaying (emitting "muh radiation") at a rate that TAKES millions of years to complete. In other words, it's less dangerous than your fire alarm.
