Nuclear wastes can be safely contained until they decay and become stable enough not to harm the environment. Coal plants generate more radioactive elements and they are let go in the air
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Boosts Efforts in Renewable Energy and Water Sustainability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
First off, I'm no nuclear physicist or have any type of expertise in this field, but my gut feeling (assumption!) is that neither do you.
1. No Gen 4 facilities exist or are expected to exist in the coming years.
2. Not even a clear DEFINITION of Gen 4 nuclear reactors exists.
So presenting it as some end-all solution seems a bit precarious to me and a weird hill to die on.
Not to mention that it is quite a stretch to assume that Apple, a consumer-electronics company, can somehow just churn out speculative nuclear technology.
That's a blanket statement that just seems untrue. Nuclear waste as is being produced currently and in the past is highly radioactive and therefore harmful to life and our environment, ergo, a problem.
Just had a quick glance at Wikipedia, but I noticed two things while doing so:
1. No Gen 4 facilities exist or are expected to exist in the coming years.
2. Not even a clear DEFINITION of Gen 4 nuclear reactors exists.
So presenting it as some end-all solution seems a bit precarious to me and a weird hill to die on.
Not to mention that it is quite a stretch to assume that Apple, a consumer-electronics company, can somehow just churn out speculative nuclear technology.
Yeah, but for some waste you're talking about 10 thousand yeas of storage…
Can you imagine if we were still looking after some waste created by the first civilisations on the planet.
Nuclear has a role but the long term nature of its waste is a big concern.
So its a good thing that Apple is investing in solar to reduce the use of coal plants to power the grid!
Sure let’s remove any semblance of making it hard for theives. Having your phone stolen and being put back in use is better than the alternative of making it harder. /s
They are not easy to recycle. This is a problem. There are materials in them that will pollute the environment and they cannot be recycled. Same with windmills. Someday this might be the case, but today is not that day. Nuclear is the only truly green energy. Battery storage is no where near where it needs to be and this is just a matter of physics. Batteries are heavy and way too expensive and do not last near long enough.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/27/141282/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/#:~:text=They're%20fueling%20growing%20optimism,on%20the%20grid%2C%20experts%20say.
“Renewable Energy” — the corporate buzzword that is starting to be annoying. They never tell you what the ROI is on it other than the environment.
The majority of consumers care about the environment but not at the cost of goods. This means that millions are spent on solar panels, batteries, and electric cars but their products never come down in price.
While lithium and cobalt mining skyrocket — I guess as long as it’s in another country 🤷♂️.
The majority of consumers care about the environment but not at the cost of goods. This means that millions are spent on solar panels, batteries, and electric cars but their products never come down in price.
While lithium and cobalt mining skyrocket — I guess as long as it’s in another country 🤷♂️.
The amount of negativity towards environmental responsibility on this forum is nothing short of disgusting. Yes, solar and wind are imperfect and come with their own set of pollution problems. I 100% guarantee you that the negative environmental impact of renewable energy is much smaller than that of continuing to use coal, gas, oil, and even nuclear as it currently exists. The information you get suggesting otherwise is planted by very powerful sources who benefit financially from delaying action on the environmental crisis as long as possible.
Apple is on the right path. They should be pushing--and we should be pushing them--for Netzero Carbon by 2028 or 2027, not poo-pooing their efforts to lessen their negative impact on the climate.
Apple is on the right path. They should be pushing--and we should be pushing them--for Netzero Carbon by 2028 or 2027, not poo-pooing their efforts to lessen their negative impact on the climate.
Nuclear waste is stored in well-documented uninhabitable locations. Most of it is not nuclear material and will not take 10k years before it is safe to touch, recycle, or destroy.
The short answer to both of your questions is: Trivial adverse environmental impact in manufacturing and disposal.
The slightly longer answer: making a solar panel does require rocks and metals to be mined and processed and yes that uses some energy. However, the solar panel will likely last between 20 to 40 years (setting aside bad luck like hail damage in your picture). During that life they will produce vastly more energy than was used in manufacturing them. And then they will be recycled at the end of its useful life similar to the way many things made of metal, glass, and polysilicon get recycled. We don't have great recycling plants set up yet in the US for solar panels but that is because we don't have enough old solar panels to make it worthwhile.
Agreed, but given the lack of new reactors of any kind meeting with approval and the interminable construction times, any new nuclear is a long-term proposal at best. In the meantime, the solar arrays that I see are never in pristine areas -- they're along highways. Sure, there's sampling bias there, but I doubt there are many slash-and-burn solar arrays being installed (those practices supply your hamburgers and shrimp).
I'm not who you responded to, but I am in the energy business.
Nuclear waste is a largely solved problem in that you can dig a hole, put waste in hole, cover hole, leave hole alone forever. This may not seem like a good enough solution to you, but it is actually fine. The amount of waste is really really small compared to size of Earth and available spots for a hole.
You are right that no Gen 4 facility has been built (though I think China is really close to building the world's first). The cost and performance of these types of facilities is highly speculative. And all recent history of nuclear plant builds have been a history of cost and timeline over runs. But the Gen 4 proponents are adamant that this technology will be different.
Are you referring to China, by chance? China already has massive solar and wind farms, and is now embarking on the largest installation to date.
Solar and wind can both coexist on multi-use lands, so their footprint should not be a concern. As long as healthy forests are not cleared for them.
Wind farms can also be built on water.
Now, if only they'd combine these.
- a wind turbine tower with solar panels on the surface
- wind turbines floating on wave-energy collectors
- wave-energy stations covered in solar panels
Just because a place is uninhabitable, does not mean it would never affect a future generation. Some of the smartest people are working on solutions for radioactive waste disposal... from deep bore holes, deep ocean, tectonic subduction into earths mantle.... to blasting it into space (which I find pretty disgusting... I hope if an alien race ever encounters a heap of radioactive trash that they redirect to sender.. it's essentially littering on the greatest scale possible).
No one really has a good answer, so there is basically an increasing pile of radioactive waste around the globe.
Im not against nuclear power... but we sure need to come up and internationally agree on the best way to store our waste. Which do indeed take a ver very long time to become safe... hence the big big problems with safe storage.
For someone who is in the energy business seem to know very little about it. You dont just dig a hole, put in waste, cover hole, and leave it alone forever.
There are extremely strict criteria for suitable places to bore holes... then there is the local populations consent, then there is the building of the facility (its not just a hole). Then once it's built it has to be overseen, inspected, material prepped and store as best as possible. Then parts of the site are filled in, monitored and overseen. Even once the site has been filled to capacity.. it has to be monitored and secured for the entirety of its life.
The argument that the amount of waste is really small compared to the size of the earth is deceiving.. that waste is concentrated in one spot.. and may not be buried that deep, in relation to the geology and its depth. Only if you were to successfully and fully inject it into the mantle where it would mix into a huge volume of material would that statement make any sense.
Sustainability is a joke. It's Utopian dream. And, like all utopian dreams, it will just end in misery and suffering.
But the old batteries still need to be recycled, and that's more difficult than recycling glass and aluminum.
Which means those customers really do not care about our environment.
Care implies sacrifice.
Remember. Apple have never claimed to be perfect, but they are going better than most, and they are doing something positive.
Very well said! And for any concern of the small amount of waste produced, Elon will blast that on a forever voyage to nowhere on Space iOX
<sarcasm>. Seriously though... very well put with this reply!
Or we can post humorous answers to all these questions... I can start... where do all the recycled parts go? Where does the waste go? It all goes to making these panels. End of life? See above comment about Space iOX missions