At first blush this calculation may seem to placate some concern, but on second thought it's mostly worthless without any discussion of the current dispersal of the waste and it's "potency," i.e. the potential harmful effects of a given quantity.
Sure, but you'd have to do the same for every other power source as well. Even making solar panels currently generates toxic waste ...
I was simply pointing out that when talking about potential danger from a given substance, the absolute amount, X ft^3, doesn't tell us much with knowing more about the substance's potential for deleterious effects at a given quantity of the substance.
If deleterious effects start at X * 4, X is less concerning. If deleterious effects start at X * .0000000004, X is more concerning.
I've got this little thimble full of material, just a small thimble. No big deal right? I'll just leave it laying somewhere around your house.
Would your assessment of this situation change if you knew it was a thimble full of cyanide?
P.S. I didn't mean for my original post to sound hostile, though with it's conciseness and using 'worthless,' I could understand such an interpretation. I have no problems with this line of analysis, I'm a fan and found the visual it provided interesting. I just intended to point out that if the intention was to give a sense of the danger posed by nuclear waste produced over the past 60 years, then the analysis was incomplete for the reasons stated above.
P.P.S Is the amount of toxic waste produced by solar vs nuclear per unit of energy produced in any way comparable? If so that would no doubt be of interest to the world at large.
I make no claims as to the danger represented by that amount, only "is it a large amount".
IE it may be a small amount, and totally and completely horrible.
"P.P.S Is the amount of toxic waste produced by solar vs nuclear per unit of energy produced in any way comparable? If so that would no doubt be of interest to the world at large. "
I actually don't know, but i may go try to figure it out.