[forgetfreeman]

The notion that turbine blades are not and cannot be recycled is a bit behind the times. Carbon Rivers is scaling up their turbine blade recycling capacity as we speak.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-make...

EOL turbine blades have also been used in several architectural projects as everything from a concrete reinforcing agent to actual structural components.

Solar panels are currently still problematic, however there is huge industry spend on recycling R&D. Are you prepared to bet the farm that recycling tech won't run down the problem in less time than it would take to permit and construct a nuclear power plant given the 5 years it takes to permit one and 7-10 years it takes to construct?

[amarant]

If we're gonna talk of stuff in the pipeline, don't forget that nuclear Gen 3 reactors can actually reuse current waste and reduce it by up to 90%.

Currently those reactors only exist as experimental reactors, so it's fair discounting them. Same as it's fair to consider the waste generated by wind since the vast majority of blades end up in landfills. Even though on theory they needn't.

[igorkraw]

Difference one being that the wind turbines can start producing electricity and remove carbon emissions within months, while building a new reactor happens within years.

Difference two being that after those gen3 reactors are done you still have 10% of waste which can be used to wipe out cities and ecosystems, while after you are done recycling turbine blades you have slag and (if properly neutralised) chemically inert goo

[Schroedingersat]

Except those recycling technologies exist at scale and are prohibitively expensive.

This is where PWRs are after 60 years of maturing the technology and there are many low hanging fruit to be picked because there have not been large quantities of silicon panels for more than a few years.

Those Gen 3 reactors are still steam engines, and it's questionable whether steam engines can compete even if the heat source is free.