[stephen_g]

In Australia we generate 12 million metric tons of coal fly ash per year. It's our largest single waste stream, literally almost 1/5 of all waste generated in the country [1]. I'm sure in the US at least that amount is generated from coal. So 10 million tonnes of cumulative waste from solar panels is not huge in comparison (and this is before even considering the CO₂, NOx, SOx, etc. emissions from that coal)...

1. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-10/coal-ash-has-become-o...

[askvictor]

Don't forget that it's also more radioactive than nuclear waste: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

[pvaldes]

And banana plantations (or granite mountains, or the sun) are more radioactive than both because you have a lot of bananas with weak radioactivity each one, but the sum of all bananas in fruit shops is not how we measure radioactivity danger.

Coal is accumulated and relatively low, nuclear is concentrated and can reach several orders of magnitude more. Really, is not so useful to compare both cases except for whataboutism.

[askvictor]

It is very much useful to compare them in the contexts of energy sources and the dangers that these pose to populations.

[Gordonjcp]

> Coal is accumulated and relatively low, nuclear is concentrated and can reach several orders of magnitude more. Really, is not so useful to compare both cases except for whataboutism.

That's nice but you still have to wear a dosimeter around fly ash.