[pfdietz]

The relevant point is that the waste from renewables is dominated by mundane things like glass, plastic, aluminum, and steel.

This means it's pertinent to ask: is the quantity of waste from renewables important compared to the quantity of these produced by society in general?

And the answer is "no". So the problem of dealing with such waste has to be dealt with anyway by society; the waste of renewable energy sources just increments the problem slightly.

This is different from nuclear energy, which introduces an entirely new kind of waste not produced by society in general.

[michael9423]

The thing is that nuclear research has been stiffled for decades. It is possible to create nuclear reactors that consume their own waste.

[pfdietz]

Nuclear boosters can't seem to produce economical power, but they sure seem to be able to crank out the excuses.

A great deal of time and money was spent on nuclear reactors that destroy actinides. The conclusion is it's considerably more expensive than the nuclear technology we have now. That's why it's not being done.

[Gibbon1]

Imagine if starting in the 1950's we'd spent on the money we spent on nukes on solar instead.