Nuclear waste is measured in the tens of thousands of tons. Solar waste is in the tens of millions of tons. Most of it just dumped in landfills.
If your concern is about wanting to minimize the amount of waste left to future generations, then there is absolutely no reason to choose solar over nuclear power. The energy density of nuclear power is such that it generates orders of magnitude less waste.
> End-of-life (EOL) solar panels may become a source of hazardous waste although there are enormous benefits globally from the growth in solar power generation.
It is good that people worry about this new waste stream, and argue incentivizing recycling of this waste stream.
That said, the harmfulness of different types of waste is not compared in kilograms...
Absolutely, the harm from solar panels dumped in landfills is vastly greater than uranium buried 300 meters deep in bedrock. Uranium's energy density is such that we can afford to spend money on tightly securing the little waste it produces. By comparison, most plans for renewable power generation involve covering 2-4% of the Earth's land in solar panels. This is a vast amount of waste to dispose of, and it's not remotely close to feasible to secure it like nuclear waste.
its not just about things being bad when an airliner crashes, but about the additional risk incurred.
if I can choose between a nuclear power plant getting hit 10km from me, or some silane also 10km from me, I'd know what I'd dissaprove of most.
if I can choose between leaving for the next generations a location where surface storage was hit by an airliner, or where some silane gas was used being hit by an airliner, I'd know what I prefer to leave behind for them...
chemicals are easier to sort than isotopes