Comment by acidburnNSA
7 hours ago
What do you mean? Modern in situ uranium mining is one of the lowest impact mining of resources we have. It's not perfectly clean, but it's pretty darn good.
7 hours ago
What do you mean? Modern in situ uranium mining is one of the lowest impact mining of resources we have. It's not perfectly clean, but it's pretty darn good.
>What do you mean?
I mean it's not clean
>one of the lowest impact mining of resources we have
Not the point. It's not clean, it shouldn't be called clean end of the story.
Nuclear power uses around 1/10th the resources of intermittent renewables per kWh of electricity produced.
So if nuclear isn't clean, renewables are downright filthy.
Ok, well by this definition, all human development activity is unclean. This is a perfectly valid point of view but is pretty distinct from the modern definition of clean.
> all human development activity is unclean
of course
> modern definition of clean
clean is clean. no need to lie or modernize word definitions to fit your agenda of promoting nuclear energy all day every day for a decade
3 replies →
Then what is clean? By that definition Solar and Wind aren't because copper and iron mines aren't clean.
Holy shit you're all insane. Why do you want to call it clean when clearly it's not? Reducing energy consumption should be the goal. Stop calling clean stuff that isn't.
1 reply →
Are you saying it's less clean than mining for the materials that make up solar panels and wind turbines?
Do you think rare earth minerals for batteries and photovoltaics grow on trees?
Photovoltaics don't use rare earth minerals (and Li-ion batteries only use yttrium in one particular variety of LFP cells.)
Who talked about those? Not the fucking point. Nuclear isn't clean.
2 replies →