Comment by medlazik

Comment by medlazik 12 hours ago

21 replies

Uranium mining isn't clean at all. Between Greenpeace (full of business school hacks) and lobby pressured EU courts, there's a middle ground.

ryao 11 hours ago

Why mine uranium? Only about 4% of nuclear fuel is actually used before the fuel rods need replacement, which makes uranium highly recyclable. Given all of the “spent” fuel rods in storage, mining operations for additional uranium are unnecessary. We have enough uranium to supply our energy needs for millennia, provided we are willing to begin a recycling program.

Interestingly, the 4% actual “waste” is also quite valuable for industrial, scientific and medical purposes too. Radiation treatments for cancer, X-ray machines, etcetera all can use isotopes from it. This is not mentioning smoke detectors, betavoltaics and the numerous other useful things that can be made out of them. Deep space missions by NASA rely on betavoltaic power sources. Currently, there is a shortage, which has resulted in various missions being cancelled. Our failure to recycle “spent” nuclear fuel rods is a wasted opportunity.

  • ifdefdebug 7 hours ago

    Sure, now show us how to recycle spent fuel rods (and become a billionaire).

acidburnNSA 11 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.

  • medlazik 11 hours ago

    >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.

    • mpweiher 10 hours ago

      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.

      • locallost 20 minutes ago

        Citation needed.

        I will save you the trouble because I already know where your numbers come from: the Quadrennial Technology Review by the US Department of Energy from around 10 years ago. These numbers have been thoroughly debunked [1]. They are simply wrong, likely out of laziness more than malice.

        But the people that spread this around do it out of malice to dupe people and influence opinions. You've been duped.

        [1] https://xcancel.com/simonahac/status/1318711842907123712

    • acidburnNSA 11 hours ago

      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.

      • medlazik 11 hours ago

        > 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

    • stonemetal12 11 hours ago

      Then what is clean? By that definition Solar and Wind aren't because copper and iron mines aren't clean.

      • medlazik 11 hours ago

        [flagged]

        • KaseKun 10 hours ago

          Now now, there are words that you can say to make your point that don't make you seem deranged.

    • IAmBroom 11 hours ago

      Are you saying it's less clean than mining for the materials that make up solar panels and wind turbines?

    • alexey-salmin 11 hours ago

      Do you think rare earth minerals for batteries and photovoltaics grow on trees?

      • pfdietz 7 hours ago

        Photovoltaics don't use rare earth minerals (and Li-ion batteries only use yttrium in one particular variety of LFP cells.)

      • medlazik 11 hours ago

        Who talked about those? Not the fucking point. Nuclear isn't clean.

sealeck 11 hours ago

> Uranium mining isn't clean at all.

Nor is mining for coal!