EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

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

> Uranium mining isn't clean at all.

Nor is mining for coal!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

What source of energy is clean then?

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

OK, but then by that logic, solar and and wind shouldn't be categorized as clean energy either. Clearly it's a matter of degrees and meant as a useful segmentation for taxation, etc.

The problem in my mind with a "clean is clean" litmus test is that it eliminates the word "clean"'s ability to differentiate between sustainable and unsustainable human development.

Using systematic metrics to annoint something as clean so it can get clean energy credits so that people can invest in activities considered cleaner is valuable and useful even if none of the options are 100% perfectly in impactful to the natural world.

Even doing nothing is not "clean" by that philosophy, since you'd did and your rotting corpse would taint the soil, making it unclean by default.

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

No point, old mate just can't deal with anything but perfection. No energy source is clean, so let's not bother.

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.

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

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

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

> I already know where your numbers come from: the Quadrennial Technology Review by the US Department of Energy from around 10 years ago.

That turns out not to be the case.

Even if it were the case: an official study by the DOE was "thoroughly debunked", in your esteemed opinion, because some random Australian twitter user claims to have talked to a friend.

Right.

He claims no such things. Instead he goes deep down the rabbit hole, brings back receipts and takes no prisoners.

Citation still needed. Real one will not come as it's nonsense.

> He claims no such things.

Literally: "i asked a solar developer."

https://x.com/simonahac/status/1318711817502302209

> Citation still needed. Real one will not come as it's nonsense.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...