←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 2 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
medlazik ◴[12 Sep 25 19:03 UTC] No.45225462[source]▶
Uranium mining isn't clean at all. Between Greenpeace (full of business school hacks) and lobby pressured EU courts, there's a middle ground.
replies(3): >>45225584 #>>45225589 #>>45225770 #
acidburnNSA ◴[12 Sep 25 19:15 UTC] No.45225589[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45225667 #
medlazik ◴[12 Sep 25 19:22 UTC] No.45225667[source]▶
>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.

replies(5): >>45225768 #>>45225796 #>>45225799 #>>45225919 #>>45226522 #
acidburnNSA ◴[12 Sep 25 19:34 UTC] No.45225796[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45225862 #
medlazik ◴[12 Sep 25 19:40 UTC] No.45225862[source]▶
> 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

replies(2): >>45225979 #>>45226014 #
1. gmanley ◴[12 Sep 25 19:49 UTC] No.45225979{3}[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45226285 #
2. xandrius ◴[12 Sep 25 20:18 UTC] No.45226285[source]▶
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.