←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 1 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. acidburnNSA ◴[12 Sep 25 19:53 UTC] No.45226014{3}[source]▶
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.