←back to thread

EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

(www.weplanet.org)
1041 points mpweiher | 4 comments | 12 Sep 25 18:18 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
mpweiher ◴[12 Sep 25 20:41 UTC] No.45226522[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45229792 #
1. locallost ◴[13 Sep 25 06:25 UTC] No.45229792[source]▶
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

replies(1): >>45230169 #
2. mpweiher ◴[13 Sep 25 07:50 UTC] No.45230169[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>45231503 #
3. locallost ◴[13 Sep 25 12:28 UTC] No.45231503[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45231837 #
4. mpweiher ◴[13 Sep 25 13:12 UTC] No.45231837{3}[source]▶
> 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...