7 ms·
>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 en
by medlazik 1y 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.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoDo you think rare earth minerals for batteries and photovoltaics grow on trees?
- medlazik 1y agoWho talked about those? Not the fucking point. Nuclear isn't clean.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoWhat source of energy is clean then?
- KaseKun 1y agoNo point, old mate just can't deal with anything but perfection. No energy source is clean, so let's not bother.
- pfdietz 1y agoPhotovoltaics don't use rare earth minerals (and Li-ion batteries only use yttrium in one particular variety of LFP cells.)
- acidburnNSA 1y agoOk, 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 1y 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
- gmanley 1y agoOK, 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.
- xandrius 1y agoEven 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.
- acidburnNSA 1y agoThe 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.
- IAmBroom 1y agoAre you saying it's less clean than mining for the materials that make up solar panels and wind turbines?
- stonemetal12 1y agoThen what is clean? By that definition Solar and Wind aren't because copper and iron mines aren't clean.
- mpweiher 1y agoNuclear 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 1y agoCitation 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 https://xcancel.com/simonahac/status/1318711842907123712
- mpweiher 1y ago> 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.
- locallost 1y agoHe 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.
- mpweiher 1y ago> He claims no such things. Literally: "i asked a solar developer." https://x.com/simonahac/status/1318711817502302209 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/S2542435123000016 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...