| ▲ | medlazik 3 days 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. |
|
| ▲ | acidburnNSA 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | medlazik 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > 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 | | |
| ▲ | acidburnNSA 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | gmanley 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | xandrius 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | locallost 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | mpweiher 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > 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 3 days ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | stonemetal12 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Then what is clean? By that definition Solar and Wind aren't because copper and iron mines aren't clean. |
| |
|
| ▲ | IAmBroom 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are you saying it's less clean than mining for the materials that make up solar panels and wind turbines? |
|
| ▲ | alexey-salmin 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Do you think rare earth minerals for batteries and photovoltaics grow on trees? |
| |
| ▲ | pfdietz 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Photovoltaics don't use rare earth minerals (and Li-ion batteries only use yttrium in one particular variety of LFP cells.) | |
| ▲ | medlazik 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who talked about those? Not the fucking point. Nuclear isn't clean. | | |
| ▲ | alexey-salmin 3 days ago | parent [-] | | What source of energy is clean then? | | |
| ▲ | KaseKun 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No point, old mate just can't deal with anything but perfection.
No energy source is clean, so let's not bother. |
|
|
|
