The environmental damage caused by "clean" power sources is done mostly in countries which are far from Europe, so it's not much discussed in Europe.

Like:

Copper. "As the world shifts to wind energy and electric cars, demand for the conductive metal has increased. But mining copper brings its own environmental hazards"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin...

Impacts of lithium mining on water stressed regions in Chile

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/01/c...

Impacts of rare earth refining in China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/business/china-rare-earth...

silicon tetrachloride from solar production

https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=831

Europe should not outsource it's ecological impact to developing countries.

▲

dawnerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

And the person you replied to probably doesn’t realize spent nuclear fuel has really no where to go other than long term storage.

	▲	constantius 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They probably are aware of nuclear waste and of the modalities of dealing with it, and still believe that not investing into nuclear is shooting yourself in the foot. FYI, a typical 1GW nuclear plant produces 30 tons, or 10m3, of high-level waste. Germany uses ~500TWh of electricity per year. So Germany could replace all their electricity generation with 60 nuclear plants and would need to find space for 1800 tons or 5km3 of waste per year. For comparison, German landfills can accommodate 70M metric tons per year. France, a country famous for its investment into nuclear, is not covered in nuclear waste, and does not seem to have any issue disposing of it safely. Nuclear has its disadvantages, but painting the many people who advocate for it on HN as delusional or ignorant is not very respectful.