It's been years since I've learned this, so I don't know how valid it is in the proper context, but from what I remember mining uranium is incredibly destructive and poisonous for the immediate environment, and for those working those mines.
If someone who knows more about the actual mining can shed more light on this, I'd appreciate it, since this is basically the only holdout I have for not embracing nuclear fully.
I do know that the energy density is off the charts, but is it enough to make the mining impact less than, say, solar?
Also someone please finally confirm whether or not thorium is viable or just a meme.
As far as I can find, what a mine is mining has very little to do with its environmental/safety impact. The literature focuses on style of mine (pit, shaft, whatever) and almost never mentions the actual product. I guess intuitively, any random chunk of rock is going to have a whole bunch of different stuff in it, some of it poisonous, and what you intend to keep doesn't affect what's down there.
Thorium is conceptually viable and should be researched, but is not even close to being ready for the kind of mass deployment needed to be relevant for dealing with climate change. Basically anyone who's trying to pitch a reactor idea that isn't "copy a recent safe reactor ad nauseum" has accidentally fell for someone or another's marketing pitch.
Uranium mining, like all mining is harmful and destructive. That said most uranium comes from relatively first world nations and is regulated to the teeth ( because of the potential for weapons- grade material to be made). Advanced in ventilation, and the switch to mining ore robotically has rendered extraction relatively safe. Importantly, uranium ore is not smelted ( I'll come back to this later). Old uranium mines, like a lot of old mines, are environmental disaster areas that need to be cleaned up.
By contrast, precious metals, especially cobalt, come from third world countries (mostly africa) that don't have functioning governments. Mines are run by thugs among populations so desperately poor that families send their kids to work in mines. This is just the form of modern slavery . The materials to make your phone or device came from these mines. These are the same materials whose production needs to be increased to increase production of wind, solar, electric cars, etc.
Precious metals, copper, lead/zinc and many other metals, in existing mining districts are smelted. (Hydrometallurgy is an improvement and is being practiced extensively in some mining areas). Smelting is responsible for most of the world's most polluted places, and it's responsible (at least it used to be) the largest share of greenhouse emissions. These places are sometimes in regions among some of the world's poorest populations.
i literally date a nuclear physicist. you are wrong. only wind beats out nuclear, and that isnt a global, reliable solution. solar also produces 50% more carbon. you must also consider the cost of transferring energy from region to region: there is a reason why solar isn't powering everything right now and the optimal spots are rare to find. the lack of nuclear power is mostly due to social pressure.
Okay. Maybe your nuclear physicist boyfriend is slightly biased in the nuclear vs renewables argument.
Because it's widely agreed upon and demonstrated throughout the past few decades how prohibitively expensive building and maintaining nuclear plants is. That's why we don't do it.
It's both. There is valid fear about producing nuclear waste given human propensity to using it for war and tendency to fuck up and kill a lot of people on accident.
continue with your capitalist arguments of 'cost'. the human cost of replacing an entire infrastructure worth of solar panels will be more than nuclear.
We are not arguing among each other on how to use our money. I would not argue cost with you if that was what we were discussing, obviously.
This isn't an idealistic argument though, it's one of reality and current policies.
People, as in the government and the people who support certain policies, do not justify the insane expense and long term effort of nuclear for a system that in the minds of many can fail and harm millions. Versus actual renewable energy and investing into developing renewable technology.
You can be right in theory that a full dedication to development of nuclear power over 30 years would be better, but there are many arguments like that to be made that are detached from reality. China could do that, Russia is doing that. The US cannot with our constant trade between parties in power and lack of political will to continue the projects of past administrations that combat climate disaster.
It's been years since I've learned this, so I don't know how valid it is in the proper context, but from what I remember mining uranium is incredibly destructive and poisonous for the immediate environment, and for those working those mines.
If someone who knows more about the actual mining can shed more light on this, I'd appreciate it, since this is basically the only holdout I have for not embracing nuclear fully. I do know that the energy density is off the charts, but is it enough to make the mining impact less than, say, solar?
Also someone please finally confirm whether or not thorium is viable or just a meme.
As far as I can find, what a mine is mining has very little to do with its environmental/safety impact. The literature focuses on style of mine (pit, shaft, whatever) and almost never mentions the actual product. I guess intuitively, any random chunk of rock is going to have a whole bunch of different stuff in it, some of it poisonous, and what you intend to keep doesn't affect what's down there.
Thorium is conceptually viable and should be researched, but is not even close to being ready for the kind of mass deployment needed to be relevant for dealing with climate change. Basically anyone who's trying to pitch a reactor idea that isn't "copy a recent safe reactor ad nauseum" has accidentally fell for someone or another's marketing pitch.
Uranium mining, like all mining is harmful and destructive. That said most uranium comes from relatively first world nations and is regulated to the teeth ( because of the potential for weapons- grade material to be made). Advanced in ventilation, and the switch to mining ore robotically has rendered extraction relatively safe. Importantly, uranium ore is not smelted ( I'll come back to this later). Old uranium mines, like a lot of old mines, are environmental disaster areas that need to be cleaned up.
By contrast, precious metals, especially cobalt, come from third world countries (mostly africa) that don't have functioning governments. Mines are run by thugs among populations so desperately poor that families send their kids to work in mines. This is just the form of modern slavery . The materials to make your phone or device came from these mines. These are the same materials whose production needs to be increased to increase production of wind, solar, electric cars, etc.
Precious metals, copper, lead/zinc and many other metals, in existing mining districts are smelted. (Hydrometallurgy is an improvement and is being practiced extensively in some mining areas). Smelting is responsible for most of the world's most polluted places, and it's responsible (at least it used to be) the largest share of greenhouse emissions. These places are sometimes in regions among some of the world's poorest populations.
thorium is viable and far more common its just not a ton of research on it because the field is focusing more on fusion for its new research
Except building nuclear plants is extremely expensive and far too long term for the US to stick through for several administrations.
and other green facilities arent? lmao
No, moron. Comparatively they cost less.
i literally date a nuclear physicist. you are wrong. only wind beats out nuclear, and that isnt a global, reliable solution. solar also produces 50% more carbon. you must also consider the cost of transferring energy from region to region: there is a reason why solar isn't powering everything right now and the optimal spots are rare to find. the lack of nuclear power is mostly due to social pressure.
Okay. Maybe your nuclear physicist boyfriend is slightly biased in the nuclear vs renewables argument.
Because it's widely agreed upon and demonstrated throughout the past few decades how prohibitively expensive building and maintaining nuclear plants is. That's why we don't do it.
It's not cost, it's political will (essentially, overcoming fear).
It's both. There is valid fear about producing nuclear waste given human propensity to using it for war and tendency to fuck up and kill a lot of people on accident.
continue with your capitalist arguments of 'cost'. the human cost of replacing an entire infrastructure worth of solar panels will be more than nuclear.
We are not arguing among each other on how to use our money. I would not argue cost with you if that was what we were discussing, obviously.
This isn't an idealistic argument though, it's one of reality and current policies.
People, as in the government and the people who support certain policies, do not justify the insane expense and long term effort of nuclear for a system that in the minds of many can fail and harm millions. Versus actual renewable energy and investing into developing renewable technology.
You can be right in theory that a full dedication to development of nuclear power over 30 years would be better, but there are many arguments like that to be made that are detached from reality. China could do that, Russia is doing that. The US cannot with our constant trade between parties in power and lack of political will to continue the projects of past administrations that combat climate disaster.