The thing to remember is the enriched reactor grade Uranium is only about 140ppm in low grade ore. In a mine like Husab you're digging up and processing 7 tonne

The thing to remember is the enriched reactor grade Uranium is only about 140ppm in low grade ore. In a mine like Husab you're digging up and processing 7 tonnes or so for that 1kg of fuel (and 7kg of DU). Iron and Al ore concentration is measured in 2 digit percent -- often over 50%. Coal ore is coal (with half water and ash in the real dirty stuff). As such the scale of Uranium mining is not really less, there's just less end product. ISL is less energy intensive but limited in scope and remediation has never been as successful as claimed. The millions of tonnes of sulfuric acid involved are also a problem. The most destructive items on your list are copper and chromium. The former is used in about the same quantities in renewables (offshore wind presently uses several times more, other methods can use less and an increasing share of the marketis using Al for cabling and coils) and the latter is used more in nuclear. A combined mine like olympic dam can create several times more net electricity and net power in the form of PV from copper and silver than the Uranium that comes out (and that's even after taking most of the silver for control rods). That said, the subject here is high burnup and breeder reactors. In principle they actually live up to this dream (especially if the beryllium can be eliminated). It would be foolish to pin all our hopes on something that hasn't been put into practise though. In general they're in the same category as quad junction 50% efficient perovskites, cheap TEG based 24hr CSP, or NaS batteries with the same energy density as chemical fuels -- worth pursuing but not available soon.