3 ms·

> Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Nuclear accidents are polluting, but steady state certainly is not. But what makes you think t

> Serpent river, Rossing, Kakadu, Kadapa, Church Hill, La Hague Nuclear accidents are polluting, but steady state certainly is not. But what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? There's no evidence to think so. On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. Battery storage requires huge quantities of lithium. A single Tesla battery pack generates as much CO2 in production as an entire ICE car does in manufacture. There is of course more than enough uranium. There's billions of tons dissolved in seawater, enough for 100,000 years of current electric capacity. In fact a new gel was just discovered to make extraction much more efficient. [2] That 4 billion tons is actually replenished as it's extracted from geological processes. There is plenty of Uranium for conventional fission reactors. By most measures, existing nuclear power schemes are renewable. Then, breeder reactors require some 100x less uranium, and CANDU reactors can already operate on thorium cycle. There is no perfect solution, and meeting our energy needs at minimum CO2 requires a variety of energy sources. I'm not opposed to renewables at all. By all means, build away. [1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-... [2] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/ https://bigthink.com/hard-science/extract-uranium-seawater/

moloch-hai 4y ago
Wind power does not, in fact, require rare-earth metals. Rare-earth metals are now being mined (mainly for fractional-horsepower motors) in other places.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  There have always been rare earth metals outside of China, but the reason they're mined in China is only China has been willing to pay the environmental cost associated with their extraction, processing and refinement. As the peer comment pointed out you can have copper-only turbines but copper mining is an equally brutal process. [1, 2] Fun fact: copper is frequently co-located with uranium, radium and thorium. In-situ leaching can transport uranium and thorium into groundwater or surface water at the processing site. [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-mining-reveals-clean-energy-dark-side https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... [2] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-production-wastes https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-produ...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    I did not, in fact, just point out you could have copper only turbines. I pointed out that there were also purely aluminum wound ones. Additionally trying to scare about the effects of copper ISL when nuclear needs the copper and then also leaching (in situ or above) vastly higher quantities of ore which transports far more of those doesn't really help your point.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Ok, but what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? The fact that it's an issue right now? The fact that it's not an accident but standard operating procedure? > On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. More lies. https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings/lcas/LCA%20of%20Electricity%20Production%20from%20an%20onshore%20V150-4.2,%204.5MW%20Wind%20Plant_Final.Web.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sust... Where are the rare earths? Enercon even got rid of the copper. > And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass. It has mandatory recycling laws in civilised countries, you're welcome to implement them (or just wait until the recycling supply chains make used panels valuable enough that it happens anyway). And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu. With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right?
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > More lies. So not a lie, but thank you for new information. Don't worry mining in general, but copper in particular, is an environmental nightmare too. [1] Copper mining can actually contaminate groundwater with uranium and thorium. I believe this came up in an Odd Lots episode on the copper market recently. > Where are the rare earths? In every other turbine? > It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass. Don't worry we're running out of the sand to make glass too, and it's also an environmental nightmare. [2] Basically any extractive industry is. That's why we have to do a bunch of different things, each according to what they're good at, and weigh the pros and cons. That's why I'm in favor of solar, wind and nuclear, in spite of the fact each has their own drawbacks. > And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu. [citation needed]. > With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right? It's not my sea mining, I was responding to your false statement that we're anywhere close to running out of uranium. There's plenty on shore for hundreds of years, and by then I'm sure we'll have a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem, either removing it from the sea, or moving to breeder reactors, or the thorium cycle. Put on your problem solving hat my friend. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-mining-reveals-clean-energy-dark-side https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... [2] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a39880899/earth-is-running-out-of-sand/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a398808...

moloch-hai 4y ago

Wind power does not, in fact, require rare-earth metals. Rare-earth metals are now being mined (mainly for fractional-horsepower motors) in other places.

arcticbull 4y ago
There have always been rare earth metals outside of China, but the reason they're mined in China is only China has been willing to pay the environmental cost associated with their extraction, processing and refinement. As the peer comment pointed out you can have copper-only turbines but copper mining is an equally brutal process. [1, 2] Fun fact: copper is frequently co-located with uranium, radium and thorium. In-situ leaching can transport uranium and thorium into groundwater or surface water at the processing site. [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-mining-reveals-clean-energy-dark-side https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... [2] https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-production-wastes https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-copper-mining-and-produ...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  I did not, in fact, just point out you could have copper only turbines. I pointed out that there were also purely aluminum wound ones. Additionally trying to scare about the effects of copper ISL when nuclear needs the copper and then also leaching (in situ or above) vastly higher quantities of ore which transports far more of those doesn't really help your point.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Ok, but what makes you think that this will be an issue elsewhere going forward? The fact that it's an issue right now? The fact that it's not an accident but standard operating procedure? > On the other hand, wind power requires rare earth metals that are mined in open pit hellscapes in Mongolia. [1] That doesn't look very environmentally friendly. More lies. https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sustainability/reports-and-ratings/lcas/LCA%20of%20Electricity%20Production%20from%20an%20onshore%20V150-4.2,%204.5MW%20Wind%20Plant_Final.Web.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sust... Where are the rare earths? Enercon even got rid of the copper. > And of course solar panels are for now just acres and acres of e-waste that gets buried in poor countries. It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass. It has mandatory recycling laws in civilised countries, you're welcome to implement them (or just wait until the recycling supply chains make used panels valuable enough that it happens anyway). And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu. With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right?

arcticbull 4y ago
> More lies. So not a lie, but thank you for new information. Don't worry mining in general, but copper in particular, is an environmental nightmare too. [1] Copper mining can actually contaminate groundwater with uranium and thorium. I believe this came up in an Odd Lots episode on the copper market recently. > Where are the rare earths? In every other turbine? > It's made of sand with traces of silver and lead all encased in glass. Don't worry we're running out of the sand to make glass too, and it's also an environmental nightmare. [2] Basically any extractive industry is. That's why we have to do a bunch of different things, each according to what they're good at, and weigh the pros and cons. That's why I'm in favor of solar, wind and nuclear, in spite of the fact each has their own drawbacks. > And there and an order of magnitude less of it than the uranium leaching fluid that gets left in unsealed dams in kadapa, or dams with no flood mitigation in Husab, or pumped directly into the ground water in Inkai or Kakadu. [citation needed]. > With your sea mining scifi you know you need to make 1-2kg of polymer and put it in the ocean for 6 months per MWh all to get around the same amount of energy per unit of water as lifting it 70 metres, right? It's not my sea mining, I was responding to your false statement that we're anywhere close to running out of uranium. There's plenty on shore for hundreds of years, and by then I'm sure we'll have a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem, either removing it from the sea, or moving to breeder reactors, or the thorium cycle. Put on your problem solving hat my friend. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-mining-reveals-clean-energy-dark-side https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/09/copper-minin... [2] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a39880899/earth-is-running-out-of-sand/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a398808...