[medlazik]

>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]

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]

> 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

[mpweiher]

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]

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

[stonemetal12]

Then what is clean? By that definition Solar and Wind aren't because copper and iron mines aren't clean.

[IAmBroom]

Are you saying it's less clean than mining for the materials that make up solar panels and wind turbines?

[alexey-salmin]

Do you think rare earth minerals for batteries and photovoltaics grow on trees?

[pfdietz]

Photovoltaics don't use rare earth minerals (and Li-ion batteries only use yttrium in one particular variety of LFP cells.)

[medlazik]

Who talked about those? Not the fucking point. Nuclear isn't clean.