Human_Anybody7743 t1_j1zlj8i wrote on December 28, 2022 at 4:10 PM

Reply to comment by Tree-farmer2 in All I want for Christmas is 400 GW of solar installed in 2023 by manual_tranny

I called out your slimy tactics of poiting out a political issue as if it were a technical issue and that you're pretending that the majority of uranium mining doesn't have the exact same problems (except that there is a long documented history of intentionally misleading native people and putting them into uranium mines with no PPE and poisoning their land rather than just being in an area where exploitation is happening and is putting no effort into stopping it) and you followed the pattern to a tee.

Tree-farmer2 t1_j1zok7i wrote on December 28, 2022 at 4:31 PM

>you're pretending that the majority of uranium mining doesn't have the exact same problems

I don't recall uranium being part of the discussion but slavery? There's none I know of but maybe it exists somewhere.

And there were problems with uranium mining but this was at the dawn of the Cold War and mostly for weapons production.

Today there are still problems with China's uranium mining in Namibia. This is <10% of global production and a symptom of a bigger problem with China and not representative of the rest of the industry.

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j1zqw23 wrote on December 28, 2022 at 4:47 PM

> I don't recall uranium being part of the discussion but slavery? There's none I know of but maybe it exists somewhere.

Oh I just assumed seeing as you were running the standard fossil fuel wE nEeD NuClEaR grift that you'd said it already. If you were just concern trolling with nothing positive to contribute then you're just skipping that step and going straight for keeping the oh so slavery free fossil fuel industry around without the pretense.

There's the exact same level of evidence for Uranium miningnslavery as polysilicon. Coal and oil powered regions with high slavery index exporting the product. Applies to Uzbekistan, Niger, and Turkmenistan at least. And then there's the nice men from Rio Tinto that hold on to your passport for you if you're a migrant laborer in Australia and give you a place to stay for only 80% of your wage, and basic services for 30% of your wage and will only fly you home if you pay the debt off. If your proposed alternative is fossil fuels then there's plenty worse than that in the world.

> And there were problems with uranium mining but this was at the dawn of the Cold War and mostly for weapons production.

> Today there are still problems with China's uranium mining in Namibia. This is <10% of global production and a symptom of a bigger problem with China and not representative of the rest of the industry.

Huh. So you're saying political problems aren't an inherent part of a technology and can be addressed? Almost exactly like the EU and US are doing right now? Almost like this topic only came up as a reactionary attempt at a Gish Gallop immediately after your other lie was refuted in spite of you knowing this.

Funny how that goes the exact same way every time.

Tree-farmer2 t1_j243pay wrote on December 29, 2022 at 2:55 PM

>There's the exact same level of evidence for Uranium miningnslavery as polysilicon.

Evidence?

>And then there's the nice men from Rio Tinto that hold on to your passport for you if you're a migrant laborer in Australia and give you a place to stay for only 80% of your wage, and basic services for 30% of your wage and will only fly you home if you pay the debt off.

This is a criticism of mining in general. Solar is actually the most mining-intensive way to make a kWh.

I'm not opposed to solar, though I'd prefer see it on rooftops rather than encroaching on nature. I understand some portion of the world's energy will come from solar but it bothers me when people extrapolate it to 100% with no concern about reliability or land and materials use. Nuclear needs to be included and even the IEA says:

>Nuclear power should play a significant role in helping meet net-zero goals globally, and building clean energy systems will be harder, riskier and more expensive without nuclear >https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/iea-build-more-nuclear-to-meet-net-zero-goals/

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j246vk1 wrote on December 29, 2022 at 3:18 PM

> This is a criticism of mining in general. Solar is actually the most mining-intensive way to make a kWh.

Anything to back that up that isn't an LCA of a decade old system of a completely different chemistry with 1/4 of the efficiency on a heavy 2 axis tracking rig?

> I'm not opposed to solar, though I'd prefer see it on rooftops rather than encroaching on nature. I understand some portion of the world's energy will come from solar but it bothers me when people extrapolate it to 100% with no concern about reliability or land and materials use.

Solar is the least materials heavy and least land consuming energy source other than gas. 20-50t of silver and 40-80t of lead per net GW are the only mining intensive materials, and both are dropping rapidly.

https://www.vdma.org/international-technology-roadmap-photovoltaic

> Nuclear needs to be included and even the IEA says:

Needing a few GW of nuclear in a handful of countries wouldn't support any of your arguments even if the IEA hadn't been consistently wrong about the role of renewables for the last 15 years to the point where at times they've "projected" 2050 costs and deployment rates to be lower than the rates when their projections were published.