Environment & Energy

Last edited Mon Jul 14, 2025, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

We do not need to derive all of our energy from a single source, nor is it (in my opinion) wise to. Most of the analysts I respect say it is necessary to use a variety of sources.

Energy derived from burning stuff (coal, oil, natural gas, trees, garbage…) contributes to atmospheric CO₂. It may be too late to undo the damage we have already done, perhaps we can slow & stop the damage we are currently doing. I think we can all agree this is necessary.

Nuclear energy is not without its own impacts. “Nuclear waste” is only one, and one which (I believe) is overestimated. Uranium is mined. Uranium mining in the US left behind a legacy of abandoned mines, contaminated land, water even homes. We don’t care about that, because it mostly affects the Navaho.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/atsdr_uranium_and_radiation_basics_dec_2014_0.pdf
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/atsdr_uranium_and_radiation_contact_dec_2014.pdf

Uranium mining has changed, with new means of mass extraction, including “open pit and underground mining,” “in situ leach (ISL) mining” and “heap leaching.” These days, we generally leave it to the poor of other countries deal with the mess.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/uranium-mining-overview
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining


“Renewable” energy is growing in significance, but has its drawbacks as well. Many of the ways we produce it rely on minerals which are mined, some in horrible environmental conditions. Conditions can be cleaner, but that means more overhead, making the product more expensive to produce, so… (as usual) we find desperately poor people to exploit…
https://www.ehn.org/chinas-rare-earth-mining-boom-leaves-toxic-legacy-in-water-and-soil
https://www.wboi.org/npr-news/2025-07-12/in-myanmar-a-rush-for-rare-earth-metals-is-causing-a-regional-environmental-disaster


“No nukes” is a simple-minded, knee-jerk reaction. However, there are drawbacks to nuclear power which must be acknowledged, just as there are to other “clean energy” sources, like hydroelectric dams, PV solar, wind turbines… “No renewables” (and the false equivalence, renewables = fossil fuels) is a similarly simple-minded, dogmatic position.

Nuclear fusion would be cleaner than nuclear fission, but it is not ready for deployment. “Gen-IV” fission reactors would be cleaner (and safer) than the “Gen-II” reactors which make up the vast majority of the world’s existing nuclear reactor “fleet” but, while closer to deployment than fusion reactors, thousands of “Gen-IV” reactors will not appear overnight.

Regardless of the choice of primary generation, to balance supply with fluctuating demand, energy storage is needed. (One possibility is hydrogen. I am becoming increasingly interested in “green ammonia.” Green ammonia has multiple uses, including the production of fertilizer, which currently is primarily produced using natural gas.)