Thread by @BNW_Ben

Here is a thread about uranium mining based on this article by Dr Gavin Mudd. It's worth reading theconversation.com/its-not-worth-…

1stly, I have researched and written about the environmental impacts of uranium mining in Australia. It was paid work with terms of reference that gave me authority. I cited Dr Mudd among others. Most have found it very helpful theconversation.com/its-not-worth-…

Wrong link...
minerals.org.au/sites/default/…

How do I agree with Dr Mudd's POV? A few places. U is *not* scarce - plenty of it - access to plenty more. $ of U has little impact on price of #nuclear electricity, thus negligible impact on decision to deploy that zero-C gen. More on U availability 4thgeneration.energy/response-to-br…

So I am *not* hot for putting biodiversity at risk to get U. Setting aside that I know *nothing* about Yeelirrie or stygofauna, there is a principle here I can back - why put it at risk?

But what isn't Mudd saying? Lots...and lots.

There is no way of mining U that will not draw fire from a certain cohort of researchers and a body of activists. This U mining in Sth Australia is probably the lowest-impact mining for *any* energy, worldwide. Has it won support from this cohort? No. decarbonisesa.com/2012/01/25/the…

So is it easy to believe Mudd and others when they tell us this one is a big problem? No, it really isn't, because they squander credibility by basing their protest on the mineral, not the practices. And we have NO PATHWAY that doesn't need mining.

Furthermore, Mudd is fudging when making the suggestion that #nuclear is dying so it doesn't matter. It's not dying, and there will be U mining for a very long time to come. We just get to decide where and how.

We get plenty wrong in Australia - and we do plenty a lot better than a lot of other jurisdictions. We have to get better at measuring our monsters and fight the ones that matter. Consider this... bbc.com/future/story/2…

And this... bloomberg.com/features/2018-…

And this...
thejakartapost.com/news/2018/11/1…

And ask if we are spending our precious social capital wisely to protect biodiversity by making U mining and nuclear power as difficult as possible (Narrator: 'They aren't')

Finally, if what we really want is absolutely minimal mining to meet our energy needs, how does zero sound? We can have, it by recycling every scrap of used nuclear fuel and depleted uranium - it's enough for about a millennia, for everyone, at developed living standard.

We released a plan for Australia to kickstart that, which is now a peer reviewed paper. Described the tech, the pathway, estimated the costs and benefits decarbonisesa.com/publications/t…

That was a few years after we described it at The Conversation, the place that published Mudd's article about this new mine theconversation.com/safe-zero-carb…

Did we receive a single word or indication of encouragement from that cohort of researchers and activists who say they want to protect critters from mining?

Did we hell. Nothing, ever, save attack and derision.

Because the last thing they want is a solution to nuclear waste...

...because that would mean they need to change their minds.

That's what they are really fighting to protect.

Their psyches.

From the painful experience of accepting that nuclear science and technologies can solve so many challenges and make the world so much better /FIN