Slashdot Mirror


Greenland Repeals Radioactive Mining Ban

An anonymous reader writes "According to the International Resource Journal, 'Greenland has voted to axe a long-enduring ban on mining for radioactive materials, reopening the market to uranium and rare earths mining. Yesterday's parliamentary vote passed the decision by a staggeringly close 15-14 votes. ... The ban has previously prevented the extraction of some major rare earth deposits, because they are connected to radioactive materials.' 95% of the world's rare-earth demand is currently supplied by China, but estimates indicate Greenland could produce enough to supply 25% of the demand. Greenland's Prime Minister said the decision was made because of financial reasons: 'We cannot live with unemployment and cost of living increases while our economy is at a standstill. It is therefore necessary that we eliminate zero tolerance towards uranium now.' Environmental groups, as you might expect, are not happy."

142 comments

  1. About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Resources exist to be exploited, albeit not indiscriminately. Zero tolerance ban is just as bad as gung-ho mining, they're both extremes of what otherwise should be "sensible mining".

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more complicated that radioactive resources have this tendency to stop being radioactive if you ignore them. It's like if your favorite deflationary currency had a tendency to disintegrate randomly in your wallet (on second thought, that makes it even more like Bitcoin).

    2. Re:About bloody time! by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      Or to jump start the economy ""We cannot live with unemployment and cost-of-living increases while our economy is at a standstill. It is therefore necessary that we eliminate zero tolerance towards uranium now," Greenland's prime minister, Aleqa Hammond, was quoted as saying by local newspaper Sermitsiaq during the debate." VIA http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/25/greenland-green-light-uranium-rare-earths-mining

    3. Re:About bloody time! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      with a half life of almost 4.5 billion years, the sun will expand into red giant and eat the Earth before Greenland loses 60 percent of its U-238

    4. Re:About bloody time! by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      well beats exploiting pensioners in the EU and reneging on your debts eh :-)

    5. Re:About bloody time! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it is imperative we act immediately, we only have . . . .*counts on fingers* . . . a couple billion years left before radioactive materials decay beyond economic feasibility! :P

      Though on a serious note, kilowatt-hour for kilowatt-hour, isn't it more environmentally friendly to mine uranium than coal? Even factoring all the energy spent in refining and all that, fissile fuel has energy densities many orders of magnitude greater than any fossil fuel.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    6. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's true, we should have drilling rigs in every back yard and school playground! I'm sure there is some oil under those Great Lakes as well. If only we could get rid of that pinko commie muslim non-American guy who keeps getting elected President!

    7. Re:About bloody time! by FishTankX · · Score: 1

      That probably depends largely on whether or not you consider the environmental costs of all of the equipment used to decommission the plant that burns it. Decommissioning a plant isn't free, and often times low level and medium level radioactive wastes have to be transported long distances to their final disposal site. The enviornemntal cost of extracting all of the petroleum (and potentially coal) used in the mining, transport, AND disposal of your fuel and contaminated materials has to be considered. The problem with nuclear is you have a long post-retirement supply chain to also consider.

      What might be an entertaining alternative to mining uranium from the earth, is mining uranium from fly ash. You could probably get as much energy from the uranium mined from the fly ash, as you did from the coal itself.

    8. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look some libtard who thinks I'm a Rethuglican voting Teabagger. Sorry to rock your peabrain, but I'm not.

    9. Re:About bloody time! by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

      That's iceland. It's very easy to remember. Iceland is volcanic and least icy of the 2. Greenland is mostly icy white.

    10. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! Now spread your ass and let the world exploit it!

    11. Re:About bloody time! by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      Don't know why ANYONE would vote for TweedleDee or TweedleDum. I mean really - different sides of the same coin. Frankly - if you are in office now - YOU are the problem and should be voted out. I have voted against every incumbent for the last 10 years and intend to continue to do the same thing until the radicals on BOTH sides realize there is a huge benefit for working together in the middle and get rid of these one party votes. Frankly - the fact that the republicans had to get enough votes in their own party to pass anything earlier this month because nancy pelosi wouldn't let any democrats vote was a waste. Means the republicans have to go more conservative instead of more liberal to attract democrat votes that they won't get.
      The senate is a wreck - and frankly, I won't negotiate doesn't cut it as a president. If he can't deliver democrat votes in the house - he isn't worth it.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    12. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't vote either Rethuglican or Demoncrat so I fail to see how I'm the problem.

    13. Re:About bloody time! by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      The sun's half-life is 4.5 billion years?

    14. Re:About bloody time! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      Obama must be a bad sabotager since oil and gas production have increased every year he's been President.

    15. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've been drilling for gas (not sure about oil) under Lake Erie for thirty to forty years now. (My old dive buddy used to work on the rigs.)

      The upstream Great Lakes are largely overlying shield rock (granite), not likely much oil there.

    16. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No he isnt, he is just a Black Bush...

      Did you notice gas prices in the USA are still among record highs? Despite the increased production.. Furthermore, these are states increasing the production - not the federal government.. Nice try though.

    17. Re:About bloody time! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      The soviet union used to just throw the whole reactor in the ocean. Fissile material and all.

    18. Re:About bloody time! by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Right. Because of all his hard work out there roughnecking.

      Or... the US isn't the USSR yet, and the government doesn't drive all aspects of life. Oil production is up because economics have created conditions where companies, landowners, and states have started exploiting more.

    19. Re:About bloody time! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone would disagree, I think the issue is probably a matter of which resources are valued higher: minerals in the ground or the ground above being pretty and useful for other things in the next few centuries.

    20. Re:About bloody time! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Did you read the parent post?

    21. Re:About bloody time! by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      oops my bad

    22. Re:About bloody time! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Did you notice gas prices in the USA are still among record highs?

      No. I have not noticed that because it's not remotely true. Have you been outside in 2013?

    23. Re:About bloody time! by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Funny

      we only have . . . .*counts on fingers* . . . a couple billion years left before radioactive materials decay

      If you have that many fingers, you've been hanging around the radioactive materials way too long!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    24. Re:About bloody time! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Good points; I legitimately wasn't sure. But still, the energy density between coal and uranium is still incredibly immense. IIRC the practical energy extracted from fissile uranium is somewhere roughly around 1,000,000 times more than coal for the same weight. After all, coal also require energy and resource input for ore processing, building a large complex power plant, and eventually waste management. Even if it takes 500 times more energy to process uranium ore and waste (factoring in extra effort needed for the industry and plant), you still would need to mine vastly less ore to compare to the leading fossil fuel. And that's also vastly less material per weight that needs to be managed per kilowatt-hour produced, even though the byproducts per weight need much more care. What I want to know is that how do these conflicting factors interact.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    25. Re:About bloody time! by jcochran · · Score: 1

      That also depends upon if you consider as part of the cost of decommissioning a plant the self inflicted political injuries that increase the cost. Little things like the "OMG, it's radioactive! We're all gonna die!" bullshit involving low level radiation. The danger is from high level radioactive material. And conveniently, such material has a short half life. Which means that it becomes harmless in a relatively short time. The indiscriminate treating of all waste as high level waste merely wastes money and effort.

    26. Re:About bloody time! by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Informative

      Greenland is icy and Iceland is green.

      (It's all the Vikings' fault -- those tricky bastards!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:About bloody time! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Well... the bit we care about will only be around 0.7% remaining, which is coincidentally its abundance among natural uranium found in the mantle, but who's counting.

    28. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.

      Yah, OK, Nwabudike, whatever you say. Watch out for that little kid with the red eyes, I hear he's got mindworms in his pocketses.

    29. Re:About bloody time! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Do you have a point? Because I'm seeing any contradictions in any of the posts to that point. Seems a pretty sane argument to this point by all parties concerned. The original poster claimed Obama was attempting to sabotage oil drilling. "Attempting" not "succeeding". To that, I'll note that he's obstructed off shore oil drilling and a pipeline from the northern US to the Gulf of Mexico. I believe that demonstrates intent, though we also have some people in the administration hostile to oil drilling and the like.

      Then a replier to that noted that oil and natural gas production is up, which it is. The person you replied to noted that Obama doesn't actually have the power to stop oil and natural gas drilling just because he might want to. In support of that is fracking which has completely changed the oil game both economically and politically, allowing a large bunch of US oil to be extracted which was formerly not economically viable.

      That huge gold mine creates politically powerful parties willing to defend their interests.

      So I don't see that anyone is wrong here. They're all describing an aspect of the same phenomena, an out of touch administration more interested in ideological goals than in economic ones fighting a losing battle to prevent new oil drilling.

    30. Re:About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Shortly put, no.
      The abundance of Uranium versus sterile earth is same orders of magnitude below Coal versus Sterile earth.
      The environmental friendly part exists, though, in theory, but in practice it's dwarfed by cost cutting and incompetence from whoever builds, maintains and decommissions the nuclear plant. there is such a thing as a nuclear plant "as safe as possible" (without becoming ridiculously expensive), but that rarely, if ever, is met. That's the environmentalists' concern (save for the nutty fanatic tree-huggers).

      With that being said, the difference between my concern as an environmentalist and their concern is that I am deeply concerned about how a nuclear plant is built, versus their concern about whether it's built.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    31. Re:About bloody time! by cusco · · Score: 2, Funny

      The US does as well. We call them submarines . . .

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    32. Re:About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Except for when it blows up.
      See my comment above on the issue. A well built nuclear plant should withstand anything save for an event so catastrophic that it wouldn't matter if it resisted or not (e.g. 11 degrees earthquake or cometary impact or, oh, the irony!, nuclear warfare).

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    33. Re:About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      if one thinks oil prices are high in the States, he should come to Europe and drive around for a bit.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    34. Re:About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I genuinely lol'd at this.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    35. Re:About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Is my ass a resource? like water? Would you drink it?
      Well... have fun.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    36. Re:About bloody time! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      An American complaining about the high price of petrol, it would be funny if it wasn't so mind numbingly ignorant.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    37. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for when it blows up.

      Coal mines blow up too. They also catch fire. Oh and they sometimes collapse. When that happens people tend to die.

    38. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god! Yes! Nuclear power plants exploding like a bomb and wiping out all life in a huge radius is like the biggest threat of nuclear energy!

      I've even got a list of all the nuclear power plant explosions in history:
      1. None.
      2. Nada.
      3. Zilch.
      4. Zero.
      And the list just goes on and on.

      I mean, Chernobyl is just the poster child for deadly explosions (of steam vents that exposed radioactive material that ignited but did not itself explode but that did create a huge cloud of fallout), killing thousands of 31 people and even 33 more from radiation poisoning alone! Why, the expected death toll from Chernobyl could reach into the 4000 range from all of the highly deadly 99% survival rate cancer!!

    39. Re:About bloody time! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      You sir win the discussion!

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    40. Re:About bloody time! by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's another side to this story. What's the tWh output of a uranium mine vs a coal mine?

    41. Re:About bloody time! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Resources exist to be exploited, albeit not indiscriminately.

      So... you're a theist?

    42. Re:About bloody time! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      I'm fully aware of the price differences, which have a lot to do with taxes.

      The parent post claims that prices in the US are at "record highs", when current prices are more than 30% lower than they were in 2007.

    43. Re:About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      "blows up" was just a play of words. geez mate. RELAX.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    44. Re:About bloody time! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, the U-238 has that. but thank you for the helpful editing suggestion, I shall remember it for the future

    45. Re:About bloody time! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      No, the U-238 can fuel other smarter reactor designs than in common use today. Even in a conventional PWR one third the energy comes from breeding U-238 to plutonium 239.

    46. Re:About bloody time! by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      It seems that the deceptive name of Greenland was chosen on purpose by vikings to attract more crowd. Early Viking explorers also named northern Canada as Wineland.

    47. Re:About bloody time! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Smarter reactor designs, yes, but we have no large scale commercial breeder reactors in operation. Even in breeder reactors, you can only run so far before transuranic elements taint the fuel and prevent breeding, and you have to reprocess it to use the remainder. Every time you restart, you need some amount of fissile material to kick off the reaction, although I suppose you could use a particle accelerator instead.

    48. Re:About bloody time! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      there are designs that burn the transuranics, google the phrase.

      also worth pointing out some reactors don't need fissiles to start reaction with U-238 or even depleted uranium (which still has minute amount of U-235), heavy water and graphite reactors can pull that stunt.

    49. Re:About bloody time! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Really? I didn't believe anybody would think that a nuclear power plant being significantly damaged due to a nuclear attack would even move the needle the next day, or even 10 years later [in retrospective accounts] [ignoring "trivial" radioactive attacks such as dirty bombs].

      The impact from the bomb would just be so much greater, the reactor would be lost in the noise, even ruling out counterstrikes and global thermonuclear war. The direct bomb damage [expected to be in the middle of a large city], and the radioactive fallout would be so much greater than the amount of radiation put out by the reactor [assuming all it's cores were damaged to expose the nuclear material to the air and it has a meltdown], it would probably just be a small footnote in the history books.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    50. Re:About bloody time! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      "English, motherfucker, do you speak it?" (Wesley Snipes)

      Read again what I said. You somehow managed to argue with me while saying THE SAME THING I DID.
      [picard_WTF.jpg]

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    51. Re:About bloody time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The enviornemntal cost of extracting all of the petroleum (and potentially coal) used in the mining, transport, AND disposal of your fuel and contaminated materials has to be considered.

      A coal power plant exceeds 10000 tons of emissions every day.
      When you start to factor in emissions from fuel transport, manufacturing and disposal it could be of interest of discussing if nuclear, wind power or solar creates the most emissions.
      As for coal power, it is worth to build and decommission a new nuclear power plant every day if it would shut down a coal power plant.

    52. Re:About bloody time! by kriptonus · · Score: 1

      Both parties have "friends" in the oil and gas business. Actually, the boot heel of the Fossil Fuel industry knows no bounds. Their great power is sourced from 7 Trillion dollars in Carbon, and Hydrocarbon sales and associated social reach among all other wealthy Powers that be. Include Oil & gas services, such as the ILL-lustereous luminaries GE, Halliburton, and Schlumberger to name a few; The political power and social powers of the Carbon industry are awesome, and can stun any politician , media outlet, or environmental organization on the planet. The Fossil fuel industry behemoth and banking minions can make or destroy anyone regardless of political stripe, or physical geography. Obama trembles. Bush trembled. Both were pawns of their Oil and gas lords. The last threat to oil was ended in 1994, when the 3 pigs, Clinton, Kerry and Gore, successfully killed the threat emerging from Argonne National Labs adjunct installation in Idaho. those nose to the grindstone scientists and engineers were getting ready to release the IFR which would have closed the nuclear fuel cycle. Such a device would certainly have kept downward pressure on Oil and gas revenues. The Oil and gas industry won, successfully getting their Minions in Congress and the Administration to kill the project (just as it was ready), but kept the Scientists and Engineers employed to prevent the challenge to Oil and gas from emerging elsewhere through alternate funding. Here we are 20 years later, with the alternatives to oil and gas only being extremely weak, intermittent and unreliable sources like windmills, solar panels, and methane from cow poop. They've won. The people are screwed.

    53. Re:About bloody time! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      References?

  2. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All those radioactive miners can get back to work!

    Uuuuuuuuuuuuuraaaaanium Fever!

  3. Environmental groups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Will NEVER be 'happy'. So you can pretty much ignore them.

    1. Re:Environmental groups by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      *where "environmental groups" includes nutbag organizations like Greenpeace.**

      **Which is always, apparently :-(

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Environmental groups by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The job of environmental groups is to never be happy, and that's fine. Let them present their best case against everything. Somebody needs to. When their best case isn't good enough, as here, then of course you go ahead with the project despite them. Certainly don't ignore them though.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  4. Thinking Ahead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We cannot live with unemployment and cost of living increases while our economy is at a standstill. It is therefore necessary that we eliminate zero tolerance towards uranium now."

    Just wait until you've got unemployment, cost of living increases, economic recession, AND radioactive waste that needs to be cleaned up.

    1. Re:Thinking Ahead by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      uranium mining makes low-level waste, not that big a deal

    2. Re:Thinking Ahead by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well they can just move to other side of the island.

      and clean up how? by dumping it into a volcano spewing the stuff out anyways?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Thinking Ahead by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, uranium mining produces noticeably radioactive waste. The ores are radioactive mostly because of decay products from the uranium built up over hundreds of millions of years. After the ore is processed and the long half-life uranium is extracted those decay products are more concentrated in the spoil. It's not much of an increase but it is noticeable. There's also a noticeable release of radon gas into the atmosphere during the mining process.

      The good news is that there isn't a lot of waste since a uranium mine only processes a comparatively small amount of ore. The proposed mine in Greenland would produce about 220,000 tonnes of uranium; at about 2-3% metal in the ore (at a guess) that means roughly 6 million tonnes of ore would be dug up during its lifetime. The world digs up about 7 billion tonnes of coal each year, most of which is burned to produce electricity. In comparison about 70,000 tonnes of uranium metal is used to provide power annually around the world, the result of mining about 20 million tonnes of ore. With more recycling and reuse of spent fuel that figure would be much less.

    4. Re:Thinking Ahead by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the waste is easily dealt with, it is not a problem for a country with people who have more than two neurons in their head to rub together. they can just avoid doing things the US way.

  5. Where is the story about today's Japan earthquake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is certainly no shortage of Fukushima stories on /. Why are they trying to hide this one?

  6. Maybe those environmental groups ... by Skapare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... could arrange a couple billion dollars donation every year to the Greenland government to bring the bans back.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Maybe those environmental groups ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe they could create some of those "green jobs" we're always hearing about.

    2. Re:Maybe those environmental groups ... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Please don't give them ideas. They will "arrange" by lobbying for a "Keep Greenland Green" tax to be paid by the rest of the world to collect those billions.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Maybe those environmental groups ... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      They tried that in Greece, how's that economy doing these days anyway?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Maybe those environmental groups ... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Regardless of how great Greece's economy may or may not be doing at this time, I don't think you can pin all of that on "green" jobs running amok. That's quite a claim you're making. Care to back it up?

    5. Re:Maybe those environmental groups ... by Deluvianvortex · · Score: 1

      Ask Germany

    6. Re:Maybe those environmental groups ... by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Germany's green jobs are very heavily subsidized by the government. Jobs are certainly being created, however the cost is enormous to their economy. The latest figures show Germany has spent over $130 Billion dollars for 6000 green jobs. That is a cool $20 million per job created. Each consumer subsidizes these jobs to the tune of an extra $260 per year making German electricity among the most expensive in the world. To quote that hard core leftist site Slate

      Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germanyâ(TM)s CO2 emissions by roughly 8 million metric tonsâ"or about 1 percent â" for the next 20 years.

      ...
      In the meantime, Germans have paid about $130 billion for a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming.

      The one thing that they were really doing right, nuclear energy they voted to get rid of once the Greens got in power. Now since even Germany can't run everything off of renewables the net effect is that Germany is massively ramping up building more coal power plants. So, how about those Germans?

    7. Re:Maybe those environmental groups ... by Deluvianvortex · · Score: 1

      whoosh

  7. Hazaa! by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A country repealing environmental regulation made for a mythical world and replacing it for real world environmental concerns. The current process of mining rare earths in China is horrendously bad for the environment, however because of Greenpeace inspired laws almost no else would do it. Rare earths aren't rare, but environmental laws that actually have anything to do with the environment are.

    It's time to put the rest of the Greenpeace inspired FUD laws about radiation and all other things nuclear out to the FUD farm where they belong. The laws were written for one purpose only, and that was to prevent anything relating to nuclear from ever being viable. It's idiots like these why an MRI doesn't use nuclear in the name even though that is what the technology is based on.

    It's like the opposition to any form of Nuclear power or gas power plant, the net real world result was that for decades we built coal power plants instead. It's time to replace fear mongering with science and start to look out for the environment instead. Nuclear energy is the greenest form of energy we have, and it will remain so until Fusion is up and running.

    1. Re:Hazaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear energy is the greenest form of energy we have

      When they say "green energy", I don't think they meant "energy that makes you glow green".

    2. Re:Hazaa! by hypergreatthing · · Score: 3, Informative

      He means the kind that pollutes the environment the least. Your solar panels are dirty to create, ditto on battery technology. Coal is one of the worst polluters because they just throw everything into the atmosphere. There is no clean up costs yet everyone pays for it.
      Nuclear is the most viable. Even with ever nuclear disaster that has ever occurred including testing and bombing, it has harmed less people than coal. You're literally burning millions of tons of crap into the atmosphere. Also coal is partially radioactive. Since it's so hard to correlate as a causation, it's hard to put a number on direct linkages to lung cancer, but i'm sure it doesn't help.

    3. Re:Hazaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think MRI uses the same technology as Nuclear Power, you need to learn more about MRI since it uses magnets, not radiation. What is true is that the word "Nuclear" was taken away from its name to avoid confusion, but that "Nuclear" was for atomic nuclei which are influenced by the magnetic field.

    4. Re:Hazaa! by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      The point is that the FUD has become so think about anything Nuclear that even something as benign as an MRI had to renamed to remove the word Nuclear. It's an example to illustrate just how bad the FUD has gotten.

    5. Re:Hazaa! by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

      FUD laws about radiation and all other things nuclear out to the FUD farm where they belong.

      I know it's the popular internet "groupthink" to assume radiation poisoning/fallout/exposure is all BS because independent studies on the Fukishama disaster show nobody has died from it. A word of caution: radiation induced cancers can take a long time to develop. 40 years in some cases. That's long enough to completely screw up the planet for the course of your lifetime and many of your descendents lifetimes. Nuclear energy's biggest problem is that it leaves no room for error - and humans are full of error. There is no tenable way right now to make these energy facilities idiot proof when greed, corruption and power are in charge of the safety.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    6. Re:Hazaa! by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 2

      The original term "Nuclear Magnetic resonance" was used as it made a distinction between the technique that analysed the atomic nucleus and the similar form that analysed the state of the electron orbitals (Electron paramagnetic resonance, or electron spin resonance).

      When NMR chemical analysis technology move to Magnetic resonance imaging, the distinction was to separate the technique from true medical radiation imaging techniques. Up to that point much of medical imaging involved xrays, which IS ionizing radiation and does do real harm with sufficient exposure.

      Putting "nuclear" into the name just would have undermined the key advantage of MRI scanning in the public eye. And as sales people say, if you are explaining such a technical nuance you are losing the battle.

      The naming of MRI is a good piece of positive scientific marketing. Making sure the technique is not confused in the public perception with ionizing radiation imaging techniques.

       

    7. Re:Hazaa! by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      The current process of mining rare earths in China is horrendously bad for the environment, however because of Greenpeace inspired laws almost no else would do it.

      The Mountain Pass mine in California produced a majority of the world's rare earth minerals in the 80s. Then China got into the game and since they didn't have the added costs associated with environmental or worker safety regulations, they undercut the price of every other mine and put them out of business.

      Since China started limiting exports of their rare earth elements, the Mountain Pass mine is being reopened. I drove past it last week and there are at least 100 cars in the parking lot. It's on the north side of I-15 between LA and Vegas.

    8. Re:Hazaa! by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      I had heard they were trying to reopen it, but haven't heard it was successful. It's a good step in the right direction for components that are vitally necessary for modern society. Hopefully this time they wont be shut down as easily by price competition from Chinese companies that don't have to worry about environmental regulations.

    9. Re:Hazaa! by cusco · · Score: 1

      Not everything goes up into the atmosphere, don't forget the enormous mountains of fly ash and clinkers that have to be disposed of as well.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    10. Re:Hazaa! by Solandri · · Score: 2, Informative

      I asked myself how much waste is generated to, say, run my house for 30 years. It turns out to be about a train car full of coal vs a bit more than a tablespoon of nuclear waste. The spent fuel production of the entire U.S. is about two tractor trailers full per year. (And that's without reprocessing.) The amount goes up if you include low-level waste like irradiated concrete and steel. But that's stuff you can bury for a couple hundred years and it'll be safe.

      I did a similar calc for nuclear vs. wind. Yes a single wind turbine looks more attractive and is cheaper than a nuclear plant, and safer to maintain. But people fail to realize that to equal the power output of an AP1000 nuclear reactor (1154 MW * 0.9 capacity factor = 1036.8 MW average output), you'd need over 4700 MW worth of wind turbines (4700 MW * 0.22 capacity factor, which is the world average for 2011 = 1034). I was gonna re-do the calcs for all to see but while search for wind turbine tonnage I found a site where someone's already done it. The numbers led him to the same conclusion as me: For the same power output, nuclear is simply better than wind or solar - in terms of steel and concrete use, carbon emissions, cost, and safety.

    11. Re:Hazaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure we can all take your word for it, especially since you provided so many references and citations to peer-reviewed studies.

  8. Re:Where is the story about today's Japan earthqua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The same reason why Slashdot hides all the other breaking news: The Jewish Conspiracy.

  9. Fukishima, Sellafield, 3 mile island by wijnands · · Score: 2

    Could all have been a loooong hazaa! As to this decision, Greenland was relatively unspoiled and few things spoil a country quicker than strip mining.

    1. Re:Fukishima, Sellafield, 3 mile island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the current state of nuclear is like complaining about lead in the water supply, yet refusing to replace the lead pipes with plastic ones.

    2. Re:Fukishima, Sellafield, 3 mile island by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      there are other ways to mine uranium than strip mining. they don't have to do things the American (numb from the neck up) way

    3. Re:Fukishima, Sellafield, 3 mile island by onyxruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow, your going to go there, you picked about the worst cases you could. I could bother doing the same thing with coal and quickly show far worse pollution and death figures, but you can google that all by yourself. So let's take your worst case scenario and run with it (you have researched these things, right?). How many people were killed in these or all other nuclear related incidents? How much actual damage was done?

      Now compare those numbers to your favorite form of green energy, how about windmills? Go on, google this and tell me how it compares. Why don't you compare pollution figures while your at it. Remember your windmills require the very rare earths that come from these types of mines.

      Okay, now that you've bothered to do a bit of research scale your numbers of for world wide power and tell me what they would look like. You see, if strip mining is done in a place like Greenland they will bother with these pesky things called environment regulations. The Chinese don't do that and as a result they have cornered the market. You can't get rare earths from Unicorn farts and rainbows, you have to get them out of the ground. Better we do the mining, so that it can be done responsibly.

    4. Re:Fukishima, Sellafield, 3 mile island by Lendrick · · Score: 1

      In the long term, putting megatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far more damaging than nuclear. At least with nuclear power, the accidents are localized. If we fuck up our atmosphere with too much CO2, the consequences will be global.

    5. Re:Fukishima, Sellafield, 3 mile island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not.

    6. Re:Fukishima, Sellafield, 3 mile island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is.

      I don't agree with AGW, but at least I can agree that the pollution being dumped into the atmosphere is far more damaging and deadly than all of the nuclear plants in the world combined.

  10. Humans are Locusts by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    We're locusts. We exhaust the available resources until they are no more.

    1. Re:Humans are Locusts by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      bullshit, we're not close to exhausting anything. not helium, not fossil fuel, not "rare earths".

    2. Re:Humans are Locusts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So resources should just be left alone, so they can be there in their own peace, unused, unutilised, sure.

    3. Re:Humans are Locusts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well that means you're a locust too. So go ahead and do us all a favor, stop exhausting those resources, die the fuck off from starvation and then there will be more for the rest of us. How does that sound?

    4. Re:Humans are Locusts by fa2k · · Score: 1

      Meh, all life uses resources. Humans are just so damn adaptable that they haven't reached an equilibrium (just like what happens temporarily with locust swarms). It's all going to stabilise

  11. What a minute... by pspahn · · Score: 0

    Whoa whoa whoa... hold on...

    Greenland has a prime minister and a parliament?

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    1. Re:What a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, so yes
      But since exporting uranium has to do with security and foreign policy I believe Denmark under the current agreements have the final say
      and if they start making enough money the ~500M euro they get in support from Denmark each year will be reduced

  12. You'd rather kill them with coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Coal has killed far more people than all nuclear events - accidental and intentional - combined. By a factor of 1.000.000.

    Idiot.

    1. Re:You'd rather kill them with coal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why mark parent as troll? He's right (other than the "idiot" remark).

      I'd love to see Thorium replace Uranium as a fuel source but I'd prefer to see the Gen. 1 and 2 nuclear reactors replaced with newer (safer) reactors instead of Greenpeace tarring everything with the same brush scaring the populace and leaving us with reactors past their best before date.

      Instead of bitching here, how about working towards educating everybody with regards to the pros and cons of each and every option available to us? We need energy and we will need more of it in the world. How we get particular sources will determine how many wars are fought and by whom.

    2. Re:You'd rather kill them with coal? by wijnands · · Score: 1

      I'd rather you'd keep your playground attitude of name calling to yourself. Nuclear energy is, theoretically, clean and safe. However in practice it's proven to be far less so. An coal pollution will be greatly reduced in a few hunderd years. Radiation tends to stick around for a much longer time. If we go into "I'd rather" mode. I'd rather see we stabilize our population growth and start taking our energy production seriously whereby effect on the planet is leading over quick profit. Let's see about hydrogen production that doesn't cost more energy than it delivers. Get battery technology sorted, see if we can do a good fuel cell but also see about cracking the fusion reactor puzzle.

  13. Pivotal argument in parliamentary debate by sideslash · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Do you want me to send you back to where you WERE? UNEMPLOOOOOYED IN GREEEEENLAND???!!!"

  14. Pedantic Bitch by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 2
    Sorry, no stagger. Where I come from a staggeringy close vote is something like 14.6-14.4.

    Yesterday's parliamentary vote passed the decision by a staggeringly close 15-14 votes.

    --
    For hire.
  15. Re:Where is the story about today's Japan earthqua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foolish sheeple. The Jewish Conspiracy is just t here to distract us from aliens.

  16. I'm running short of cash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to abandon my principles as soon as possible.

    Life on the streets isn't so bad.

    1. Re:I'm running short of cash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have principles that are stupid, abandoning them is a good strategy.

  17. Wait, so why Uranium? by rsborg · · Score: 1

    The current process of mining rare earths in China is horrendously bad for the environment, however because of Greenpeace inspired laws almost no else would do it. Rare earths aren't rare, but environmental laws that actually have anything to do with the environment are.

    Why didn't Greenland just amend the legislation to remove rare earths from the ban? Or put in place a gradual effort to also mine uranium?

    My guess: Rare Earths are a red herring. The real issue is uranium mining, which would have never passed, but because of "rare earths" and "scary China" and "jobs!!!" the extraction industry got exactly what they wanted - sensible sounding repeal, hiding their intentions to pull up lucrative but environmentally damaging uranium mining.

    Look for massive contributions to reelection funds (aka bribes) for the legislative members who happened to support the full repeal. In fact, bribery could be as subtle as market timing information letting those individuals (or their family members) profit massively from external markets.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Wait, so why Uranium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess: Uranium is a red herring, and you are clueless. But why jabber inane rantings like a lib when facts are more fun!

      http://www.mineralprices.com/

      Uranium (metal) $77.55/Kg

      Neodymium (metal) $98.00/Kg
      Erbium (metal) $275.00/Kg
      Scandium (metal) 15,500.00/Kg

      And if the price of Uranium shoots up then all the US mines that closed due to poor pricing can reopen and stabilize the price.

    2. Re:Wait, so why Uranium? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The rare earths and the uranium occur together. No reason to not extract both. Red herrings aren't necessary.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    3. Re:Wait, so why Uranium? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      The many pristine forests and gentle grasslands of Greenland will never be the same.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Wait, so why Uranium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im sure both trees will be fine.

  18. Re:Not Staggering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF are you on about? 13.1 to 14.9 is a difference of 1.8. 14 to 15 is a difference of 1.0. What are you smoking?

  19. *N*MRI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, "Nuclear" was taken out of the name of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging because of fear and marketing. The smear campaign put on by Greentards made the mere use of the word "Nuclear" unacceptable to most Consumorons, regardless of the actual meaning.

    So the poster was correct in that "N" was removed from NMR and it became MRI because of ignorant fucks.

    1. Re:*N*MRI by tbird81 · · Score: 1

      I thought NMR was the technology included MRI, but didn't necessarily involve imaging. (For instance finding rates of metabolism.) MRI uses NMR to produce images.

  20. If only North Carolina would follow their lead... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and open up thorium mining in the western part of the state, ideally while pushing hard for LFTR or other thorium based meltdown proof non-pressurized-vessel nuclear. NC alone could supply the entire energy needs of the US for the next 17,000 years, according to one assessment I've read, while yes, producing lots of rare-earth metals. Currently they don't mine the rare earths because the admixed Thorium is viewed as toxic waste!

    Yeah, the most valuable toxic waste in the world.

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  21. Just saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Environmental groups, as you might expect, are not happy...

    Oh? Good!

  22. Double Hazaa! by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 3, Informative

    ON RARE EARTH ELEMENTS

    A Rare Earth Element revival in the United States could help to bring industry and real manufacturing back to our shores. It goes right along with the promise of Thorium to satisfy all grid and process heat requirements: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG1YjDdI_c8

    Here Stephen Boyd tells us what "rare earth elements" are, and why they are vital to modern technology: He is incredibly hyper and excited about them, as you should be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J16IpITWBQ8

    While everyone is talking about China 'Western industry through its aggressive focus on manufacturing and 'low wages'... there is ANOTHER way China has become almost a 'sole source' of modern technology: it has negotiated exclusive manufacturing contracts based on its willingness to mine rare earths, yet not export them without a penalty ... this has caused production of electronics and magnet-oriented devices (think batteries, wind turbines) to be relocated to China. Meanwhile the United States, once the world's largest producer of these has mostly ceased -- in part because a slightly radioactive by-product, Thorium, presently has no market and is (unfairly IMO) lumped in with hazardous. More background and some ideas for using the Thorium here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MauEg9vqh9k

    ON URANIUM

    Love it or hate it, if you're in North America ~30% of your electricity comes from it. The worst uranium mining nightmares arose from a Cold War appetite for nuclear weapons and a government that abused its authority and brand of secrecy to sideline health and environmental consequences... not the smaller level of mining necessary to keep nuclear power reactors going.

    Clearly some thinking needs to be changed.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  23. Users by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Environmental groups, as you might expect, are not happy."

    Probably posting about it on the lithium battery powered laptops or phones.

    1. Re:Users by mirix · · Score: 1

      Lithium ion cells don't have rare earths in them, that I'm aware of.

      NiMH does use them, though. Ain't seen a laptop or phone with NiMH cells in a long time...

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
  24. Re:If only North Carolina would follow their lead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation please.

    and I have a miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon (http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp)

  25. Choosing not to decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Decline is a choice. Apparently Greenland choses not to accept decline.

    Meanwhile, back in the Romper Room, the EPA and the pressure groups have killed off our last lead smelting operation. Doubtless they'll pack up everything except the scrubbers, move it all to China and operate with impunity. The net effect on the environment? Vastly greater damage.

    Print faster Ben.

  26. really broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only resource we can really destroy. until our sun red dwarfs, gobbles up the radioactive waste and re fusions it back up the size ladder...
    with oil and coal we just have to wait a few million years for the carbon dioxide to fallout as it, thanks to water-loving crystals, aka "life".
    anway, who cares. documents get signed, mining equipment bought and girlfriends, mansions and cars are going to change hands, all in the name of sustainable living ... in the wrong place.
    why build a monument that falls apart or can be destroyed by wars, if you can destroys atoms which feat will be detectable for aeons to come? best! monument! ever!

  27. Re:If only North Carolina would follow their lead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon (http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp)

    Your citation says that you do NOT have a miraculous car! And right after calling dude out for not citing anything. You AC's suck these days ya know!

  28. Re:If only North Carolina would follow their lead. by cusco · · Score: 1, Funny

    If you think the rare earth mines in China are environmentally bad, just imagine how bad that operation would be run in North Carolina.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  29. Re:Where is the story about today's Japan earthqua by Vanders · · Score: 1

    The aliens are just here to protect us from the terrible secrets of space.

  30. Cyan Land by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Hi.

  31. The goggles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...do nothing!

    Oh, Radioactive Ban.

  32. Finally... by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has ever looked at a Mercator projection map knows that Greenland is about the same size as the entire continent of Africa, so it's about time they contributed proportionately to the global economy. ;-)

  33. Think of it as an environmental cleanup by trout007 · · Score: 2

    Nature has deposited all of these radioactive toxic chemicals all over the place. Mining is just cleaning up this mess by taking the material out of the ground to purify the ground.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Think of it as an environmental cleanup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't work for a PR firm, you should. ;)

  34. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot of pro-radiation-sickness astroturfers on Slashdot nowadays.

  35. Inevitable by dcollins · · Score: 0

    See, this is why any kind of conservation efforts will fail in the long-term; humanity will, in the end, strip the face of the planet entirely bare. When things get a little tough we'll always raze a forest, mountain, or species to feed ourselves and our kids for a couple months longer. Broadly similar to personal data at a company: no matter what promises they made early on, when the company starts to go down the drain they'll whore out that data in a last-ditch attempt at monetization of everything they have.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  36. They wont get the jobs by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    The Chinese will move in like they did in Africa, bring in all the high and mid level people, import some cheap labor to supplement the local labor pool, then take all the profits back to Beijing. Cue Greenlandian outrage on 10-20 years.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  37. Wait, what? by GrBear · · Score: 1

    I'm more surprised there's people living in Greenland!

  38. Re:Where is the story about today's Japan earthqua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those aliens are Jews, you fool!

  39. Re:Double Hazaa! [OOPS: =~20%] by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    [nuclear] if you're in North America ~30% of your electricity comes from it.

    I meant to type ~20%. The actual figure is 19.7% in 2011, it has been as high as 20.6% in 2001.
    Source: EIA Annual Energy Review 2012

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  40. Staggeringly* by intellitech · · Score: 1

    Spelling nazi aside, where is it that you're from where you use don't use 1 as the statistical unit of measurement for counting votes? I guess you could have 73-72, and divide by 5, but that's still a 1 unit deviation. 1/29 does carry more weight than 1/145, but either way, both are quite close. Although I'm not sure what statistical unit you were using in "14.6-14.4," but compared with "15-14," one vote is the most minimal statistical unit that can be used to express the data. The usage of staggeringly seems appropriate.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.