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."

25 of 142 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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

    4. 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

    5. 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)
    6. 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
    7. 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)
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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!
    3. 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.

       

    4. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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???!!!"

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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>
  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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.