Submitted by giteam t3_y7wrvv in dataisbeautiful
Comments
Gawkhimm t1_isxo8u1 wrote
and how they treat the local population and the environment
BDMblue t1_isxw8cy wrote
I mean nuclear is clean compared to other energy types. People seem to hate the waste you can dig a hole to get rid of all of it, but just pumping it into the sky… ya much much better.
Gawkhimm t1_isxwc43 wrote
I meant how environmentally friendly are their mining operations
IamNotYourBF t1_isylqvv wrote
I mean, HOW dangerous can uranium dust actually be?
falconx2809 t1_itjo60a wrote
afaik, un-refined, natural uranium ore is not all that radioactive
heck, even fresh nuclear fuel pallets are not that radioactive, radiation becomes a problem only after It enters the reactor and goes critical
BDMblue t1_isxwoja wrote
Ohhhh got ya.
That’s easy 1st world clean, 3ed world so long as 1/2 the people don’t die it’s ok.
lessthanperfect86 t1_isz9b3p wrote
Is that true? I read about someone in Finland being furious that they were dumping waste water from mining into local lakes.
BDMblue t1_iszfewl wrote
Finland is 1st world is it not?
randomthad69 t1_it0pfgg wrote
Were they allied with russia during the cold war?
Gawkhimm t1_isxwu4n wrote
thats fvcking disgusting. if this is the practice, they should be nationalized.
I have always argued for nationalization of all industries that refuse to change their operations to protect global and local Environments
nihilmelior t1_isyh52o wrote
You would then have to argue that local mining corporation and nationalized industries are better for the environment than foreign mining companies in 3rd world countries. I don't think that is a obviously correct point. My understanding is that cottage mining (mostly of gold) is absolutely horrendous as there are no Safety and Environmental regulations. For national project I would assume a problem of finding the technical skill and technology, something that multinational firms have in buckets but might be difficult to find in an undeveloped domestic mining sector.
BDMblue t1_isy3xyc wrote
It’s not that. The company hires the lowest cost group to do the job. That group does all the dirty. I mean they should be held accountable, but we the people don’t really care. One bullshit marketing campaign and we turn are heads like sheep. Carbon footprint anyone?
Gawkhimm t1_isy41o7 wrote
you mean; the bought media dont report human rights abuses by their corporate overlords...
BDMblue t1_isy6e33 wrote
No we just get tricked easy and reporters really don’t put the time into story’s they used to. For all I know they mine nuclear stuff easy with out much risk. A mask and some ear eye protection around the dust, with a shower you would be fine. Still we know other industries do what ever it takes.
danieljackheck t1_isyo83u wrote
People are all for helping out 3rd world counties as long is it costs them nothing. Once told their electric rates would have to go up 10% they turn a blind eye.
MeMoses t1_iszf9zm wrote
And that hole has to be stable for thousands of years. You also seem to be arguing against no one it seems since there's not one person that's arguing fossil vs nuclear.
BDMblue t1_iszg2cx wrote
Well for power you got to pick your battles do you not. Unless your asking for just no power. You can destroy miles and miles of land for damns and wind. You can make solar but the pollution is worse than nuclear, or coal gas.
If you don’t want the cleanest energy type by default your arguing for the dirtier ones, or no energy.
MeMoses t1_iszjd0j wrote
Have you got proof for any of those statements? Because it does seem like you've been listening to all those people with the "wind power kills all the birds" speeches too much.
BDMblue t1_iszxl8f wrote
Just search it. I’m at work on my phone so I won’t now, but if you can show me any counter information at all I’ll look it up when I get home.
As far as I know nuclear causes the lest amount of waste. The lest amount of deaths per amount of power made (sorry forgot the measurement they use). On top of that the waste is not sent into the environment it’s placed in a location we know of and have control over. Other good reasons like cost.
Once the media started fear mongering we were doomed to leave the best cleanest source of energy we have ever had. This has taken a real toll on the world today.
MeMoses t1_iszz0ld wrote
>Just search it. I’m at work on my phone so I won’t now, but if you can show me any counter information at all I’ll look it up when I get home.
Make a claim, say the other person has to disprove it, refuse to elaborate. You can't be serious.
>As far as I know nuclear causes the lest amount of waste.
And the only one that has to be stored away for atleast 1000 years in a specially designed waste facility.
>The lest amount of deaths per amount of power made (sorry forgot the measurement they use).
The measurement they use is people dying in connection with the power source. So someone falling of a wind turbine during construction counts towards deaths due to wind energy. And someome getting crushed in nuclear power plant because the forklift operator was drunk is a death due to nuclear energy.
>On top of that the waste is not sent into the environment it’s placed in a location we know of and have control over.
Unless of course we don't anymore. Know a lot of buildings older than 200 years where you'd be willing to bet on their structural integrity?
>Other good reasons like cost.
And that shows me you don't know what you are talking about.
>Once the media started fear mongering we were doomed to leave the best cleanest source of energy we have ever had. This has taken a real toll on the world today.
I mean it is also really expensive. And after all this time 99,9% of countries still don't have a permanent waste storage site. There's also their enviromental impact and dependence, yes eventhough you won't like to hear it, even a nuclear power during normal operation impacts the enviroment.
BDMblue t1_it06pyn wrote
Ok man. Believe what you want. I don’t think show me anything at all is asking too much.
MeMoses t1_it1am83 wrote
Okay. So I'll just take a page out of your playbook then. Renewables have a negligible enviromental impact when standing, the only argument against them is "well they look bad". And if you disagree with that, link me sources that disprove me.
BDMblue t1_it2ci5a wrote
It’s also building them and the land they displace. Also useless when the wind does not blow or it’s dark. You need to store the power in massive dirty battery’s, or you need other plants to take over. The data from places that have swapped from nuclear to renewable see a massive increase of emissions, while places that went hard on nuclear have the lowest emissions.
Dams seem to be top dog, but the land loss and you can only build so much of them.
MeMoses t1_it2gjph wrote
>It’s also building them and the land they displace
Land they displace? How much actually ecological valuable land does a wind turbine or solar power park displace? And how much of it is just renewables on already used land, be it sealed by constructions or used for agriculture.
>Also useless when the wind does not blow or it’s dark.
And when the rivers run low NPPs can't run either. And yes this is not only happening now but also a major risk for the future.
>You need to store the power in massive dirty battery’s, or you need other plants to take over.
And with NPPs you don't have to? You are just going to run them 24/7 and let excess energy burn off?
Also dirty batteries?
>The data from places that have swapped from nuclear to renewable see a massive increase of emissions, while places that went hard on nuclear have the lowest emissions.
What places have swapped from nuclear to renewables and have experienced *a massive increase of emission I'd love to hear some actual names. And the places that went hard on nuclear are those currently buying dirty energy from their neighbour because their NPPs don't work, isn't that the case?
>Dams seem to be top dog, but the land loss and you can only build so much of them.
And you don't think it is funny how you mention land loss and you can only build so much of them as downsides of dams but for NPPs they are good.
BDMblue t1_it2imc5 wrote
Damn you and making me look up stuff on google! Damn you…
MeMoses t1_it2p6z8 wrote
You are making the claims so you gotta provide the facts. Otherwise I can go around making claims and not having evidence to back it up too.
BDMblue t1_it3cb8n wrote
I don’t ask you to back up how rivers running low is a major risk for the future :(.
See I’m nice. It’s just too hard to find everything in the time it takes to go poo.
MeMoses t1_it3pvso wrote
>I don’t ask you to back up how rivers running low is a major risk for the future :(.
But I've got the sources, not like you. One Two Three
>See I’m nice. It’s just too hard to find everything in the time it takes to go poo.
So you are not only taking a shit you are also talking shit since you don't even know what to quickly google to get the sources for what you talk about. I get it. But keep on rocking that nuclear fandom with zero sources.
BDMblue t1_it3tcn2 wrote
I gave multiple sources for things. You find a harder to find fact and act like that’s it. 1st I have to google country’s who moved from nuclear to green then I have to find emissions based on megawatt hour. Not only that but charts or I’ll have to read data sheets. It’s not like it’s a fact pushed publicly, like solar good nuclear bad.
All the elected officials want is to please the misinformed public to get re-elected. Teaching people facts is the best way to lose power.
I’ll find the sources tomorrow. This is like the Musk did not invent the hyper loop. Too much googling sources… why do I hate my self so much :(
MeMoses t1_it3uzml wrote
>I gave multiple sources for things.
In this whole conversation we've had there's exactly one link to any sources from you. You can even get that right.
>1st I have to google country’s who moved from nuclear to green then I have to find emissions based on megawatt hour. Not only that but charts or I’ll have to read data sheets. It’s not like it’s a fact pushed publicly, like solar good nuclear bad.
Ahh so you'll first have to find the multiple countries you've previously so confidently claimed were there and then you have to confirm what you previously claimed as fact. And all because of the conspiracy where people want to keep nuclear down.
>All the elected officials want is to please the misinformed public to get re-elected. Teaching people facts is the best way to lose power.
Haha. They are all conspiring against you, I'll believe it in a second. Beware they are also putting LSD in your water and mindcontrolling your friends with satellites from Mars.
>I’ll find the sources tomorrow
Of course you will. Right after you've fought off all those secret spies that want to kill you now that you've told me all your secret information.
[deleted] t1_it3xdti wrote
[removed]
SpyMonkey3D t1_it1y86c wrote
They don't pump it in the air, though
SpyMonkey3D t1_it1xvfn wrote
Piggybacking for visibility since I see people upvoting this...
> and how they treat the local population and the environment
Then, he saw they treat them well. At least for Orano.
Canada is a western country with fairly high standard and a working law system, and same in Kazakhstan, because if they act badly, kazakahstan can 100% and easily kick them out and exploit their uranium themselves, no problem. The biggest company in the world is theirs, after all. Or they could invite literally any other country, starting with Russia or China. (In this case, they wanted westerner to open themselves up/don't depend on russia, though. That's their logic.)
So the only potential case would be Niger, and even there, the idea they treat the locals badly is largely a myth propagated by anti-nuclear people. Like for example, people like to say the city near the mine is exposed and anti-nuclear association start talking of "catastrophic" environmental damage and whatever, but they never demonstrated with proof. At best, they will detect a bit of radiation that is within the allowed margins/law, and act as if they discovered something the company was tyring to hide... People also forget to say that city didn't exist before they openned the mine, and Orano didn't make them to come there. They came anyway (hoping for work). That's how a city meant for 4000 workers (a lot of them europeans, btw) turned into a big city for 120.000 or more (especially as Orano ended up building additional services like Hospitals, etc) There's also accusation that Orano came in like a colonialist to steal Niger's ressources, but they don't tell you Niger gets 80% of the revenue... And it's not always worthwhile economically, to the point Orano is closing one of the mine now (because price of uranium tanked).
Really, once you stop listening to anti-nuclear NGO, the picture you get isn't exactly good, but you see you can't blame Orano for it...
Really, the real problem would be that Niger is a dictatorship (and well, they are the ones getting the money, not regular people) + the rebellions in the area, but that's another story. And it would probably happen regardless of Orano's presence there. They just found another thing to fight about.
TailorNormal t1_isxxoiz wrote
Is that why Canada is so high?
SteO153 t1_isx2ukd wrote
Kazakhstan, number one exporter of potassium uranium. Other countries have inferior potassium uranium
TheDeansPeanuts t1_isxskt7 wrote
Kazakhstan, greatest country in the world. All other countries are run by little girls.
DIYThrowaway01 t1_isxjajc wrote
Beat me to it. We are Kazakh. We follow the hawk.
GRAWRGER t1_iswzw30 wrote
per your source, T should be t for tonnes (not tons).
for some perspective (if anyone else is curious)... it looks like the US imported ~18,100t uranium in 2017 (source: US Energy Information Administration). didnt see data for more recent years but its early in the morning and 2017 is good enough for me.
lajoswinkler t1_isx1l2j wrote
Unit tonne (1000 kg) is written as t, not T.
HauserAspen t1_isxnevp wrote
> most ores being processed today contain from about 0.02% to 0.2% recoverable uranium, it is necessary to process from 500 to 5000 kg ore for each kilogram of uranium recovered.
iaea.org
gildedtreehouse t1_isxn5wx wrote
The mom n pop uranium suppliers give you local love that the big conglomerates just don’t understand.
GilletteLongmarche t1_isx11yv wrote
Now I find myself wondering if this is why China is working so hard to cozy up to Kazakhstan lately.
Enlightened-Beaver t1_isxrwuf wrote
Kazakhstan also has a ton of oil and gas resources
GilletteLongmarche t1_iszdtsp wrote
And gold.
TheFab96 t1_isxln65 wrote
General Atomics is real and not just in the Fallout games huh
strongcoffee t1_it08heg wrote
They also make the predator drones, weaponized lasers, railguns, and some other stuff they probably aren't telling us.
giteam OP t1_iswv6ca wrote
starrpamph t1_iswvl76 wrote
For a split second I thought armz was amz. "Man they really do sell everything"
xenoterranos t1_isxpjvc wrote
Amazon prime <- Amazon Now <- Amazon Supercritical
starrpamph t1_isxrvg9 wrote
Your package containing: "SINBOSEN 50pk control-rods cadmium neutron absorbing" has been delivered
wvutom t1_isxmigd wrote
Uranium One is the most Russian Uranium company name ever.
Brandon432 t1_iszh6ms wrote
The parent company is Rosatom (think RussiaAtomic).
darth_nadoma t1_itmwbdy wrote
You can thank Hillary Clinton for that one.
I__LOVE__LSD t1_isxohtf wrote
https://www.wsj.com/articles/westinghouse-deal-latest-signal-of-a-nuclear-power-revival-11665616628
Interesting article I read last week about the Canadian company on here (Cameco) doing a big acquisition that some people hope signals a resurgence in nuclear power generation. Here's a snippet of the article:
> A deal by Brookfield Renewable Partners and Cameco Corp. to buy nuclear-services firm Westinghouse Electric Co. is the latest sign of revival in the nuclear-power industry after years of decline.
> The matchup would create something of a Western nuclear powerhouse, pairing a key nuclear-power service provider with the largest publicly traded uranium company and one of the world’s biggest owners of wind and solar projects. The transaction is a bet that nuclear will play an important role in the energy transition away from fossil fuels. Brookfield and Cameco announced the deal Tuesday, saying the total enterprise value for Westinghouse is roughly $7.88 billion.
> Nuclear power has been in retreat globally, with more projects closing than opening. But a push for carbon-free electric power along with nuclear’s ability to produce round-the-clock have prompted a broad rethink of the technology. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has also exposed the fragility of the nuclear fuel supply chain, in which Russia is a major player.
Pearl_krabs t1_isysxua wrote
Maybe it signals that. Didn’t Westinghouse go bankrupt failing to complete plant vogtle in Georgia? Maybe this will revitalize them.
Mitchmac21 t1_it0rden wrote
As an investor in the uranium space because I believe nuclear is the way of the future, I love seeing uranium getting the attention it needs.
Bewaretheicespiders t1_isxvgxz wrote
FFS its not dark smoking coming out of a cooling tower its pure water vapour.
Martin8412 t1_isxaxmj wrote
Does any of them offer employee discounts?
[deleted] t1_iswv61u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iswwrer wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isxg7dg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isxjide wrote
[removed]
Tom__mm t1_isxl247 wrote
Worth noting that the US has numerous uranium mines that are shuttered or maintained on inactive status due to low global demand. As far as I know, there is not a single active uranium mine in the USA today.
MisledMuffin t1_isy4zv9 wrote
Yup, just started some work with DTE to complete remediation and closure of another mine. Concentrations of uranium in groundwater are high enough that it is economical to extract the uranium from the water . . .
It's not low demand so much as it is that the uranium deposits are harder to mine in the US (think 1000s ft deep underground mines vs. open pits) and less subsizied so that they cannot compete with cheaper imports from more accessible deposits and countries with more subsidies/lower labour's costs.
colin8651 t1_isxov7e wrote
I believe there is also push back from people not wanting Uranium mining plants in the US.
Mitchmac21 t1_it0rs1x wrote
White mesa mine
Gawkhimm t1_isxo0ye wrote
would really like some follow on information; does the European and American companies for an example, only mine there, where does the resources mined by each company come from, and if not what is their deal with the locals and how exploitative are these corporation
[deleted] t1_isxsslc wrote
[removed]
Brandon432 t1_iszguji wrote
You could Google each of these. In short, the chart represents ownership of the companies. Each company has mines all over the world. The biggest concentration of uranium mines are northwestern Canada, Central Europe and central Africa (broadly). In fact, uranium one which is owned by Russian state company, Rosatom, has mines in the US.
[deleted] t1_isxv611 wrote
[removed]
tripodal t1_isy57lv wrote
this has to be Ore right?
I can't imagine 2000 tons of refined uranium.
I wonder if refined has the same proportions.
Kiflaam t1_isy8u49 wrote
General Atomics is real? I thought Fallout 4 was making a General Electrics joke..
mjkjg2 t1_isyp5x5 wrote
Don’t f*ck with Borat I guess
guberhardt t1_isypbit wrote
Where else is uranium used other than nuclear energy?
blueshirt21 t1_isypsrs wrote
Where is France mining all this uranium? I know they use a ton of nuclear power
Brandon432 t1_isze4na wrote
Canada, Kazakhstan, and Niger
[deleted] t1_iszjsya wrote
[deleted]
jaqkhuda70 t1_iszodmd wrote
Is this just raw material production, or is their further processing that is required for use? Like oil, there’s a big difference between production and refining.
Slave35 t1_iszpmdb wrote
That seems to be an exceptional amount of fucking uranium.
camilo16 t1_iszuxvk wrote
Nuclear reactors don't produce smoke, they produce steam, why are the clouds grey?
reallysimple55 t1_it0yzxa wrote
I wonder what countries own the biggest percentage of those companies
[deleted] t1_isy1fzo wrote
Let’s hope Russia doesn’t invade Kazakhstan then.
Brandon432 t1_iszg096 wrote
The French, Russian, and other companies listed have mines all over the world, including Kazakhstan. The designations on this chart reflect ownership, not the actual location of mining activity.
[deleted] t1_iszj07a wrote
[removed]
Gone247365 t1_isynpsa wrote
I hate that Russia is represented as part of Europe. Especially when discussing natural resources.
When represented this way, you could make the following statement, "Russia mines large quantities of uranium in Europe." But obviously that isn't actually true.
Brandon432 t1_iszfiq0 wrote
They mine it in Kazakhstan, Tanzania, the far western Russia/Mongolia border, and the USA actually.
This reflects ownership,m not my mining activity. Most of the actual mines are in Canada, Africa, and the Asian steppe.
Willing-Ad3360 t1_isz8dlb wrote
Can't let this sit at 666 likes!! 667 now, phew!! 😆 😂
[deleted] t1_it39i6d wrote
[removed]
justsomebruh t1_iszn8w8 wrote
Why is Russia not included as Asia?
UnforeseenDerailment t1_it1ihfr wrote
It sounds like the Kazakhs are delving too greedily and too deep...
🔥👹🔥
mata_dan t1_iswzrn4 wrote
Lil extra detail I found interesting: "Orano operates uranium production sites in Canada, Kazakhstan, and Niger"
General Atomics / Quasar don't sound like they do a lot of extraction (appears to be some within Germany), but they are in many sectors overall.
I looked into this because I wanted to see more about the geographical spread of the activity rather than just the nation of the company.