Okay. Study this chart. Look at it real hard. Look until your eyeballs fall out of their sockets. 👀
Materials requirements per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced for renewables:
Solar Photovoltaic (PV) ☀️
‣ 4,050 tons/TWh of concrete
‣ 7,900 tons/TWh of steel
‣ 2,700 tons/TWh of glass
‣ 850 tons/TWh of copper
‣ 680 tons/TWh of aluminum
‣ 210 tons/TWh of plastic
Hydroelectric Power 🌊
‣ 14,000 tons/TWh of concrete
‣ 67 tons/TWh of steel
‣ 1 ton/TWh of copper
Wind 🌬️
‣ 8,000 tons/TWh of concrete
‣ 1,800 tons/TWh of steel
‣ 92 tons/TWh of glass
‣ 23 tons/TWh of copper
‣ 35 tons/TWh of aluminum
‣ 190 tons/TWh of plastic
Geothermal 🌋
‣ 1,850 tons/TWh of concrete
‣ 3,300 tons/TWh steel
‣ 2 tons/TWh of copper
‣ 100 tons/TWh of aluminum
Materials requirements per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity produced for nuclear and natural gas:
Nuclear ☣️
‣ 760 tons/TWh of concrete
‣ 160 tons/TWh of steel
‣ 3 tons/TWh of copper
Natural Gas 🔥
‣ 400 tons/TWh of concrete
‣ 170 tons/TWh of steel
‣ 1 ton/TWh of aluminum
energy.gov/sites/prod/files/…
So, tell me again how clean “green energy” really is? Mining for these raw materials would have to increase by >300% to achieve “net zero” goals, which would make that [arbitrary] target date by 2050 impossible.
Nuclear is by far the most efficient energy source we have, and it is the most “carbon-free” (and I use that term lightly) technology. Natural gas, while not carbon-free in the slightest, burns cleaner and is much more efficient than coal. If nuclear and natural gas aren't a part of the “solution” to wane us off fossil fuels, then you, as an environmentalist, cannot be take seriously.