David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:24:09 +0100 someone who may be Tim Streater
wrote this:-

The normal definition relates to fuels created out of organic material,
previously living material, laid down in geological times since the
planet was created.

Uranium and other minerals (e.g. other metals such as iron, tungsten,
etc) are what was left in the earth's crust after it solidified. Not
fossil at all.

Iron and tungsten are not used as fuels. Uranium is and it seems
sensible to me to consider it along with other fuels which are dug
out of the ground, no matter what definition some may use. I can see
why nuclear enthusiasts hate the comparison, but it is a valid one.

No it isn't a perticularly valid one, because the primary environmental
reason fossil fuels are considered bad is the CO2 their combustion
generates, not the impact of the fact they need to be mined.

That's not to say the impact of any mining activity should be neglected,
but the amount of mining activity per usefully extractable kWh of energy
must be pretty negligible for uranium, when compared with carbon fuels.

It is said, and I don't know how much truth there is in it, that the
amount of energy needed to build and install a windmill is quite high
in relation to the amount of energy it will produce during its lifetime.
That makes them much less "green" than at first sight they might seem.
And think of all the iron ore which needs to be mined to make them.