U.S. says it will cut costs for clean energy projects on public lands

[MTGomer]

Nuclear energy is great, until you lose your father because he worked in the mills & the radiation killed him. Or you were downwind of a testing site and got radiated and renal cell carcinoma. We are still paying for the mistakes that were made decades ago on nuclear, and I've yet to see a real commitment to make the necessary changes to keep that crap from happening again. You have to mine & process radioactive material in order to get it to the reactor.

The Clock Winds Down On The West’s Nuclear Downwinders

For years during the Cold War, large swaths of land in Nevada were used for atomic weapons testing. Nuclear bombs were dropped just miles from small towns…

www.kunr.org

Then there's the storage issue. If Bill Gates can get his stuff down, then I'd be more likely to look at it as a viable fuel source beyond highly contained military applications or as regional power supply in concert with other sources.

The big fix always breaks and has a ton of variables that usually mean when catastrophe happens, it happens across the widest possible spectrum (TX grid failure due to ideological positioning, for example, or CA during the rolling black outs, etc). National stability in a grid is not predicated from one predominate source of energy today (Coal, WInd, Solar, Nat Gas, nuke). It can be a mixture of sources, with local grids feeding larger grids.

It's electricity, it's not navigating FWP's awesome new website. It's not that complicated.

To the best of my knowledge there has never been as much as a single OSHA recordable injury from radiation exposure due to energy production in the US. At least, that is what is commonly stated in the industry as fact

Weapons are a different story. Nuclear weapons testing and uranium enrichment has a pretty bad history.

 

[Bambistew]

I'm curious if the wars of the future will focus on mined resources vs current oil. U.S. is very, "I'm pro electricity though not in my backyard" focused on the mining for the solar and battery requirements of today and ever growing tomorrow. There is a trend that will likely transform the future of the world power - China.

Copper, molybdenum, graphite, and lithium as the primaries (yes, others as well) - product rich mining reserves/producers of the world:

China = Copper.
China = Molybdenum.
China = Graphite.
Chile = Lithium 3x's the second largest producer, Australia, followed by #3 China*.

*Also, applicable to note: Chinalco - Chinese State owned, is the largest stakeholder in Rio Tinto, the largest mining operation in Australia and 2nd/3rd largest of all mining revenue, worldwide.

The president made it harder to get mines permitted in the US which already has the most stringent and rigorous environmental laws in the world. There is always an excuse to not construct a mine.

The US imports about 60% of the copper we use, and there is nothing stopping China from buying up the other 40% through acquisitions of mining companies and mines. Same goes for other commodities and its happening every day.

China saw this problem decades ago and is way ahead of us on dominating the world.

It's fine and dandy to promote increases in domestic energy production but where do we get the resources to build them?

 

[Ben Lamb]

To the best of my knowledge there has never been as much as a single OSHA recordable injury from radiation exposure due to energy production in the US. At least, that is what is commonly stated in the industry as fact

Weapons are a different story. Nuclear weapons testing and uranium enrichment has a pretty bad history.

Congress funded billions of dollars to pay for exactly that: The recordable health issues associated with mining uranium.

My father was one of the victims of this. He helped a few other former mill workers & miners in Wyoming get their payments too. The payments were an insult compared to the injury, btw.

Edit: It's one area where I'll gladly give Sen. Mike Lee some kudos. Tens of thousands of Americans are either dead or dying because of our nuclear program in the 50's & 60's. The mining, milling and processing was toxic as hell. Dad used to tell me stories about working in the mill, where the radiation badge turned black on Monday by the end of the shift, and the bosses told them all to leave the badge in the locker, while the Fed looked the other way. .

 

[BigHornRam]

I don't think there's enough blowdown to satisfy consumption requirements. My understanding was that there was logging companies who basically sold everything they cut to biofuel plants. Essentially deforestation to feed biofuel plants.

Mostly private land plantation cutting in the Southeast USA being made into wood pellets and shipped to Europe at a very high price. Plenty of gulf coast LNG going to Europe as fast as they can load the ships too. Europe is pretty much screwed when it comes to energy "security".

Enviva wood pellet plant to bring $250 million investment to South Mississippi

Industrial wood pellet manufacturer, Enviva, announced plans Tuesday to open a new production plant in Bond as the company’s fourth Mississippi location.

mississippitoday.org

 

[VikingsGuy]

Nuclear energy is great, until you lose your father because he worked in the mills & the radiation killed him. Or you were downwind of a testing site and got radiated and renal cell carcinoma. We are still paying for the mistakes that were made decades ago on nuclear, and I've yet to see a real commitment to make the necessary changes to keep that crap from happening again. You have to mine & process radioactive material in order to get it to the reactor.

The Clock Winds Down On The West’s Nuclear Downwinders

For years during the Cold War, large swaths of land in Nevada were used for atomic weapons testing. Nuclear bombs were dropped just miles from small towns…

www.kunr.org

Then there's the storage issue. If Bill Gates can get his stuff down, then I'd be more likely to look at it as a viable fuel source beyond highly contained military applications or as regional power supply in concert with other sources.

The big fix always breaks and has a ton of variables that usually mean when catastrophe happens, it happens across the widest possible spectrum (TX grid failure due to ideological positioning, for example, or CA during the rolling black outs, etc). National stability in a grid is not predicated from one predominate source of energy today (Coal, WInd, Solar, Nat Gas, nuke). It can be a mixture of sources, with local grids feeding larger grids.

It's electricity, it's not navigating FWP's awesome new website. It's not that complicated.

Nuclear (energy & weapons) of the past has a lot of problems, but that is true of every technology change and all mining and processing industries in their first few generations.

So, going forward is the real question. It is my best understanding that is when all the deaths, illnesses and environment damage of the full life cycle is accounted for, 5th gen nuke will have a significantly lower harm index than solar, wind and electrifying transportation (cars, trucks, etc). But some will not seriously consider 5th gen nuke because of FUD factor (fear uncertainty and doubt).

Also, unless we choose to leave the remainder of the 21st century to the leadership of China (economic, enviromental, military, political), we better get our heads around mining and processing of copper, lithium, graphite and all the rare earth metals in the western hemisphere. Well meaning greens are handing control of the global economy to the far from green Chinese - the net global outcome is not good, but the virtual signaling is wonderful.

 

[BigHornRam]

Here's an article on LNG.

How U.S. Gas Exports to Europe Could Lock in Future Emissions

The U.S. plans to boost liquefied natural gas exports to Europe to help the EU reduce its dependence on Russian gas. This could spur an expansion of LNG terminals, which analysts say would lead to long-term increases in gas production and greenhouse gas emissions.

e360.yale.edu

 

[BigHornRam]

Nuclear (energy & weapons) of the past has a lot of problems, but that is true of every technology change and all mining and processing industries in their first few generations.

So, going forward is the real question. It is my best understanding that is when all the deaths, illnesses and environment damage of the full life cycle is accounted for, 5th gen nuke will have a significantly lower harm index than solar, wind and electrifying transportation (cars, trucks, etc). But some will not seriously consider 5th gen nuke because of FUD factor (fear uncertainty and doubt).

Also, unless we choose to leave the remainder of the 21st century to the leadership of China (economic, enviromental, military, political), we better get our heads around mining and processing of copper, lithium, graphite and all the rare earth metals in the western hemisphere. Well meaning greens are handing control of the global economy to the far from green Chinese - the net global outcome is not good, but the virtual signaling is wonderful.

What do you think the odds are that California becomes the world lithium supply capital? Crazier things have happened.

The Salton Sea could produce the world's greenest lithium, if new extraction technologies work

Amid the shrinking, toxic Salton Sea, there's enough lithium to meet the United States' entire projected demand and fuel the electric-vehicle revolution.

www.cnbc.com

 

[MTGomer]

Congress funded billions of dollars to pay for exactly that: The recordable health issues associated with mining uranium.

My father was one of the victims of this. He helped a few other former mill workers & miners in Wyoming get their payments too. The payments were an insult compared to the injury, btw.

Edit: It's one area where I'll gladly give Sen. Mike Lee some kudos. Tens of thousands of Americans are either dead or dying because of our nuclear program in the 50's & 60's. The mining, milling and processing was toxic as hell. Dad used to tell me stories about working in the mill, where the radiation badge turned black on Monday by the end of the shift, and the bosses told them all to leave the badge in the locker, while the Fed looked the other way. .

The nuclear material that is running the power plants right this very second… Was it produced at that time by people like your father and then stockpiled for future use?
Meaning, would we have to go back to those methods to get more of it, if we expanded nuclear energy?
To say it another way, are we currently producing nuclear material or simply using up supply that was created at great sacrifice to many?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The nuclear material that is running the power plants right this very second… Was it produced at that time by people like your father and then stockpiled for future use?
Meaning, would we have to go back to those methods to get more of it, if we expanded nuclear energy?
To say it another way, are we currently producing nuclear material or simply using up supply that was created at great sacrifice to many?

I believe we mostly import Uranium now.

 

[BigHornRam]

The nuclear material that is running the power plants right this very second… Was it produced at that time by people like your father and then stockpiled for future use?
Meaning, would we have to go back to those methods to get more of it, if we expanded nuclear energy?
To say it another way, are we currently producing nuclear material or simply using up supply that was created at great sacrifice to many?

Interesting 4 year old article on the subject.

Nuclear wasteland: The explosive boom and long, painful bust of American uranium mining

U.S. government incentives and import restrictions created a gold rush in uranium at the dawn of the atomic age. Now, long-suffering miners are asking the Trump administration to salvage the industry using similar policies.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nuclear (energy & weapons) of the past has a lot of problems, but that is true of every technology change and all mining and processing industries in their first few generations.

So, going forward is the real question. It is my best understanding that is when all the deaths, illnesses and environment damage of the full life cycle is accounted for, 5th gen nuke will have a significantly lower harm index than solar, wind and electrifying transportation (cars, trucks, etc). But some will not seriously consider 5th gen nuke because of FUD factor (fear uncertainty and doubt).

Also, unless we choose to leave the remainder of the 21st century to the leadership of China (economic, enviromental, military, political), we better get our heads around mining and processing of copper, lithium, graphite and all the rare earth metals in the western hemisphere. Well meaning greens are handing control of the global economy to the far from green Chinese - the net global outcome is not good, but the virtual signaling is wonderful.

*environmental

Show me the evidence. Then show me how Big Nuke won't do exactly what Big Tobacco, Big Oil, etc have done to greenwash their terrible histories on cancer & climate. Brushing aside human nature, and especially the nature of corporate boards of directors addicted to profit above all else isn't realistic.

As far as mining goes, Corporate America made the decisions on where to mine based on cost and the lack of environmental standards. We can mine for those materials in this country, but it's the corporate structure that makes it less profitable, and therefore not happening. China, on the other hand, made securing those materials a national and governmental priority, giving more power and structure to their approach than the US's laissez faire approach (Here's a great example of how China actually cornered the rare earth materials market - they used capitalism against us. This article is about Cobalt, which was the tit-in-the-wringer issue of a few months ago: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/02/china-cobalt-mining-441967). I'm all for mining, but it has to be done in a manner that doesn't pollute our waters, our lands and our air. There has to be real and draconian penalties in place for breaking those laws. There has to be less influence from the influence peddlers in Prada, and more input from the people who have to live with the decisions the elites make.

Comparing a communistic form of nationalized production to the free market approach ignores the totality of the machine that China is, and how our dedication to an economic model we've elevated to god-like status helps them more than it helps us. The mine here, mine now argument is always the pitch made in the capitals of the states and DC on why we need to eliminate the EPA, get rid of regulations and serve only the market, and not citizens. I've watched this happen for 20 years. It's people who would sell their own mother for a little extra scratch. Then they hire slick bastards like you & me to sell it to the public with concepts like "acceptable loss of human life in terms of energy generation."

I once watched the Gov't Affairs' director for Cloud Peak Energy stand in front of the Senate Natural Resources committee and proudly proclaim that South Korea was going to buy all American coal, and that coal was on the upswing. That was in 2019. A month later they filed for bankruptcy. https://cases.ra.kroll.com/cloudpeakenergy/

Maybe I'm just crabby, maybe I am a FUD, but I'm tired of seeing my family members be the socially acceptable cost of a national energy strategy that elevates greed over the collective good of our nation.

 

[BigHornRam]

I worked on a dairy in Grand Junction in the early 80's and showed up to milk one day with a freshly installed radiation monitor in the milk house. Apparently the milk house and milk parlor was built on uranium mine tailings, causing some concern with the quality of the milk. A Safeway store was also built on mine tailings, and they had to excavate everything underneath. Seems like it would have been easier to tear the store down and start over to me.

 

[Sytes]

The president made it harder to get mines permitted in the US which already has the most stringent and rigorous environmental laws in the world. There is always an excuse to not construct a mine.

The US imports about 60% of the copper we use, and there is nothing stopping China from buying up the other 40% through acquisitions of mining companies and mines. Same goes for other commodities and its happening every day.

China saw this problem decades ago and is way ahead of us on dominating the world.

It's fine and dandy to promote increases in domestic energy production but where do we get the resources to build them?

Exactly.

Sounds extreme writing this thought though, as China holds the key ingredients as the #1 reserves / resource land value of the minerals primary to "green" and investing since 2009 (with Rio Tinto) among others elsewhere, I wonder how close our decisions today may empower China to become the, "Leader of the communist world". Strange to consider such significant world dynamics beyond U.S. "not in my backyard", myopic viewpoint when evaluated from the world stage.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Maybe I'm just crabby, maybe I am a FUD, but I'm tired of seeing my family members be the socially acceptable cost of a national energy strategy that elevates greed over the collective good of our nation.

Absolutely, and my biggest issue with energy is that I've never seen a not horse shit comparative study of various energy types. It's either written by a liberal or conservative with a hard on for one type or another and is dripping with condescension about the "other" form of energy.

Solar panels are either created by unicorn farts or the smell of methane in the morning in and of itself creates freedom.

Honestly would love to see a paper that just lays out the types and severities of cancer every energy source will create.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I'm all for mining, but it has to be done in a manner that doesn't pollute our waters, our lands and our air. There has to be real and draconian penalties in place for breaking those laws. There has to be less influence from the influence peddlers in Prada, and more input from the people who have to live with the decisions the elites make.

I would love to know the last US mining project you supported or thought was a good project that should move forward? Your last sentence here is interesting. The folks I work with have the exact same sentiment every time some "elite" makes a decision that shuts down or limits their way of life.

I once watched the Gov't Affairs' director for Cloud Peak Energy stand in front of the Senate Natural Resources committee and proudly proclaim that South Korea was going to buy all American coal, and that coal was on the upswing. That was in 2019. A month later they filed for bankruptcy. https://cases.ra.kroll.com/cloudpeakenergy/

I know the man you speak of. Influence peddler in Prada? Not the man I know. Think he still lives in Cheyenne last I heard. Everything said was true. Those PRB mines, some CPE some other producers, would be suppling more coal to South Korea if not for the decision of some "elites" in Washington State to deny a simple shoreline permit for a terminal. Why? Because it was meant to handle coal. South Korea is still burning the same amount of coal, they just get it from somewhere else. That somewhere else more than likely has significantly lower environmental standards that any US mine will ever face.

Maybe I'm just crabby, maybe I am a FUD, but I'm tired of seeing my family members be the socially acceptable cost of a national energy strategy that elevates greed over the collective good of our nation.

I'm defiantly crabby. Largely because I am tired of seeing my family and my co-workers be the socially acceptable cost of a national strategy that elevates NIMBY and delay over rational decision making for the good of our nation.

 

[VikingsGuy]

*environmental

Show me the evidence. Then show me how Big Nuke won't do exactly what Big Tobacco, Big Oil, etc have done to greenwash their terrible histories on cancer & climate. Brushing aside human nature, and especially the nature of corporate boards of directors addicted to profit above all else isn't realistic.

As far as mining goes, Corporate America made the decisions on where to mine based on cost and the lack of environmental standards. We can mine for those materials in this country, but it's the corporate structure that makes it less profitable, and therefore not happening. China, on the other hand, made securing those materials a national and governmental priority, giving more power and structure to their approach than the US's laissez faire approach (Here's a great example of how China actually cornered the rare earth materials market - they used capitalism against us. This article is about Cobalt, which was the tit-in-the-wringer issue of a few months ago: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/02/china-cobalt-mining-441967). I'm all for mining, but it has to be done in a manner that doesn't pollute our waters, our lands and our air. There has to be real and draconian penalties in place for breaking those laws. There has to be less influence from the influence peddlers in Prada, and more input from the people who have to live with the decisions the elites make.

Comparing a communistic form of nationalized production to the free market approach ignores the totality of the machine that China is, and how our dedication to an economic model we've elevated to god-like status helps them more than it helps us. The mine here, mine now argument is always the pitch made in the capitals of the states and DC on why we need to eliminate the EPA, get rid of regulations and serve only the market, and not citizens. I've watched this happen for 20 years. It's people who would sell their own mother for a little extra scratch. Then they hire slick bastards like you & me to sell it to the public with concepts like "acceptable loss of human life in terms of energy generation."

I once watched the Gov't Affairs' director for Cloud Peak Energy stand in front of the Senate Natural Resources committee and proudly proclaim that South Korea was going to buy all American coal, and that coal was on the upswing. That was in 2019. A month later they filed for bankruptcy. https://cases.ra.kroll.com/cloudpeakenergy/

Maybe I'm just crabby, maybe I am a FUD, but I'm tired of seeing my family members be the socially acceptable cost of a national energy strategy that elevates greed over the collective good of our nation.

I agree with much of what you reference, except it isnot sufficient until you also address the alternatives. You have O&G and its externalities; solar/wind/biomass and their externalities or you have 5th gen nuke and it’s externalities. The world has to pick one. Saying nuke has challenges and our de-industrialization shift to china was bad policy (while I agree), does nothing to educate the choice between the three. I predict nuke will have the least externalities (but not none).

As for US environmental policy - it is not that I want it dramatically reduced, rather I want an efficient stable government regulation and the removal of private litigation as a never ending regulatory cycle. The greens and NIMBY in general are preventing any alternative to china and even less regulated jurisdictions. That doesn’t help the planet. A greeny driving a tesla thinking they are saving the planet is a sad joke. We need to start calling BS on the whole mess.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree with much of what you reference, except it isnot sufficient until you also address the alternatives. You have O&G and its externalities; solar/wind/biomass and their externalities or you have 5th gen nuke and it’s externalities. The world has to pick one. Saying nuke has challenges and our de-industrialization shift to china (while I agree), does nothing to educate the choice between the three. I predict nuke will have the least externalities (but not none).

As for US environmental policy - it is not that I want it dramatically reduced, rather I want an efficient stable government regulation and the removal of private litigation as a never ending regulatory cycle. The greens and NIMBY in general are preventing any alternative to china and even less regulated jurisdictions. That doesn’t help the planet. A greeny driving a tesla thinking they are saving the planet is a sad joke. We need to start calling BS on the whole mess.

I also think as a country we should revisit public ownership of facilities. Cleary energy is part of national security, I don't actually give a crap if it is revenue positive as much as it is safe. The nuclear navy has had 0 issues, while three mile island is pretty good example of how capitalism is about on par with the soviets for safety.

The bureau of rec + TVA run/ran/built a lot of our electricity infrastructure. Other than the bros at Bain does anyone really have a problem with the US government building and running a bunch of plants.

 

[BigHornRam]

The bureau of rec + TVA run/ran/built a lot of our electricity infrastructure. Other than the bros at Bain does anyone really have a problem with the US government building and running a bunch of plants.

Quickest way to make our country energy insecure.....if we aren't already there yet. F... no

 

[brocksw]

The nuclear material that is running the power plants right this very second… Was it produced at that time by people like your father and then stockpiled for future use?
Meaning, would we have to go back to those methods to get more of it, if we expanded nuclear energy?
To say it another way, are we currently producing nuclear material or simply using up supply that was created at great sacrifice to many?

Interesting 4 year old article on the subject.

Nuclear wasteland: The explosive boom and long, painful bust of American uranium mining

U.S. government incentives and import restrictions created a gold rush in uranium at the dawn of the atomic age. Now, long-suffering miners are asking the Trump administration to salvage the industry using similar policies.

www.cnbc.com

This is why the "Breed and Burn" 4th gen and 5th gen nuke plants are so attractive. I'm not up to speed with the 5th gen, but the 4th gen (like Terrapower going up in Wyoming) are designed to use depleted uranium (what's left after the fissile portion is burned). So there is no need for 4th gen plants to import uranium or mine uranium for fuel. We'd be recycling old nuke waste that's already in the US. And there is supposedly enough depleted uranium to power the entire country for many decades.
There will be some cost associated with extraction of the buried depleted uranium. But I'm not sure what the safety record is on that type of operation. It could be as dangerous as mining it, or worse. But I don't know the answer to that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

One element of 5th gen Nuke that isn‘t self-evident is the “modularity” element. Today each nuke facility is designed bespoke, constructed bespoke and regulated bespoke. And this cycle is iterative throughout the build process, operational lifetime and end of life shutdown. This adds extrordinary costs, complexity and risk to the premise.

But many 5th gen nukes are designed to be built in a uniform modular manner with one design, one build technique and one regulatory regime. This is then replicated to scale. Our current nuke industry is the handmade cars of the 1890’s - expensive, unreliable and inherently dangerous. 5th gen will make them much more cheaply, much more consistently, and much safer. These benefits are added to the safer and fail safe reaction approaches such as salt cooled and breed/burn (and others).