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

[VikingsGuy]

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.

I think our govt should fix some of its current failures before taking on something this big. Like I say at work - earn the right to grow by showing you can actually deliver at a high level the tasks already on your plate.

 

[antlerradar]

That's not really accurate.

Just all depends on the time frame. Were I live in the in the powder river basin more coal has burned naturally than mankind has burned in the last 200 years. The difference is in the time frame. Mankind, the last 200 years for the most part. What has burned naturally in the powder river basin has taken tens of millions of years. Given enough time all of the coal in the basin will eventually end going through the carbon cycle.

Carbon credits remind me of issuing take permits for threatened species and then pretending the threatened species is less taken (dead) than it would be without the permission slip.

“Legal for a fee”.

In early Christianity the wealthy would pay indulgences to the church so that they could break the strict sins of the faith. Carbon credits will work the same way.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think our govt should fix some of its current failures before taking on something this big. Like I say at work - earn the right to grow by showing you can actually deliver at a high level the tasks already on your plate.

So we can go to the moon, build most of the dams/water projects in the west and run the 11 B TVA, not to mention half the nuclear reactors in the United States, but they can't run nuclear power stations give me a break.

Government run over budget all the time, but the government also tends to build things to last 100 years rather to the end of the fiscal year.

 

[Sytes]

Good to see this release of information and it's direct content of the solar power footprint vs nuclear power.

Nuclear is the way to remove the China foothold on the resources U.S. will depend upon.

3 Reasons Why Nuclear is Clean and Sustainable

Most people immediately think of solar panels or wind turbines as clean energy, but how many of you thought of nuclear energy?

www.energy.gov

 

[VikingsGuy]

So we can go to the moon, build most of the dams/water projects in the west and run the 11 B TVA, not to mention half the nuclear reactors in the United States, but they can't run nuclear power stations give me a break.

Government run over budget all the time, but the government also tends to build things to last 100 years rather to the end of the fiscal year.

Just the nukes themselves I could live with. I thought you where suggesting the entire energy market and supply chain.

 

[Bambistew]

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

Or maybe its the 15-20 years it takes to get all the permits, perform the studies and have as much "proof" as required that we meet the highest environmental standards. After you spend 100s of millions or a billion dollars, you find out that the government influenced by a bunch of NIMBYs doesn't really want the mine anyway, even though they have jumped through every hoop they required and then some. Who TF would invest in something like that?

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.

Please state the mines you support.

Do you support Black Butte Copper? Do you support Pebble? Do you support Twin Metals? Do you support Resolution Copper? Every one of those projects prepared all the necessary documents to secure permits, as required by law and regulation yet have been denied for some NIMBY reason or another. Set the goal posts, then move them. There is always a special reason, always... These mines would replace reserves that are currently being mined, yet won't be built. Current reserves in the US are less than 40 years at current use. The reserves will continue to decline unless new projects come on line, and we will rely more and more on other countries for supply. China controls 75% of refined copper right now, we need to be their friend or figure something out... Once peoples minds are made up, there is no changing them about projects. Billions of dollars have been spent, and nothing to show for it, and likely never will be. Who would invest in a project in the US that will never be constructed for some NIMBY or another? Yet you blame "Corporate America?" I love that analogy as well, especially coming from people who own stocks. We are all Corporate America, like it or not. People think mining companies are owned by Dr. Evil or something.

Here's an example of looking the other way with clean water. An estimated 30% of the ~20k municipal water treatment plants (WTP) in the US do not meat US EPA water quality standards for their effluent discharge. I've seen estimates that are even higher... There is a plant here in Alaska that requires 300 square miles of ocean dilution to meet WQ standards for one particular constituent. All those WTPs get a waiver for one reason or another from the EPA. An estimated 30B gallons per day is discharged from those plants every day. Somewhere between 10-12Billion gallons of water is discharged into WOTUS every day that does not meet clean water standards. Where's the outrage? Where is the draconian legislature to make them pay? I'll tell you where it is... In order for most of those plants to be in compliance, it would require fees be increased 3-10x over what is paid now. The water that runs off your lawn is doubtful would meet clean water standards if measured especially if you use fertilizer or live in a large city with air quality issues (p.s. cars are the biggest offenders of air quality). Runoff from your driveway? Zero percent chance it meets WQ standards. Its easy to point the finger, but much harder to accept the fact that we are all contributing to pollution in aggregate, orders of magnitude above what any mine would produce. An estimated 70-80% of water bodies in the US exceed WQ standards... but mining is the bad guy. hahaha

The EPA and bureau of mines has spent a lot of time looking for and inventorying abandoned mines/mine water discharges. These include historic mine diggings in the middle of no where, and classify water running off waste rock piles into streams as "impacted" because there was past mining activity. Never mind they don't have any baseline data prior to the mine to know what is was prior. Even after all that, EPA has estimated around 50 Million gpd of water going untreated and exceeding WQ standards (that equals 0.5% of the effluent from WTPs who exceed WQ standards). Also keep in mind that is only from water treatment plants and it doesn't include the runoff from storm water from municipal lands, of which almost all exceeds WQ standards. What I'm getting at, is mine runoff does not even register on the radar for constituent loading in our waters, but is an easy target. Mines are the NR tag holders.

Lots of things changed after the CWA was passed. Many people believe water leaving a mine is still "bad" even though it meets WQ standards, and they rarely get waives like municipal WTPs. Untreated mine waste/runoff is benign compared to municipal water effluent. The water that comes from municipal WTPs has all sorts of weird organic and synthetic chemicals in it, which can't be treated at any cost effective approach (Corporate America or government causing that one?). God knows how long it will last in the environment. People get wrapped around the axle about a little acid mine water, that for the most part is very easily contained, classified and treated. Where as, municipal water can't be effectively treated for all the chemicals and other weird chit, so the EPA grants waivers. Could you imagine if they granted a waiver to a mine? People would lose their minds. That is if they can even get a permit to mine.

China will dominate the worlds commodities in my kids lifetime. They're almost there. They have a plan and have been executing it for decades. Just because a mine is in the US doesn't mean we keep the product that comes out of the ground.

 

[brocksw]

not to mention half the nuclear reactors in the United States...

I don't think that's the case

 

[BigHornRam]

So we can go to the moon, build most of the dams/water projects in the west and run the 11 B TVA, not to mention half the nuclear reactors in the United States, but they can't run nuclear power stations give me a break.

Government run over budget all the time, but the government also tends to build things to last 100 years rather to the end of the fiscal year.

I don't think today's government could get 1 reactor built before the next ice age.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't think that's the case

"At the end of 2021, the United States had 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors at 55 nuclear power plants in 28 states. The average age of these nuclear reactors is about 40 years old"

U.S. nuclear industry - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

History and status of U.S. nuclear energy industry, where nuclear power plants are located, and nuclear energy’s share of total U.S. electricity generation.

www.eia.gov

"Since its inception in 1948, the U.S. Navy nuclear program has developed 27 different plant designs, installed them in 210 nuclear-powered ships, taken 500 reactor cores into operation, and accumulated over 5,400 reactor years of operation and 128,000,000 miles safely steamed. Additionally, 98 nuclear submarines and six nuclear cruisers have been recycled."

I believe we have 83 nuclear ships, and most aircraft carriers have more than one reactor so I believe the US Navy is currently operating over 93 reactors.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't think today's government could get 1 reactor built before the next ice age.

USS Gerald R. Ford - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are 2 Ford Class ships being built and 6 Virginia class subs... so there's 10 right there currently under construction.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Just the nukes themselves I could live with. I thought you where suggesting the entire energy market and supply chain.

I'm thinking more run like the military. So government procures them, private sectors builds them to government standards then the government runs them. The rest of the system is private, but maintenance/safety/ etc is left to private sector whims. No investors, no need to cut costs and therefore corners.

 

[brocksw]

"At the end of 2021, the United States had 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors at 55 nuclear power plants in 28 states. The average age of these nuclear reactors is about 40 years old"

That quote does not mean that the US Goverment owns 93 reactors at 55 plants. Outside of the TVA plants, I believe the rest are owned by the private sector.

Nuclear reactor Ownership

www.eia.gov

I'm not counting nuclear powered ships and submarines because that, to me, is outside the scope of the conversation when discussing consistent and reliable Nuclear power generation on a nationwide scale for power consumption by US citizens.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That quote does not mean that the US Goverment owns 93 reactors at 55 plants. Outside of the TVA plants, I believe the rest are owned by the private sector.

Nuclear reactor Ownership

www.eia.gov

I'm not counting nuclear powered ships and submarines because that, to me, is outside the scope of the conversation when discussing consistent and reliable Nuclear power generation on a nationwide scale for power consumption by US citizens.

Private sector owns 93 reactors. The Navy runs 90+, naval reactors 100% are involved in the conversation, can't change the rules just cause you're wrong.

It's 100% germane the US Navy has had a continuous nuclear program while the private sector has languished.

Also read up on those reactors, the A1B on the Ford has a larger name plate capacity than the solar panel projects in question. You could literally park the carrier on the Hudson and hook it up to the grid and add more power than that solar station.

 

[brocksw]

Private sector owns 93 reactors. The Navy runs 90+, naval reactors 100% are involved in the conversation, can't change the rules just cause you're wrong.

Good lord dude.
How many of the Navy's 90+ reactors are providing power to the US power grid for 365 days of the year?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Good lord dude.
How many of the Navy's 90+ reactors are providing power to the grid for US resident power 365 days of the year?

The arc of the conversations is can the government run a reactor, they can and have for 60 years.

I said reactors not, reactors providing domestic electricity.



It's like having a conversation about aviation and saying the government can't fly a plane.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@brocksw sorry to get fired up on you.
I just hate that Reagan nonsense.
1. for a guy who made that quote he certainly expanded the fed like no other president via the military
2. it's just nonsense

Compare private sector f-ups in energy or whatever to the US gov, the later pales in comparison to the former.

Three mile Island
Exxon Valdez
BP Deep Water

What does the US government have?

I guess military troop exposures like agent orange and burn pits?

 

[VikingsGuy]

@brocksw sorry to get fired up on you.
I just hate that Reagan nonsense.
1. for a guy who made that quote he certainly expanded the fed like no other president via the military
2. it's just nonsense

Compare private sector f-ups in energy or whatever to the US gov, the later pales in comparison to the former.

Three mile Island
Exxon Valdez
BP Deep Water

What does the US government have?

I guess military troop exposures like agent orange and burn pits?

US Postal Service

 

[VikingsGuy]

Reagan nonsense.

I can’t believe Hunttalk’s new profanity filter didn’t flag this.

#RespecttheGipper

 

[brocksw]

The arc of the conversations is can the government run a reactor, they can and have for 60 years.

I said reactors not, reactors providing domestic electricity.

View attachment 225138

It's like having a conversation about aviation and saying the government can't fly a plane.

From my perspective the arc of the conversation is, can the government design, build, and run a nuclear power plant in and amongst it's own citizens who live there, and provide safe "domestic electricity" into the US power grid. While simultaneously regulating the rest of the Nuclear power sector within the country and within the global energy market.

In my opinion, what an aircraft carrier is doing in the Indian Ocean or south China sea is not relevant to that conversation. Are Submarines and other nuclear powered naval vessels using the same reactor technology that these gen 4 and gen 5 plants will be built around? Not to my knowledge.