Project 2025 and Conservation

[BigHornRam]

Pull up your pants Paulie, your confirmation bias and portfolio are showing.

Scared the renewable sector might shave a couple bucks a share?

I have some shares in a lithium battery company too. It's not performing well right now. Would love it if it did.

 

[BuzzH]

I have some shares in a lithium battery company too. It's not performing well right now. Would love it if it did.

 

[BigHornRam]

Shares are cheap. Step up to the plate and buy some.

About

Dragonfly is an industry-leading manufacturer of deep cycle lithium-ion batteries making affordable and effective energy storage the renewable energy landscape of the future.

dragonflyenergy.com

 

[Bonasababy]

It's funny you are all hooked in this project 2025 when you should really be concerned about agenda 47 which is what trump is actually supporting.

From Wiki

"Although Project 2025 cannot legally promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors are associated with Donald Trump and his 2024 presidential campaign.[43][44][45] The Heritage Foundation employs numerous people closely aligned with Trump,[46][47][48] and coordinates the initiative with various conservative groups run by Trump allies.[49] In 2023, Trump campaign officials acknowledged the project aligned well with their Agenda 47 program.[50] Trump campaign advisers have had regular contact with Project 2025,[51] The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank founded in 1973 and based in Washington, D.C., that employs people closely tied to Trump,[92][93][94] coordinates the initiative with a constellation of conservative groups run by Trump allies.[95]"

Wiki isn't perfect but as can be seen all the above has references and it's certainly something that would be corrected if it was wrong given all the interest in it.

The easiest thing to do is question why--after reading the above--we should trust Trump saying he knew nothing about it. Hogwash.

 

[Archer86]

You like to ignore the facts about O&G subsidies don't you?

BTW, when did you become a fan of Tester?

Biggest difference between oil and gas is everyone benefits from that.

solar only the wealthy Benefit not many low income famiky have solar panels on there roof....and big solar fields do effect wildlife more as someone that is so involved I would think you could see that but it does seam you like to where blinders sometimes

The discussion was about Paul whining about the renewables being subsidized while systematically denying that FF industry is no different.

Also, I would much rather individuals that want to put solar panels on their roof receive a direct subsidy over a corporation, for a variety of very good reasons.

Speaking of blinders.

To argue that solar fields or OG development effect wildlife more, is like arguing whether a 30/06 is better than a 270. Picking fly shit out of the pepper.

30/06 or 270 is way to big all you need is a 223

 

[Bonasababy]

Can someone outline exactly what went wrong 2016-2020 public lands wise?

In my state, the Trump administration stepped in and buried research into the potential harm that could be done if copper mining were allowed right outside--and connected to via water--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. They also renewed leases for mining that had previously been put on hold pending that review.

No copper mine has ever been conducted anywhere in the world without creating--and leaving behind--an environmental mess to clean up.

Yet pro mining forces say the process should be left alone to work, that mining shouldn't be automatically denied until thorough review of the site and available science has occurred. They believe--despite no evidence anywhere in the world--that such mining can occur without environmental harm.

But then they go out and bury the science and open up leasing.

Project 2025 proposes a takeover of federal agencies and getting rid of professional non-partisan employees.

This type of thing out to scare everyone interested in hunting, angling, conservation, and outdoors based recreation.

 

[Bonasababy]

In my state, the Trump administration stepped in and buried research into the potential harm that could be done if copper mining were allowed right outside--and connected to via water--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. They also renewed leases for mining that had previously been put on hold pending that review.

No copper mine has ever been conducted anywhere in the world without creating--and leaving behind--an environmental mess to clean up.

Yet pro mining forces say the process should be left alone to work, that mining shouldn't be automatically denied until thorough review of the site and available science has occurred. They believe--despite no evidence anywhere in the world--that such mining can occur without environmental harm.

But then they go out and bury the science and open up leasing.

Project 2025 proposes a takeover of federal agencies and getting rid of professional non-partisan employees.

This type of thing out to scare everyone interested in hunting, angling, conservation, and outdoors based recreation.

But don't take my word for it. Read the letter of alarm from over 30 long term professional managers and scientists
--with a combined 988 years of service-- in that part of the state:

We, the undersigned former U.S. Forest Service employees, write to express our grave concerns
related to proposed sulfide-ore copper mining in the Rainy River Drainage Basin, which includes
the watershed of the Boundary Waters Area Canoe Wilderness (BWCAW). Collectively we have
nearly 1,000 years of experience in such fields as wildlife biology, hydrology, recreation, NEPA,
wilderness management and natural resource management. In addition, each of us has
knowledge and experience directly related to the management of the BWCAW and the vast array
of social, cultural, ecological, and economic benefits it provides.

Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) from hardrock mines such as the one proposed by Twin Metals MN
and Chilean conglomerate, Antofagasta, is a worldwide problem. AMD occurs as sulfide
minerals in the ore bodies and rock over burden are exposed to air and water creating sulfuric
acid which subsequently increases water pH and leaches harmful metals such as copper, zinc,
lead, cadmium, iron and nickel. The highly complex and interconnected surface and subsurface
waters of the Rainy River Watershed provide an immediate and irremediable transport
mechanism for toxic material to move through the BWCAW, Voyageurs National Park, and
Quetico Provincial Park.

The following actions are imperative:
• Recognition of U.S. Forest Service statutory and regulatory consent authority on all lease
applications within the Superior National Forest.
o The Forest Service’s consent to lease renewal and lease applications is mandated
under 16 U.S.C. 508b, Section 402 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, and 43
C.F.R. 3507.19(c) and cannot be diminished by the Dept. of Interior.
• Reinstatement and completion of the study of a proposed 20-year mineral withdrawal
within the Rainy River Watershed.
o Until the question of whether mining is appropriate and feasible within this
watershed is answered, all other actions are premature.
• Suspension of all authorizations related to new federal mining lease applications in the
Rainy River Watershed pending completion of the reinstated mineral withdrawal study.
o In the alternative, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement by the
Forest Service that considers the full suite of reasonably foreseeable significant
impacts associated with copper mining in the watershed.
• Suspension of leases MNES-01352 and 01353 pending final adjudication of litigation
regarding lease reinstatement. This includes withdrawal of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) prepared by the Bureau of Land Management, Northeastern States
District Office: “Addition of Terms and Conditions, for Renewal of Hardrock Leases,
MNES 001352 and MNES 001353.”
o Moving forward with renewal and development of the leases represents a
significant waste of resources given the probability of success in litigation
challenging lease reinstatement. Moreover, the lease renewal EA is wholly
inadequate, does not provide a serious or factual examination of the effects of
lease renewal and subsequent connected actions, and runs contrary to the robust,
science-based 2016 decision by former Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell to deny
consent to renewal.

According to the Copper Development Association, Inc. (2019): “known world-wide copper
resources are estimated at nearly 5.8 trillion pounds of which only about 0.7 trillion pounds
(12%) have been mined throughout history…. And nearly all of that is still in circulation because
copper’s recycling rate is higher than that of any other engineering metal.” The U.S. Geological
Survey estimates the percentage of known copper mined throughout history at 25%. While our
concerns are based on science and local expertise, simple common sense tells us that with
upwards of 75% of all known copper deposits still available for development, there are surely
more ecologically-suited places to meet the demand for copper than directly upstream from
millions of acres of water-rich wilderness.

The history of copper mining clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of copper mines fail.
They may fail catastrophically, or they may leak contaminants over time leading to inevitable
environmental damage or collapse. But there is no denying that at some point in the
construction, operation or the extremely long-term reclamation phase of these mines, there is a
high probability of failure. It is indisputably a high-risk business and there is no mine plan or
design feature that eliminates the risk.

The U.S. Forest Service has extensive experience with development of sulfide producing
minerals on National Forest System lands. Even in the most arid environments, there are
significant risks to this type of mining requiring continuous management and perpetual water
treatment. Within the Rainy River Watershed there is simply no way to contain contamination
without sacrificing the wilderness and the long-term ecologic and economic sustainability that it
supports. Contrary to the opinion of industry spokesmen and politicians, including Secretary of
Agriculture Sonny Perdue, who baselessly assert that we “can have it all”- irrefutable scientific
studies and all of our experience tell us that in this extremely valuable, water rich, and highly
interconnected place you simply cannot have both copper mining and healthy forests, water, and
communities.

The collective 988 years of experience, expertise, and dedicated public service represented by
the individuals below should not, simply cannot, be ignored. We encourage you to view us as a
valuable resource that can be relied on to provide fair, accurate, and science-based information.
We urge you to support the actions listed above as first steps toward supportable decision making
related to proposed copper mining in the Rainy River Watershed.

 

[BuzzH]

Biggest difference between oil and gas is everyone benefits from that.

solar only the wealthy Benefit not many low income famiky have solar panels on there roof....and big solar fields do effect wildlife more as someone that is so involved I would think you could see that but it does seam you like to where blinders sometimes

30/06 or 270 is way to big all you need is a 223

*too

You're bouncing around, how does a solar panel on a roof impact wildlife more than FF development?

 

[Archer86]

This type of thing out to scare everyone interested in hunting, angling, conservation, and outdoors based recreation.

What they should be really scared off is what's actually happening in colorado and washington crazy ltake over the game dept commisions that are Ignoring the science based wildlife managment that is provided to them by biologist

surprising to see so many anti hunters on a hunting forum. It's easier to convince non hunters to fight some of the bs republican crap then to try and convince them hunting is need you are about to see that colorado with the lion/trophy hunting ban

 

[BuzzH]

In my state, the Trump administration stepped in and buried research into the potential harm that could be done if copper mining were allowed right outside--and connected to via water--the Boundary Waters Canoe Area wilderness. They also renewed leases for mining that had previously been put on hold pending that review.

No copper mine has ever been conducted anywhere in the world without creating--and leaving behind--an environmental mess to clean up.

Yet pro mining forces say the process should be left alone to work, that mining shouldn't be automatically denied until thorough review of the site and available science has occurred. They believe--despite no evidence anywhere in the world--that such mining can occur without environmental harm.

But then they go out and bury the science and open up leasing.

Project 2025 proposes a takeover of federal agencies and getting rid of professional non-partisan employees.

This type of thing out to scare everyone interested in hunting, angling, conservation, and outdoors based recreation.

You mean like the Upper Clarks Fork and Berkeley Pit?

I did quit a bit of work on the Upper Clarks Fork between Butte and Deerlodge, that mess will never be cleaned up.

I remember the BS spin they tried when a few hundred snow geese landed in the pit and died. Tried blaming it on fungus in the grain they ate prior to landing in the water in the pit, you know, water so acidic it eats the propellors off a boat motor.

Well, that is if you actually believe in the science of that nonsense pH scale.

 

[Archer86]

*too

You're bouncing around, how does a solar panel on a roof impact wildlife more than FF development?

Take your blinders off...and read the post again

 

[Bonasababy]

Give us some examples of this exciting new technology. Can it survive without cheap money, large government subsidies, and beneficial mandates?

You mean like the Rural Electric Administration act of 1937 that used federal money and resources to bring electricity to rural areas of the country?

Was that ill advised?

Would it even be supported by right leaning parties and folks today?

The issues are basically the same--yes in some places some assistance is needed. The long term benefits to individuals and the economy make them worthwhile.

I didn't include solar in my new place primarily because of the rate of return was pushing my likely life span. Since that time the ROR has shrunk quite a bit and I might put a small installation on a pole garage I hope to build.

I do share concern over siting decisions being important for large installations from the wildlife standpoint. Not from the agricultural standpoint, as we have examples of solar designs working with sheep grazing the same land under raised panels and similar operations with cattle are showing promise.

I am a strong supporter of sustainable ag and ranching. Around where I live they support a lot of critters and nothing is better than grass fed or started beef!

And we have grid and storage issues to overcome--which is feasible, especially the grid side. FWIW grid problems are already present with electricity from all sources, we often pay more than we would if the grid were improved.

Like a lot of issues, detractors want to treat renewable energy as unworthy if they aren't perfect, need some help, or have ANY controversy anywhere.

We'd still be riding horses and reading under lamps at night if our predecessors let that put a stop to progress!

 

[BuzzH]

Take your blinders off...and read the post again

solar only the wealthy Benefit not many low income famiky have solar panels on there roof....

*their *family

Why does it matter to you that only the wealthy would benefit from a solar panel on the roof? I know quite a few people with solar panels on their homes, including my taxidermist in Cheyenne. I don't believe he is what I would consider wealthy. Neither is another good friend of mine in Missoula who I hunt and fish with. Seems to make sense to put a solar panel on a roof over wildlife habitat, but hey, that's just me.

Why are you much more in favor of oligarchies being the beneficiaries of government subsidies VS individuals?

What do you have against solar panels on roofs?

Finally, can you share what part of the FF industry you work for.

 

[Archer86]

*their *family

Why does it matter to you that only the wealthy would benefit from a solar panel on the roof? I know quite a few people with solar panels on their homes, including my taxidermist in Cheyenne. I don't believe he is what I would consider wealthy. Neither is another good friend of mine in Missoula who I hunt and fish with. Seems to make sense to put a solar panel on a roof over wildlife habitat, but hey, that's just me

When something is heavily subsidized with tax dollars and benefits a certian class of people mostly I see that as a issue

Why are you much more in favor of oligarchies being the beneficiaries of government subsidies VS individuals

You make it sould like solar subsidies only benefit individuals which is not the case just like oil companies the solar companies are getting rich off tax payers as well

What do you have against solar panels on roofs?

Making assumptions I am not against it do what you want with your home I would actually prefer them on roofs over solar fields

Finally, can you share what part of the FF industry you work for.

I am not in the industry at all.

 

[BuzzH]

When something is heavily subsidized with tax dollars and benefits a certian class of people mostly I see that as a issue

Well, then you should be fuming over the FF industry, corporate agribusinesses, corporate grazing associations, etc. with the same amount of gusto that you seem to have for the burr under your saddle about solar.

Just not seeing it...

 

[Archer86]

---

Well, then you should be fuming over the FF industry, corporate agribusinesses, corporate grazing associations, etc. with the same amount of gusto that you seem to have for the burr under your saddle about solar.

Just not seeing it...

I missed the part where soneone said that ff industies had no subsidies

The ff industry has some stuff that goes to far I agree but take it all away and who suffers the most I will give you a hint it won't be the rich.

Take away solar subsidies and who does it effect No one except the company getting rich off the subsidies because the technology in solar isn't at a point where it can sell without being heavily subsidized with tax payer money.

 

[Ben Lamb]

20% of electrical generation in the US is from renewables.

Hardly a "wealthy's only" power source.

Most poor folks don't have a gas or oil well on their place either. And if they do, the split estate laws ensure their rights are subservient to the mineral rights holder. That generally means a bit of cash for the development and leaving a bunch of problems behind (cbm is the prime example).

With renewables, landowners have a ton more power in terms of siting, mitigation, etc. It's pretty cool to see landowners in the Midwest using leases for renewables for extra revenue to keep the family farm in the family. I see sheep & goats grazing solar farms all the time, and apiaries.

Wind is a different animal but I think evolutions in blade technology get there sooner rather than later.

The carriage makers were positive the automobile would be a fad.

The whalers fought kerosene and didn't think anyone would want that stuff.

The old guard knew rock & roll would die off as a fad.

A phone that's a computer and fits in your pocket! Ha!

Progress is littered with the prognostications of future doom for new technology.

 

[Archer86]

Rooftop Solar Benefits Rich, Leaves Poor in the Dark

Disadvantaged Communities Face 20-Year Waiting Game & Higher Energy Costs As Washington embraces the bright horizon of renewable energy, a troubling truth emerges—an unjust system where rooftop solar rewards the wealthy, leaving middle and working-class energy ratepayers with sticker shock as they’r

www.linkedin.com

 

[SAJ-99]

@BigHornRam when we watch what Texas is doing, I don't understand how much arguing needs to take place. The answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE, particularly when Electrical demand over the next 10yrs is expected to grow at double the rate it was expected to grow just two years ago. We all need to find solutions, not argue about which political party benefits.

Can't believe you are still in the DFLI dog.

Texas will add more grid batteries than any other state in 2024

With cheap land and a competitive market irresistible to energy storage developers, the Lone Star State will even overtake California in battery deployments this year.

www.canarymedia.com

Rooftop Solar Benefits Rich, Leaves Poor in the Dark

Disadvantaged Communities Face 20-Year Waiting Game & Higher Energy Costs As Washington embraces the bright horizon of renewable energy, a troubling truth emerges—an unjust system where rooftop solar rewards the wealthy, leaving middle and working-class energy ratepayers with sticker shock as they’r

www.linkedin.com

The article is economic nonsense. It is a convoluted argument against net-metering (written by an electric company, not surprising). If every "rich" person put solar on their homes, do the poor not benefit from the lower demand? Or do we need a quick economic tutorial on how supply/demand determine price. We can eliminate subsidies and make everyone pay the fair market rate for things like electricity and water and see what happens. Spoiler alert, it won't be pretty.

 

[Archer86]

@BigHornRam when we watch what Texas is doing, I don't understand how much arguing needs to take place. The answer is ALL OF THE ABOVE, particularly when Electrical demand over the next 10yrs is expected to grow at double the rate it was expected to grow just two years ago. We all need to find solutions, not argue about which political party benefits.

Can't believe you are still in the DFLI dog.


View attachment 333485

Texas will add more grid batteries than any other state in 2024

With cheap land and a competitive market irresistible to energy storage developers, the Lone Star State will even overtake California in battery deployments this year.

www.canarymedia.com

The article is economic nonsense. It is a convoluted argument against net-metering (written by an electric company, not surprising). If every "rich" person put solar on their homes, do the poor not benefit from the lower demand? Or do we need a quick economic tutorial on how supply/demand determine price. We can eliminate subsidies and make everyone pay the fair market rate for things like electricity and water and see what happens. Spoiler alert, it won't be pretty.

It would be fine produce the power with natural gas generation prices would likely drop.

Spin it how ever you want the fact is higher income households are more likely to have solar on their roofs then lower income