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

[Deleted member 28227]

US Postal Service

So poorly run that all my UPS packages are handed off to them

 

[BigHornRam]

Put down the bottle of Lacroix @wllm . You are getting a little carried away here.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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.

Fair enough, per my above reply to @VikingsGuy I'm saying procure and run.

I think the inherent problem with nuclear is it's not great for the private sector, at least historically.

1. The best reactor designs require enriched uranium (historically)... that's why a reactor on a naval ship is "better", more energy/last longer
If the reactors are run by the government there is less of an issue using the "best" fuel source.

2. Safety, we have three mile island as an example, which was damn close to becoming Chernobyl. There is lots of documentation to suggest that corners were cut to save money. Also some of the issues around the Yankee power plants. I think having the government run them without the need to make a profit greatly reduces the risk.

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.

That is in part due to regulations regarding highly enriched uranium. Also I believe the Chinese are looking to us molten salt reactors on their aircraft carriers.

 

[406dn]

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.

Having spent the bulk of my working career in an oil refinery, I witnessed cost cutting and corner cutting enough to know it is real, and a concern.

Frankly, it is about the biggest reservation I have regarding nuclear power electrical generation. There is an unending temptation to reduce expense costs to increase short term profitability.

As a person who sits somewhere on the left side of the aisle, I am not happy that the "move to renewable energy" is so patently dishonest. Solar power and wind power are not nearly as energy dense as hydrocarbons. Using a sport's analogy, they are a bench player. Perhaps towards the end of the bench. Hydroelectric power is very efficient, but there is not a lot of untapped capacity there.

Nuclear has problems, but if fossil fuels truly must go, it is the only real solution that doesn't dominate the physical landscape with its development.

 

[brocksw]

Having spent the bulk of my working career in an oil refinery, I witnessed cost cutting and corner cutting enough to know it is real, and a concern.

Frankly, it is about the biggest reservation I have regarding nuclear power electrical generation. There is an unending temptation to reduce expense costs to increase short term profitability.

As a person who sits somewhere on the left side of the aisle, I am not happy that the "move to renewable energy" is so patently dishonest. Solar power and wind power are not nearly as energy dense as hydrocarbons. Using a sport's analogy, they are a bench player. Perhaps towards the end of the bench. Hydroelectric power is very efficient, but there is not a lot of untapped capacity there.

Nuclear has problems, but if fossil fuels truly must go, it is the only real solution that doesn't dominate the physical landscape with its development.

Splitting one uranium atom produces a million times more energy than burning one carbon molecule.

 

[brocksw]

That is in part due to regulations regarding highly enriched uranium. Also I believe the Chinese are looking to us molten salt reactors on their aircraft carriers.

Yeah those regulations are interesting. The US government is allowed to enrich uranium 235 to levels over 20%, which is HEU or Highly Enriched Uranium (Weapons Grade is 90% enrichment). The U.S. Navy is known to operate with reactor cores fueled by very highly enriched uranium, either 97% uranium-235 produced specifically for naval reactors, or 93% uranium 235 extracted from surplus nuclear weapons.

The private sector (aka basically every single Nuke plant us regular folks get power from), just as recent as 2019 got approved to enrich up to 20% or LEU. They were previously only in the 3-5% enrichment levels.

Sounds like a fair energy market to me.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yeah those regulations are interesting. The US government is allowed to enrich uranium 235 to levels over 20%, which is HEU or Highly Enriched Uranium (Weapons Grade is 90% enrichment). The U.S. Navy is known to operate with reactor cores fueled by very highly enriched uranium, either 97% uranium-235 produced specifically for naval reactors, or 93% uranium 235 extracted from surplus nuclear weapons.

The private sector (aka basically every single Nuke plant us regular folks get power from), just as recent as 2019 got approved to enrich up to 20% or LEU. They were previously only in the 3-5% enrichment levels.

Sounds like a fair energy market to me.

At the end of the day would you rather have the government running a bunch of nuclear stations at a loss or the scherer plant and all the ND OG dev...

No free lunch for sure, but I think an unfair energy market could be a decent trade. Now if nuclear can be designed that works under the capitalist model great, but the model is literally to cut all possible costs in search of profit so I think everyone needs to go into that discussion clear eyed about how this all works from OG to Solar.

 

[longbow51]

*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.

You do seem a little crabby, but seriously, sorry about your dad.

 

[brocksw]

At the end of the day would you rather have the government running a bunch of nuclear stations at a loss or the scherer plant and all the ND OG dev...

OG development will still be there, regardless. Hundreds of thousands of wells will not disappear overnight because Nuke plants got built. I sure as hell hope the strategy to move away from fossil fuels is not forcing $10 per gallon gasoline on people either. Because we'll all be broke by the time new energy solutions spread their wings and become globally adopted by common people. Like many things, progress is typically slow and incremental.

 

[brocksw]

No free lunch for sure, but I think an unfair energy market could be a decent trade.

We need more equality of opportunity, not less.

Now if nuclear can be designed that works under the capitalist model great, but the model is literally to cut all possible costs in search of profit so I think everyone needs to go into that discussion clear eyed about how this all works from OG to Solar.

What about removing shareholders from the equation? Force all Nuke plants to be private companies who are not on the hook for keeping your 401k on the up and up. I could be wrong, but I think this could remove some of the profit motive problems we see.

 

[DouglasR]

Given current advancements in rocketry, do you guys think we will be able to dispose of nuclear waste by blasting it into outer space in the future?
When we become a type iii civilization would we regret doing this in the same way we regret dumping toxic waste in the ocean because at that point outer space will be what the ocean is to us today?

 

[DouglasR]

There’s only one way we’re gonna save this planet...
The most deadly reaction known to mankind.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What about removing shareholders from the equation? Force all Nuke plants to be private companies who are not on the hook for keeping your 401k on the up and up. I could be wrong, but I think this could remove some of the profit motive problems we see.

Practically I think it could work, I'm not sure if that gets the public on board with nuclear.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Given current advancements in rocketry, do you guys think we will be able to dispose of nuclear waste by blasting it into outer space in the future?
When we become a type iii civilization would we regret doing this in the same way we regret dumping toxic waste in the ocean because at that point outer space will be what the ocean is to us today?

My first thought was Sally Ride - glad she wasn’t radioactive .

 

[VikingsGuy]

Practically I think it could work, I'm not sure if that gets the public on board with nuclear.

Sadly, in our crony capitalist world there will need to be more money in it for private than solar or they will keep selling the lie of solar. Just look at EtOH - until Iowa farmers find a better gig, we are stuck with it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

OG development will still be there, regardless. Hundreds of thousands of wells will not disappear overnight because Nuke plants got built. I sure as hell hope the strategy to move away from fossil fuels is not forcing $10 per gallon gasoline on people either. Because we'll all be broke by the time new energy solutions spread their wings and become globally adopted by common people. Like many things, progress is typically slow and incremental.

2,173,000 active wells in my map right now so yeah, very fair point.

 

[BrentD]

This is a bizarre conversation, but i will throw out there that the US owned (owns) a bunch of reactors around the continent going back to the 50s. The 5 I know best ate on "The Bomb Plant", New Ellenton, SC. There are many others scattered about. Most are mothballed now. They were pretty successful at it, if you discount all the accumulated waste. So, yes, the .gov can do it. Really no reasonable doubt about that.

Personally, I hope to never see see nukes become the mainstream form of energy, but regardless, I don't hold out much hope for the species since the real problems are not energy but people multiplied by consumption. I see no interest in fixing the root problem. Everything else is just window dressing.

Carry on.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is a bizarre conversation, but i will throw put there that the US owned (owns) a bunch of reactors around the continent going back to the 50s. The 5 I know best ate on "The Bomb Plant", New Ellenton, SC. There are many others scattered about. Most are mothballed now. They were pretty successful at it, if you discount all the accumulated waste. So, yes, the .gov can do it. Really no reasonable doubt about that.

Personally, I hope to never see see nukes become the mainstream form of energy, but regardless, I don't hold out much hope for the species since the real problems are not energy but people multiplied by consumption. I see no interest in fixing the root problem. Everything else is just window dressing.

Carry on.

So you love crypto then

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Given current advancements in rocketry, do you guys think we will be able to dispose of nuclear waste by blasting it into outer space in the future?
When we become a type iii civilization would we regret doing this in the same way we regret dumping toxic waste in the ocean because at that point outer space will be what the ocean is to us today?

The fuel is in the form of long thin rods, I’ve never understood why we don’t dispose of them on site. Seems plausible to get a OG rig, drill a 18,000 ft hole then drop 8,000 feet of fuel into them and seal it up.

Fuels inside “the fence” and 2 miles below the water table.

 

[brocksw]

There’s only one way we’re gonna save this planet...
The most deadly reaction known to mankind.

There is no free lunch.