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

[brocksw]

Private companies try to make a profit too. They just don’t have to do the reporting to make the SEC happy. There is still someone behind them providing capital and that capital needs to make a return. This isn’t the case with a lot of the money the government spends, which means a both good and bad.

Sure. But that's kind of the point. Profit can be a good thing. It can be a good motivator, it can drive innovation, it can make goods and services less expensive, more efficient, and it can introduce competition. Some of these things or some combination of all of them in the right amounts are a net positive for anything that needs Development and innovation. I absolutely acknowledge there are two sides to that coin and capitalism can be borderline canabalistic in nature as well. That's why I wonder if removing the variable of mass ownership of a comoanies shares from a publicly traded market will improve that dynamic. Because the second a nuke company submits an IPO and gets into the public market, you are now introducing huge sums of capital from companies/hedge funds like Black Rock, vanguard, etc. Companies that have no actual first hand knowledge of running a nuke plant, safety, or energy regulations. Their only incentive is to make sure it's profitable, so they can get a return on their investment to support our 401ks, IRAs, and what have you.

So I guess in a way, if my idea is remotely correct (which it may not be), it would allow profit to still be an asset to the company, but it would remove some of the responsibility to shareholders retirement funds and allow the company to make good decisions based on their numbers, designs, long term future, and economics and not what's going to drive share prices up or allow them to spend a couple billion in stock buy backs.

Just a thought anyway...maybe I'm way off.

 

[WesternWyoming]

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. .

I'm sorry for your loss Ben. Your dad was a hero. This was also the story for many Southern Utahns and Navajos who worked in the uranium mines. You may have read TT Williams's "Refuge" that includes a very similar, personal story about her mom and aunt who were "downwinders."

The proposed nuclear power plant outside Kemmerer would presumably get uranium from the Lost Creek uranium mine near Wamsutter. The unique process there involves drilling a huge grid of deep holes in pristine sagebrush grasslands, injecting water into the holes, then withdrawing the water and separating out the uranium. So the water is then radioactive and needs to go somewhere. The miners who work there will be exposed to radiation. And no one knows how much water would be needed for the whole thing, again in the worst drought in centuries. What are we thinking?

 

[np307]

Glad to see this discussion hasn't really fundamentally changed since this was our high school debate topic in 08-09.

 

[noharleyyet]

You know who you are...

 

[SAJ-99]

So I guess in a way, if my idea is remotely correct (which it may not be), it would allow profit to still be an asset to the company, but it would remove some of the responsibility to shareholders retirement funds and allow the company to make good decisions based on their numbers, designs, long term future, and economics and not what's going to drive share prices up or allow them to spend a couple billion in stock buy backs.

Capital generally flows to where it is expected to make the highest return. It is expensive to build a nuclear plant. It doesn’t matter if the capital comes from Vanguard and Blackrock or Blackstone and Carlyle. Public or private - The lines are blurred in what those even are anymore.

The project that determined how to split the atom and release that energy was funded and run by the government. The government doesn’t have a profit motive. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it is better to allow capitalism to work. I think that is the debate here, not being a public company or private one.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Capital generally flows to where it is expected to make the highest return. It is expensive to build a nuclear plant. It doesn’t matter if the capital comes from Vanguard and Blackrock or Blackstone and Carlyle. Public or private - The lines are blurred in what those even are anymore.

The project that determined how to split the atom and release that energy was funded and run by the government. The government doesn’t have a profit motive. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it is better to allow capitalism to work. I think that is the debate here, not being a public company or private one.

While I tend to be a skeptic of govt., in these huge and high-risk endeavors it seems that some govt/private hybrid is typically necessary to git'er done.

 

[brocksw]

Capital generally flows to where it is expected to make the highest return. It is expensive to build a nuclear plant. It doesn’t matter if the capital comes from Vanguard and Blackrock or Blackstone and Carlyle. Public or private - The lines are blurred in what those even are anymore.

The project that determined how to split the atom and release that energy was funded and run by the government. The government doesn’t have a profit motive. Sometimes that is good, sometimes it is better to allow capitalism to work. I think that is the debate here, not being a public company or private one.

You might be right. Luckily, we might get the chance to find out. Terrapower in Wyoming is a privately owned Nuke project, not on the public market. My understanding is that it is a 4 billion dollar project. Half of that funding came from Terrapower (Bill Gates) and the other half came from the Federal government.

Edit: obviously an IPO may be offered sometime after construction is complete.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

While I tend to be a skeptic of govt., in these huge and high-risk endeavors it seems that some govt/private hybrid is typically necessary to git'er done.

I think after 40 comments that's what I'm trying to say. We are never going to be 100% nuclear, we are always going to be "all of the above" at least for the next 75+ years.

At the same time our demand for energy continues to increase. I think funding some grid "back bone" nuclear stations from the public coffers could be a good hedge for our future. The energy market is huge, there will be plenty of room for the efficiencies of capitalism.

 

[SAJ-99]

While I tend to be a skeptic of govt., in these huge and high-risk endeavors it seems that some govt/private hybrid is typically necessary to git'er done.

Exactly. The argument is always “the govt is inefficient” and “capitalism!” Blah blah blah. Then they complain about all the grants the government gives out and claim wasted money. They neglect to point out how government funding drove and sped up the development of a LOT of things. Railroads, electrical and phone grids, semiconductors, the internet, vaccines, etc. If big changes are needed to something that benefits society as a whole, government funds are a necessity in driving that development. A focus on return on capital tend to slow down the creation of new ideas. We just have to accept there will be failures. Solyndra is a perfect example.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Railroads

Of course, the dumbasses did leave us with the checkerboard . . . .

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Solyndra is a perfect example.

Solyndra is kinda funny big picture. The fed lost what 500 MM? From 2015-2021 the OG industry has lost $176B. A huge portion of those investors are pension plans/retirement funds/etc.

So Joe Schmo in Michigan via his federal taxes lost like .5 cents for Solyndra but like $50 through his pension plan via risky OG investments, but you don't hear folks in Michigan flaming XYZ in charge for investing in Chesapeake.

 

[Ben Lamb]

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?

Most of that was weapons grade uranium or it was destined for the nuclear reactor ships that were being developed (Uranium was stockpiled, IIRC) but weapons grade uranium is being reprocessed into fuel for reactors:

Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Weapons-grade uranium and plutonium is being made available for use as civil fuel. Highly-enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles met about 13% of world reactor requirements through to 2013.

world-nuclear.org

Power for U.S. From Russia’s Old Nuclear Weapons (Published 2009)

Fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, including Russian ones, generates about 10 percent of America’s electricity.

www.nytimes.com

It's different for plutonium, that's just being mothballed as old systems come off line. So effectively, the sacrifice was made for nill - at least until they can figure out what to do with it: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ld-plutonium-with-nowhere-to-go-idUSKBN1HR1KC

As @WesternWyoming said, the current mining practices still cause issues with waste and how it's treated.

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 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.

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.

FTR - I'm on the fence with Black Butte. If the water issue gets resolved for the feeder trib of the Smith, then it seems like a good project relative to economic sustainability in Meagher County. I'm certainly not on the pitchfork brigade for that mine. I'm sure this will generate some hate mail from friends.

Stillwater expansion - would have helped my family as my cousins worked there. Until he died on the job (equipment operator, heart attack).

I've said or done nothing on the boundary waters issue because I don't know enough about it.

Listening to both @Bambistew and the locals who were for or against, I was again on the fence, but tended towards protecting a species (salmon) that is in desperate need of conservation in order to simply ensure that there are spaces available for them in this world.

I've supported new coal mines, expanding coal mines in NE WY, especially as my cousins or their spouses worked there as well. Uncles too. I spend months researching the Two Elk Power Plant fiasco - it was one of my very first forrays into this world. Enough BS to make me want to work on wolf policy instead of regulatory issues.

There's been expansions and other new mines that have been fine in my mind, but forgive me for not having a detailed list.

So tell which mineral withdraws you've supported in favor of conservation outcomes in the mining world? Easy to point to the Wyoming Range. Harder to point to the withdrawls for grouse, right? Which environmental regulations that have been added are you in support of?

It's not a binary question, is it. It's a question about location, etc. Especially when you live in a state that has dealt with the continued impacts from past mining practices - like Opportunity/Anaconda, The Berkley Pit, Libby, Zortman/Landusky, etc.

And the guy I was referring too is not the Cheyenne guy, I don't know who that is at the moment. (Marion Loomis was a great advocate for mining when he ran the WMA - and he had a solid conservation ethic. He was incredibly helpful in passing the wildlife trust in 2005, and securing funds moving forward). The guy I'm talking about is currently working for the MT Chamber of Commerce.

The WA terminal wasn't just the elites of Washington shutting down a proposed construction project - it was locals who didn't want the pollution that comes along with those kinds of facilities. There's a mountain of evidence that shows industrial facilities like that create health issues, especially for lower economic folks and minorities. I don't know enough of the placement of the terminal in that regard, but from some of the reading I saw, there was enough concern by local physicians, clergy, etc in terms of their air and soil quality that they exercise their franchise as Americans and stood up for the air they breathe and the land the live on. Dastardly, I know.

MT & WY went to court on behalf of the private coal companies to force another state to live by their economic plan, and not that states. Seems anti-American to me to have one state try and force another to do something they don't like, right?

Meanwhile, the actual people who live with those developments are left swinging in the wind while the big boys play politics. I don't give two shits about the corporate overlords, but I do care about ensuring that miners have good paying jobs in their communities. Economies and fuel sources change. We can either be fossils, or change with that. Ensuring that workers have the tools to move into different jobs once an industry pulls out has been the goal since the last bust of the 80's, but it doesn't happen because energy/mining companies sell snake oil in state capitals and at the ballot box to keep their hold on power. No different than Ag lobby, County Commissioners, etc.

I get confused by folks in the industry who will gleefully throw out the canard of "mine it here where we have the best environmental standards" and then the immediate flip to "F'in' democrats and enviros have made these regulations and standards too hard to get anything permitted, so we need to streamline everything," and then let the sycophants and lobbyists write the new rules that would totally undermine those exact standards folks were previously cheering for.

Meanwhile, the mining companies are enjoying record profits even during pandemics: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/energy-utilities-resources/publications/mine.html

100% agree that there are elites on both sides of this issue that don't give a rip about the causalities they create. The balance on the scale tips on the industry side still. US Steel shut down outside of South Pass, and I remember Jeffery City when it had an open school. My uncle worked at all of those mines, and lived in Jeffery City for years until - the jobs went away. That wasn't enviros, that was Reaganomics. Vividly remember this as my uncle had to come live with us in Casper while my parents floated their rent in Lander to ensure that the kids had a home, and my uncle would be able to work at a Toyota dealership until he could find better work. That was US Steel selling off the mine to venture capitalists who sold off the pieces and screwed the whole community, while trying to blame the workers.

The oil crash of the 80's wasn't enviros, none of them have been - it was another bust that came because of the industries inability to reign it in. We lost our house in Casper because of that - defaulted on the loan and it took 10 years for my folks to get back to a spot where they could own a house again.

So I sympathize and agree with you - families shouldn't be the cost of doing business. Mine or yours.

Apologies to all for being crabby yesterday. I'm obviously still not over dad passing the way he did. I walked away from the computer, took the dogs for a walk and got my teeth cleaned. Feeling much better today. @Bambistew, @wllm, @mulecreek, @MTGomer, @VikingsGuy - I have noting but respect for you all, and think so very highly of all of you. Had a bad day, and for that you have my apologies.

 

[MTGomer]

You don’t have anything to apologize for, Ben.

Not sure if this can even be considered a compliment but you’re one of the better ones around here.

 

[Irrelevant]

@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?

Hanford homie

 

[brocksw]

I think funding some grid "back bone" nuclear stations from the public coffers could be a good hedge for our future.

That's already happening. It has always been the case for the nuclear industry. Just this year the Biden infrastructure bill allocated 6 billion to help unprofitable nuke plants (low LNG prices spell trouble for nuke plants).

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That's already happening. It has always been the case for the nuclear industry. Just this year the Biden infrastructure bill allocated 6 billion to help unprofitable nuke plants (low LNG prices spell trouble for nuke plants).

The portion of electricity provided by nuclear in our electricity production mix is declining though not a massive decline, prior to the WY project 1 new project started in 40+ years? The average age of our plants is 40 years, we had a new one come on line 6 years ago and before that 26 years ago.

A bunch of plants are shuttering in the near term for instance the Yankee generation of plants on the east coast.



Nuclear is now like 18.9% or US power, I think if your trying to transition off of fossil fuels it needs to be more like 50%+... and those plants take forever to build.

To your point about LNG will be interesting to see if prices of NG remain high and what effect that has on the competitiveness of nuclear et al.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

So tell which mineral withdraws you've supported in favor of conservation outcomes in the mining world? Easy to point to the Wyoming Range. Harder to point to the withdrawls for grouse, right? Which environmental regulations that have been added are you in support of?

For mining its been precious few. New World Mine in MT would be the last project I opposed. O&G would be several. Wyoming Range and NPL for sure opposed. I fully support the Clean Air Act along with its revisions in 77 and 90. Some aspects of Regional Haze have merit. Some are abused, IMO. Fully supported and participated in Wyoming State Greater Sage Grouse Protection plans including the 14 or 15 revision, 17 and 19.

And the guy I was referring too is not the Cheyenne guy, I don't know who that is at the moment. (Marion Loomis was a great advocate for mining when he ran the WMA - and he had a solid conservation ethic. He was incredibly helpful in passing the wildlife trust in 2005, and securing funds moving forward). The guy I'm talking about is currently working for the MT Chamber of Commerce.

I was referring to Jason B. He may have left CPE before the testimony you were referring to, not certain.

The WA terminal wasn't just the elites of Washington shutting down a proposed construction project - it was locals who didn't want the pollution that comes along with those kinds of facilities. There's a mountain of evidence that shows industrial facilities like that create health issues, especially for lower economic folks and minorities. I don't know enough of the placement of the terminal in that regard, but from some of the reading I saw, there was enough concern by local physicians, clergy, etc in terms of their air and soil quality that they exercise their franchise as Americans and stood up for the air they breathe and the land the live on. Dastardly, I know.

State of the art facility was planned. Similar facilities exist throughout the world. Modeled after the main coal port in Australia. Same trains running Soda Ash into a facility about a mile away. When I was on site there was a million tons of Pet Coke on the ground. On the ground, uncovered, open air stock pile. How many millions of tons of alumina ran into that facility prior to its new lease agreement. No opposition until the word coal was attached.

MT & WY went to court on behalf of the private coal companies to force another state to live by their economic plan, and not that states. Seems anti-American to me to have one state try and force another to do something they don't like, right?

Not certain I would say that fighting for upholding the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution is un-American. But alas Millennium, WY and MT lost. Canada did benefit though, so that's something.

Meanwhile, the actual people who live with those developments are left swinging in the wind while the big boys play politics. I don't give two shits about the corporate overlords, but I do care about ensuring that miners have good paying jobs in their communities. Economies and fuel sources change. We can either be fossils, or change with that. Ensuring that workers have the tools to move into different jobs once an industry pulls out has been the goal since the last bust of the 80's, but it doesn't happen because energy/mining companies sell snake oil in state capitals and at the ballot box to keep their hold on power. No different than Ag lobby, County Commissioners, etc.

We are in complete agreement on this. Attended an industry meet and greet for Liz Cheney during her first run at WY rep. I asked her how she was going to bring back the Wyo coal industry as a Rep from Wyo since it was state and local governments that were blocking export expansion and domestic use. She gave me the expected answer that prior Reps just weren't strong enough and not the fighter she was. After the meeting I asked Marion Loomis if he was buying her BS. His comment to me was even she knew she was full of it, but what was she supposed to say. The truth would be a good start.

I get confused by folks in the industry who will gleefully throw out the canard of "mine it here where we have the best environmental standards" and then the immediate flip to "F'in' democrats and enviros have made these regulations and standards too hard to get anything permitted, so we need to streamline everything," and then let the sycophants and lobbyists write the new rules that would totally undermine those exact standards folks were previously cheering for.

At this point I am fine with compiling with existing standards and regulations. But the current Administration is not. The current fiasco our mine is going through with the DOI has even other Federal Agencies scratching their heads.

Apologies to all for being crabby yesterday. I'm obviously still not over dad passing the way he did. I walked away from the computer, took the dogs for a walk and got my teeth cleaned. Feeling much better today. @Bambistew, @wllm, @mulecreek, @MTGomer, @VikingsGuy - I have noting but respect for you all, and think so very highly of all of you. Had a bad day, and for that you have my apologies.

Right back at you. You seem like a great guy. We just happen to disagree on a few things. No harm in that. No apologies needed. I went out and coached a baseball game. Vented my frustrations on the other team. We beat them 21-6.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Vented my frustrations on the other team. We beat them 21-6.

Nice work.

Happy to share a camp anyway. I'm mostly not grumpy in person.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Nice work.

Happy to share a camp anyway. I'm mostly not grumpy in person.

Ben is a hoot to have at hunt camp! #northshorecertified.

 

[Sytes]

Ben's well, Ben. A valuable staple of the conservation minded Hunt Talk community.
His gentle side comes to life via pottery. His staunch side comes out with an impassioned, lobbyist boot with a blue soul.
Enough of Ben! Unless you have another great vacation tip for marine life... Jen and I are heading back to Pulmo this early November. We're currently sitting on Champlain Lake (VT side), enjoying the sounds of frogs. 2135hrs.

*** 'nuff Ben banter.

Can we get back to China's positioned grasp of the resources U.S. will depend upon in a "green world" where the mining for U.S. is, Out of sight, out of mind...please?

Nuclear energy, where the byproduct advances further into the renewable world and China doesn't have it's boot on U.S. necks.