The headline news out of Virginia right now is that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Tea Party Republican, is on his way to running for governor. Mr. Cuccinelli is part of a Republican majority that has only grown stronger. After the November elections, the GOP now controls the governorship and (likely) both chambers of the state legislature. Progressives are bracing for the new GOP agenda.
On the wish list, apparently, is opening the state to uranium mining. The process of digging the gold of the nuclear industry out of the ground is a fraught proposition, with the potential for environmental degradation that starts with chemicals contaminating the ground water and goes all the way to radioactive tailings.
Yesterday a state-ordered study of a proposed uranium mine in Pittsylvania County predicted that the mine would add 1,000 jobs, $3.1 million in tax revenue and $135 million boost for the economy -- over 35 years. Environmentalists citing the same study tell the Washington Post that if things go wrong, the project could end up costing Virginia taxpayers more than $6.6 billion.
What are clean air and clean water and the security of a non-irradiated future worth, anyway? Up top, a short documentary about the project that's worth seeing, I think.
The mining company involved, Virginia Uranium, gave gifts to 140 members of the Virginia legislature last year, the WaPo reports. The top five giftees were Republican. For Virginia Uranium, the big hurdle is that the state hasn't got the regulations needed for uranium mining, so the company can't proceed. New rules are out for study by the National Academy of Sciences. Meanwhile, the politics play out. From D.C. Bureau:
“We’re not sitting still while the NAS study is going on. In January of 2012, we will have a bill in the state legislature that directs the Department of Mineral, Mines and Energy to develop the regulations of uranium mining.
When asked who would introduce the bill, Coles Jr. said, “We have a number of legislators who have offered.”
Bonus: Virginia Uranium posts a nice photo gallery of its bucolic holdings.
Leave a Comment:
Why would we need to mine uranium, new fuel for the old reactors? Is it a commodity that's sold on the world market?
Given the risks of mining generally, and of uranium mining and refining specifically, the benefit seems very small. Over 35 years = per year:
And for some reason, I suspect that is not an equal spread, it's probably either front loaded or back loaded. Like no tax revenue for the first or last 10 years, or something weird.
From a surface economic cost/benefit perspective, this doesn't seem like a good deal to me. And when I see something like that, I always wonder who benefits and why.
And here you go, an answer to why a uranium mine. Demand is up, supply is down, and a 40-50% profit margin predicted through 2020.
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.html
quick math: $20/pound profit x 77000 ton/year demand =~ $15 Billion
Lucky VA, they get .05% of that.
So in otherwords it's going to be a huge benefit to the private sector, but not a huge benefit to anyone else?
Well you know we could just be like the UAE John and have our own 20% poverty rate ;-)
Having traveled in UAE, Egypt, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and numerous other places, I would prefer us to not model our country or economy after these places.
The United States has a unique culture (truly!) and very likely requires a unique solution. It's too simple to say, "we should model after ..." German economic management has some pluses, so do other countries like Japan, China, and Brazil. But to adopt whole-sale their economic policies would not work in our country.
The worst part of this sort of discussion is that we seem to be incapable of producing and sustaining the type of leadership in government that is required to make the reforms that are necessary...even if we could agree on which reforms are best.
Back on topic...if I had a say, I would move the entire nuclear power industry in the U.S. to a thorium fuel cycle. The chemistry, waste product, and environmental facts boil down to "it's safer." Though it would necessarily have to be a part of a 50 year national energy strategy.
Oh well, I'm not in charge, so...
Uranium mining in Virginia sounds like a REALLY bad idea.
When did we have our last coal mine disaster?
How stupid would it be to pollute the entire Chesapeake bay?
Virginia water table is just below the surface of the ground, and uranium is incredibly toxic. Digging a gigantic hole through the water table to get at the uranium is cartoon stupid until we can do that with no risks. Mining is not like that right now.
Virginia uranium isn't going to hop out of the ground and walk away if we leave it right where it is for now. If it is really an asset, it will remain an asset if we leave it alone.
Uranium mining is way more safe in Arizona and New Mexico because there is very little rain.
We should reprocess nuclear weapons to use for domestic nuclear reactor fuel.
This deposit needs to be undeveloped until mining safety improves.
On the bright side (???) thousands of jobs will be created by the cleanup required after a disaster.
Notice how all these supporters of the project are being paid by VA Uranium. Unreal. I love living in VA, this mine site will be in my backyard, but I would seriously consider moving if this passes. Do you think they've taken into account the number of residents that will surely flee the area?
... and how would you/they flee the area? .... sell to people that don't mind basking in the glow of, er, ... money?
You all will be stuck.
@chloevedder can we come visit?
"chloevedder
Do you think they've taken into account the number of residents that will surely flee the area?"
They don't care because your safety is of no consequence when state officials are looking at a source of campaign donations. That is the basis for a lot of government actions as well as the attempts to privatize government services. Follow the money and that will better illuminate the issue.
Virginia is the most beautiful state I've ever lived in.
chloevedder - do you really believe that the rethugnikans care about you people?!?
Your drinking water is contaminated - it's your fault for living there and "not selling" - free markets!
You can't sell your home - again too bad - free markets!
Can't breathe the air - move - remember "FREE MARKET"!!
My tip to you sheeple is to STOP voting rethugnikans, they're decimating this nation, quickly!!
That part of Virginia is beautiful with abundent wildlife. I can see it now, taking my grandchildren fishing there. "Look grandpa this fish has three eyes!"
Are you a herpetologist? I've got a thing for salamanders.
No way! I want those three eyed fish somewhere else - like South Africa or China. When it comes to mining and drilling, the U.S. is the 1% - we get "richer" by getting all the output of the mines and oil rigs and the other 99% get screwed environmentally.
I thought herpetologists only studied snakes? Dang you Laura Conway for making me rethink things I'd already thunk!
Dear Rachel Maddow,
THANK YOU for beginning to expose this stealthy heavily funded effort to overturn an existing moratorium in Virginia. This moratorium was put in place with ALL the commonwealth's citizens in mind and the science STILL hasn't changed. Please continue to follow this story closely and report on it. There has been little to no reporting on it in the Hampton Roads area which could be devastatingly impacted if the moratorium is lifted.
Sincerely,
Patrick Bradley
Extracting natural resources is difficult, costly and environmentally risky. Although we make up a small percentage of the worlds population, we use a much larger percentage of the planet's resources. I do believe we have to put some "skin" in the game if we want to use uranium, oil, coal and other "goods" of the planet. I think we sometimes have a "not in my backyard mentality" and have no real concern about the people that live on the other side of the world where we may be getting a precious resource. We want to use it (uranium, oil, etc) but we don't want to get dirty getting it. Personally, I do not think more or less about Virginia (or Illinois or Oregon) versus some small state or region in another part of the world when it comes to environmental issues. Whether we pollute/destroy a part of earth here or over there, it is still destroying A part of the earth. We are one of the biggest consumers of the earth's riches and I just think we should be doing some of the heavy lifting when it comes to getting it.
Also, I would rather have OUR safety/environmental standards - which may not be perfect - over little or no regulations somewhere else that would do much more damage to this rock we call Earth.
What a communist you are skip! ;-)
This, for me, is why I would argue we should be pushing to slowly wind down our oil, gas, uranium dependencies and drive up our dependencies on other forms of energy like solar and wind. But in either case it would require that the US as a whole take a "skin in the game" mentality. Right now it seems to be that we're really pretty content on keeping things the same, but we'll pretend to care about clean energy and all that if it helps give good PR to oil companies (or gas companies or nuclear companies). Neither of which ends up w/ a healthier environment or better sustainability here in the US.
Well that's a start comrade Mouzer :).
I do not realistically see the American public doing a huge mindset shift to get off these "products" anytime soon. Besides it will take some time to have wind and solar at enough capacity to fuel our voracious energy appetite - from air conditioners to hair dryers to PCs (even laptops have to be plugged in every day or so) to cable TV/video games, etc. And I cannot think of an alternative energy source for the thousands and thousands of 18-wheelers out there that bring all our toys/devices and things like clothes and food to our neighborhoods. To me that is a really big sticking point on the oil side of this resource "crisis".
The first thing we have to do is to admit that we are the resource pigs of the planet...
Oh no I am in complete agreement w/ you. I was trying to emphasize that it would have to be a slow wind down on one side (oil, gas, nuclear) and a ramp up on the other (solar, wind) because otherwise it would not work. This would have to be a process taking place over a decade or more and it would require a HUGE investment from out government. Everything would have to change: even the basic wiring we use on our collective energy grid would have to change. On the plus side this would put people back to work (at least temporarily) as every state and every major city in the United States would have a lot of construction to do (re: infrastructure). But on the other hand it would be a costly procedure and we could only do it as a nation if we set our minds to it and stuck w/ it like we did the space race. In my mind, and perhaps I am being too pessimistic here, in order for us to completely get off oil and gas it would take that type of huge government and citizen devotion like the space race or the world wars. I could not see it being done w/o this.
I will give you that I do not know how we would power our aircraft carriers, submarines, or shipping vessels w/o diesel fuel or nuclear power. I am also at a loss as to how our planes would fly. However let's say that we had to accept that in these situations (at least for now until something better is invented) we'd have to stick to oil use. That is something we could easily, and w/ very little environmental detriment, continue to produce here at home, no? It seems to me that even if we accepted that there'd still be 10-20% of the market using oil and gas, that'd still mean we could "clean up" the other 80-90%. And that would be a huge improvement in my mind.
But I do not disagree that in order to embark on such an ambitious goal every American citizen would have to be prepared to participate in that endeavor. We are addicted to our way of living and we do not want to be inconvenienced by change. W/o our society willing to back up such measures then I'd have to agree that the best we can hope for is natural gas, oil drilling, and nuclear energy that we produce and sell here at home while employing American workers and paying out to American companies. At the least this would require huge changes in our current policies so that we were no longer allowing oil companies to drill on our soil (or off our shores), but then sell that commodity to markets outside the US. It would also mean changing the way we do subsidies and the way we give tax credits to oil and gas companies. Legislatively you'd think this would be a far more feasible option- and I'd readily support such measures- but even something like this seems out of reach atm.
And yes I recognize that I am using a laptop right now in order to deride the overuse of energy in the US so please don't bother pointing that out ;-). In my case if I could afford to have a home I would make it completely energy independent. I'd go solar panels and all....just, ya know, need that spare 200k to get started ;-).
And yes I recognize that I am using a laptop right now in order to deride the overuse of energy in the US
I am using a nuclear powered desktop right Mouzer - so I need that uranium!! :)
Skip the mad scientist!!! ;-)
The Republicans energy plan as far as as I can tell is to drill baby drill and build more nuclear power plants. Not much support for alternatives. (from my perspective they always somehow pick the very worst things). You are not going to get a transition to alternative fuels with them in control the House or the Senate. And remember to have control of the Senate you must be able to produce more than 60 votes.
pphpht....this country hasn't had a national energy plan or strategy for 50 years, if ever.
Blame who ever you want to, Republicans, Democrats, Big Oil, the markets...plenty of blame to go around.
Well there is truth to both of your posts. Republicans have drawn a hard line in the sand regarding whether or not they'll consider different energies, but the reality is neither party has really pushed that much for a new plan. This is part of why I made my snarky remark about putting a couple billion towards green energy in order to make it look like someone cares. Democrats do it and the oil, gas, and nuclear lobbies do it. It's not a real attempt at energy change; it's an intentionally half-assed measure designed to keep those who are in power in power (both legislatively and corporately) while attempting to doop the most gullible among us. I disagree that we have to be an oil, gas, and/or nuclear energy dependent nation (as I explained above), but I do believe that as long as no one is willing to change (whether it be us as individual citizens, our politicians, or our companies) that we inevitably will remain an oil, gas, and nuclear power dependent nation. And I think the legislation is specifically designed for that outcome. To that extent I don't think you can singularly lay the blame at Republican's feet (although sure they are not abashed about their ideals). Democrats have done this too and we the American people have done this both as consumers and as an electorate. But if we could get a Congress filled w/ primarily progressives (whether they be Democrats or Republicans) and w/ people who would be willing to work together and to push for new legislation, then we could have a future. And yes, I do not think our current crop of Republicans will do this. But I also don't think our current Democrats will either.
There was a direct contradiction in the presentation. Either you can remove the harmful things (radiation) from water, or you can't. I very much doubt that you can.
You can't remove radiation from water. Las Vegas is sitting on a huge reservoir of water, but they cannot use it because of radiation from the 1950's atomic tests.
Here's an answer you don't hear every day: I heard one of these fund mgrs (pretty well known-has juice) talking about making a bet on a co. called CCJ- a uranium miner. This guy was very confident, and I couldn't get my head around why. Not to say this has anything to do with it, but I hate coincidence. I haven't done any work on it, but again....
If you have ever eaten a strawberry you should read this.
California has had the worst nuclear disasters in the US.
Government employees kept this pollution secret for about 20 years.
Ventura county is the largest strawberry producer in the US.
The leukemia and lymphoma rate in LA county and Ventura county are several times higher than the rest of the country.
People need to consider this kind of thing before digging up more uranium.