Bill Clinton shut down uranium mining and encouraged the Russians to dump uranium here.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Uranium prices have shot up by as much as 40% since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
With nuclear power providing about a fifth of our energy, this is another blow for Americans.
Unfortunately our nuclear power plants are dependent on uranium imports from Russia and countries in its sphere of influence because our domestic mining industry was suppressed.
In December 2016, on his way out the door, Barack Obama announced that he was inventing the Bears Ears “National Monument” on over a million acres of land. While California environmentalists celebrated, tens of thousands of locals bitterly protested the move.
Billboards and stickers reading #RescindBearsEars were plastered across Utah towns in the area that expected catastrophic consequences from the destruction of their livelihoods.
Among these was uranium mining.
A uranium mine in the area has the potential to yield 500,000 pounds of uranium. Miners warned that the Bears Ears monument would force us to rely more heavily on foreign uranium.
But the Democrats, still busy blaming their election defeat on some sort of phantom Russian-Trump conspiracy, did not see any problem with making America dependent on Russia.
The Trump administration did not rescind Obama’s power grab, but did shrink the monument by over 80%. It was the latest battle in a long running war between Democrats looking to shut down mining in general and uranium mining specifically, and Republicans limiting, but not undoing the damage done by their abusive environmental regulations and power plays.
The Clinton administration’s euphemistic “mining reform” push already devastated mining in America. As the Wall Street Journal noted at the time, mining firms were “leaving the United States with the blessings, if not open encouragement, of the Clinton administration.”
And with the blessing of the Clintons, America became dependent on foreign resources.
In 1980, the United States had produced over 40 million pounds of uranium, but under the Clinton administration that number stood at less than 5 million. Now it’s well below a million.
Despite efforts by environmentalists to shut down nuclear power plants and leave Americans reliant on expensive and unreliable Chinese solar panels and other scam green investment vehicles for their donor base, our nuclear plants, which unlike wind and solar are capable of delivering a reliable power supply, still went on needing uranium.
As domestic production virtually vanished, imports skyrocketed. Some 91% of enriched uranium used in nuclear power plants is imported from other countries. While Canada is a leading source of uranium imports, our largest source of uranium remains Russia combined with countries in its sphere of influence like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. In 2020, we bought about 11 million pounds of Canadian uranium, 8 million pounds of Russian uranium, around 11 million pounds of Kazakh uranium, and about 4 million pounds of Uzbek uranium.
Putin recently intervened militarily to protect Kazakhstan’s leader from opposition protests.
Kazatomprom, the world’s largest uranium producer, had partnered with Uranium One, a Canadian uranium mining company that the Clintons colluded to sell to the Russians (more recently, Uranium One was resold to an American company) and has close ties to the nuclear industries in Russia and China. Communist China is pushing aggressively into Kazakhstan to feed its growing appetite for nuclear power. And that will also limit our nuclear power options.
America has plenty of uranium but, like so many other resources, miners aren’t allowed to go and get it. That’s why we depend on China and the Taliban for the rare earths that go into our microchips, on Mexico for copper, and on Russia and its allies for our uranium.
America’s uranium industry used to provide tens of thousands of jobs. Now hardly any.
As Bill Clinton went to war against miners, the mayor of Moab, Utah pleaded for respite.
“We called ourselves the uranium capital of the world. It provided us with a high standard of living,” he said. “While we’re proud of the tourism base, it cannot provide the standard of living that mining did. Moab needs the jobs that mining will create. It could come back. We still have plenty of low-grade uranium ore throughout the area. It will never come back if they pass this bill.”
California environmentalists have been smugly lecturing locals in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that they ought to forget about having good jobs that can provide them with a middle class life, and just be there to bus their tables and sell them keychains when they go on vacations.
Much as solar panel jobs are no substitute for coal jobs, tourism work is no substitute for mining.
While the Clinton administration didn’t manage to pass its preferred bill destroying the mining industry, it used administrative regulations to do as much damage as possible. In the last days of the corrupt administration, Bill Clinton issued a series of “midnight regulations” attacking American industries. And the mining industry was a major target of the administration.
While the Clintons were cheerfully suppressing mining in America, Putin was on the make.
When the Clintons later colluded to allow Uranium One to be sold to Russia, Putin held a meeting with the head of state-owned Rosatom. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” he told Putin.
When Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One for delivering a speech, he was personally thanked by Vladimir Putin.
This was only the final betrayal after the Megatons to Megawatts program signed by Bill Clinton which claimed that it would end the threat of nuclear war by taking retired Russian nuclear warheads and turning them into “cheap energy” for American nuclear power plants.
The deal, hailed at the time as a scheme to save the world, actually freed Russia from having to maintain its older nuclear weapons and instead enabled it to invest in next generation weapons, while dumping a great deal of “cheap” uranium that devastated the American mining industry.
At its peak, Russian uranium provided a third of our fuel. Bill Clinton not only went to war against domestic mining, but colluded to enable the Russians to dump cheap uranium here.
The Russians didn’t just “dump” uranium to suppress our domestic mining industry, they did it with the blessing and support of the Clinton administration and some of its corrupt allies.
Once again, the Americans thought that they had put one over the Russians, but it was the Russians who had the last laugh as we paid them to upgrade their nuclear weapons while becoming dependent on Russian uranium. As the saying occasionally attributed to Lenin goes,
“The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Megatons to Megawatts wrapped up during the Obama administration. In 2018, Putin unveiled a new generation of nuclear weapons. Experts now worry that they may be used in Ukraine. And America has become dependent on uranium from Russia and from former Soviet republics.
We could revive our domestic uranium mining industry, but to do that we would have to dismantle the entire system of government and environmentalist lawfare that has been steadily destroying our domestic industries, including mining, under the guise of saving the planet.
The Left claims to want to stop Putin even while making America and Europe dependent on him. Putin wants to leverage control over energy supply chains. If Democrats really want to stop him, then they need to throw out the corrupt Clinton policies, and start drilling and mining again.
Frank Anderson says
If you look at history, it is true a Democrat made the US dependent of foreign uranium. However, the sale of Uranium interests has very little to do with the problem. In the early 1970’s the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project was started. A breeder reactor uses the fact that the fission of 1 atom of Uranium 235 produces on the average 2.8 neutrons. As long as 1 of those neutrons hits another atom of U235, or Plutonium 239, the chain reaction continues at a controllable level. In a breeder reactor the plan is that 1 of the other 1.8 neutrons hits an atom of U-238 which then becomes an atom of Plutonium 239, which can fission like U-235. With proper design breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume. France has been doing this for decades, at a high cost.
OUR “President” at the relevant time was a “NEW Que lar” engineer. He could not pronounce correctly the word nuclear. But he was so terrified at the prospect of nuclear bomb proliferation that he ordered the cancellation of the CRBR AND the related reprocessing of all spent nuclear fuel. His example was not followed anywhere except the US which continues its foolish abstention. And every country that wants bombs has them.
More than 95 percent of the mass of spent nuclear fuel can be recovered and used again in new fuel rods and assemblies. EVERY other country which uses nuclear generation reprocesses spent fuel for 2 reasons. Reprocessing reduces the amount of high-level waste to about 2 cubic meters per year for each reactor; and having far shorter periods of being dangerous. Reprocessing also reduces the amount of uranium needed to maintain the supply.
There is no free lunch. Every choice has costs along with benefits. Unless those costs and benefits are compared honestly, free of opinions and wishes, the decisions are as useless and damaging as no decision (“ALL OF THE ABOVE”), We can thank Jimma Carter one more time for continuing to mislead and damage our country.
Infidel says
Nuclear is the cleanest energy, and actually the solution to the ‘carbon’ pollution. If we had enough of them, properly located, we could power our entire grid w/o coal or oil, and then, charging all those electric cars would make sense. Also, the 4th generation nuclear plants don’t have the sort of radioactive waste that the first 2 generations did. Plus we would have to mine for those rare earths for those batteries, rather than source them from China, which is even stupider than buying oil from Russia
However, don’t expect the environmental wacko left to see things this way: mention the word ‘nuclear’ to them, and all they think of are Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl (which could become another pollution zone if the Russians damage the sealed remnants of that plant) and Fukushima. They are as dumb as rocks
Frank Anderson says
Infidel, my adopted father would read to me in the early 1950’s the LIE that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter”. I have worked as a co-op student, engineer, supervisor, lawyer and contract negotiator for utilities that have nuclear plants. YOU DO NOT KNOW what you are talking about when it comes to COST.
Nuclear plants that were supposed to cost less than a billion dollars each, now cost more than 8. They take far longer to build than other plants; and have a fixed short life. It costs twice as much and takes twice as long to decommission a plant as it does to build it. My post-college employers had 6 plants, (4 operating, 1 cancelled and 1 being decommissioned for decades). Nuclear power costs about 3 to 4 times coal or natural gas, unless you put on absurd carbon capture devices, which double their cost. Nuclear is about a third the cost of wind and solar for comparable availability.
Running a competitive industrial economy with nuclear power is highly dubious, if not absurdly impossible. There is no free lunch. Unless you look at the total cost of ownership and consider every element of cost from start to finish, the decisions made will be wasteful and self-defeating. Are you prepared to see your electric bill at least triple for nuclear power and double again for wind and solar? There are 8766 hours in a year. How many of them are you prepared to be in the dark?
gravenimage says
Frank, I think it makes sense that we have access to domestically mined uranium.
Whether nuclear power is some sort of panacea is a different matter–as you note, it may well not be.
OT–I saw the last of 1776 yesterday. I really enjoyed it, and it has a salient message for our own age. Thank you so much for recommending it.
Frank Anderson says
GI, Boiling water plants use 150 tons of fuel at a time. Pressurized water plants use 75 tons. When I handled nuclear contracts plants ran 18 months and shut down 3 months to “shuffle” the fuel. So, out of every 7 years, they ran 6. As I recall, subject to much better information than my memory, about half of the plants were boiling and half pressurized. So, a ballpark of 112.5 tons of fuel for each reactor is replaced every 7 years, or 16 tons per year per reactor. The US has had about 100 reactors which have operated about 30 years each, That gives an estimate of spent fuel in the order, (highly approximate) of nearly 50,000 TONS of uranium and plutonium sitting in cooling ponds, already mined, purified and ready to be reprocessed, to produce about 47,500 TONS of new fuel assemblies. That is the equivalent of many hundreds of thousands of tons of uranium ore sitting right now waiting for disposal instead of re-cycling. And that spent fuel is in the US right now.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that information, Frank. Do you know why nuclear plants are not recycling their uranium?
Frank Anderson says
That is the sole decision of former “president” Jimmy Carter which nobody has reversed. The estimate of 50,000 TONS of refined, purified, uranium oxide and several hundred TONS of fissionable Plutonium included is a fair and honest estimate. You would have to mine and process hundreds of thousands of tons of ore to obtain that much metal. If you wonder why I have such discomfort with Carter, this is the reason.
You can ballpark some numbers this way. 50,000 tons started as 97 percent non-fissionable U-238 and 3 percent fissionable U-235. Less than 5 percent of the 50,000 tons becomes waste products from fission. BUT, during the 6 years a rod spends in the reactor, about 1.5 percent is transmuted into Plutonium, which fissions just like U-235. 1.5 percent of 50,000 TONS is a lot of Plutonium. It can be used in fuel or bombs. Carter wanted to set an example. He did, which nobody followed.
BTW, thorium looks good until you know more. Thorium 232 MUST be transmuted into Uranium 233 to be fissionable. Unlike the U-238 to Pu-239 transmutation, which happens extremely quickly, the Thorium 233 to Uranium 233 takes about a month. So it takes 2 neutrons to convert and then fission an atom of Th232. Since fission only produces an average of 2.8 neutrons per atom, the process is HARD to make economical. Just because an idea is popular with less informed people does not mean it has merit.
Infidel says
Frank
I re-read what I wrote, and I wrote nothing about ‘cheap’. What I wrote was about ‘clean’ energy, which is unarguable, since nuclear – be it fission or fusion – doesn’t let gases like CO2, SO2 into the atmosphere. While nuclear does have radiation, that can be contained w/ lead and thick concrete chambers, if I recall right
It may not be much of an issue in the US, but for the countries that we (rightly) complain are getting off the Paris agreement easy – China, India and so on, those countries going nuclear would be a godsend as far as pollution goes. And thorium has far fewer problems than uranium or plutonium
Frank Anderson says
Cost is important. Economies will be crushed when costs are ignored. Watch and see.
There was a report produced in the early 1970’s in response to the Oil Embargo that to my knowledge was the first AND LAST to address honestly costs and benefits of alternative energy options. I believe (and always welcome better information) that it was produced by FERC by accountants and engineers who looked the way all of us should look before spending trillions and killing our future.
I know what I do from working in the office when Grand Gulf Unit 2 was cancelled because of outrageous cost. I also worked for Grand Gulf 1, Waterford 3, Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 and Humboldt Bay 1. Nuclear power will destroy the economy of the states which employ it. Look at Georgia and South Carolina who took the bait on Obama’s nuclear deal. Those 4 units are well over 8 BILLION dollars each, years behind schedule and the general contractor bankrupted rather than complete the contract.
There is no free lunch.
Frank Anderson says
Additional: For a really good example of what happens when a utility fails to control costs, take a look at Cajun Electric Cooperative of Baton Rouge Louisiana in the 1970’s and 80’s. Because of a completely bogus Power Requirements Study conducted by a Rural Electrification Administration engineer, Cajun bought and built FOUR times the generating capacity it needed. It also signed a take-or-pay coal contract for far more coal than it could use, leading to train loads of coal being dumped in the swamp in hope of someday recovering and burning it. Cajun’s directors wanted to bankrupt to escape the crushing debt. But REA removed and replaced the board with more “pliable” people. The engineer who conducted the bogus study was “promoted” to be the field supervisor for REA. The rates were so high and non-competitive that anyone with a choice either left or never came to the service territory. This made many headlines.
Frank Anderson says
Two more examples of “Be careful what you ask for: You may get it!”
Alabama Electric Cooperative sued Alabama Power to force the sale of a share of a nuclear plant. They won only to see the original cost numbers become meaningless, and still not include the cost of decommissioning which will begin soon.
South Mississippi Electric Power Association was invited to buy 10 percent of 2 working units of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station. When the cost of the second unit was found to be about 6 times higher than coal or gas (before gas became cheap) the second unit was cancelled. They expected to buy 10 percent of 2 working units for 400 million dollars. They got 10 percent of 1 working unit for 750 million, and still face decommissioning costs.
By German experience, it takes twice as long and costs twice as much to decommission a nuclear plant as to build it. The only component that renders the plant dangerous is the reactor vessel, for which no plan is made to install a second while the first is removed. That means the whole plant is lost instead of the single piece. Coal and gas fired plants can be useful for in the order of 100 years with normal maintenance. Nuclear plants are limited to 40-60 years.
There is no free lunch.
James Lincoln says
Frank Anderson,
Thank you for sharing your expertise regarding nuclear power plants. Yes, very expensive when looking at the *total* cost of nuclear power all the way from building the plant to decommissioning.
That being said, what part / percent, etc., do you think that nuclear power should play in the energy mix (coal, natural gas, renewables) in the United States?
Frank Anderson says
James, I think all options should be considered with COLD Informed, competent and detailed analysis. The least expensive option whatever it is should be the favored choice. It is insane to base critical decisions on preferences and emotions. I have seen in person the wild mismanagement of many nuclear plants by those in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars of money that has no importance to those handling it, except to create opportunities for some to line their own pockets. Allowing totally ignorant amateurs and willfully ignorant “All of the above” to make decisions that will cripple and likely kill an economy is as self-destructive as any behavior that I can imagine.
Would you want a doctor to remove your appendix because he likes the operation and what it pays?
James Lincoln says
Frank Anderson,
Thank you for your reply.
Very best wishes.
gravenimage says
How Democrats Made America Dependent on Russian Uranium
……………
Yes–this is especially insane given that the US has uranium–it just does not allow anyone to mine it.