< They also demonstrate that mining companies are not oblivious to broader environmental issues, and are willing to make changes in the direction of renewables, especially if there is a motivation to cut costs. >

Entirely if there is a motivation to cut costs. Any environmental cudos that these companies might receive would be entirely incidental… wouldn’t it?

That’s not to condemn them for their actions or motives, it is just to be realistic about the true motivation here.

Very unlikely indeed!
But particularly, nowhere do you need reliable power, more than a mine!
Thorium would be my first choice; given it is cheaper and indeed, more reliable than coal fired power, which can and was closed by a extended coal strike!
I realize it'd be just a little incongruous, powering a coal mine, with a thorium reactor!
However, it'd be more incongruous, powering them with wind or solar.
But particularly, an underground operation, and for very obvious energy security reasons, not to mention the almost prohibitive cost! And sometimes,cost as a factor, is the difference between a viable mine, or ruin that not only costs the shareholders, but hundreds of dislocated mining families as well!.
A 50 MW thorium reactor, would not only service the mine, but the local town as well, and for a lot less than almost any other option, save converting biological waste to energy!
The only thing that stands in the way of cheaper than coal, thorium power, is rank political intransigence; and or, thorium v uranium confusion. The first has no weapons spin-off whatsoever, the latter does!
We invented the pulsed laser uranium enrichment process, and could have used it as a huge lever, to sell enriched, power grade only, uranium to the world!
But thanks to, I believe, the most asinine decision by a politician ever, in living memory; one Kevin Rudd, gave it to the USA!
Apparent mindless stupidity does't often render me speechless; but, at the time, that decision did!
Now our only option is to sell raw yellow cake to the world, and rely on their word, they will not enrich it to weapons grade!
Stupidity, followed by more of the same?
And just not selling it is just not an sound economic option!
That said, I wouldn't find powering an uranium mine, with a thorium reactor, the least bit controversial!
Rhrosty.

Mining companies will do almost anything to buy a bit of good publicity, & pacify some greenie opposition.

They above all know the inefficiency of alternative generation, but if they can get the ratbag protest brigade to go target one of their competitors & leave them alone, it is money well spent

You'd have to think that green PR + subsidies have a lot to do with it. Mines typically operate around the clock so realtime solar won't help at night. What happens in daytime when cloud passes over? Could be like those motor sailing boats with a big diesel where the sails are mostly for show.

Inadequate power supply to mines is a serious problem; for example the Olympic Dam mine in SA was to get a 250 MW gas fired power station onsite and a desalination plant on the coast with water pumped through a 320 km pipeline. All cancelled as too costly. Have solar panels by all means but I think a small nuclear power station in modules of say 45MW is more reliable albeit expensive. Power output could be switched to desalination when the mine and crusher are idled.

I agree, Taswegian.

>>...a small nuclear power station in modules of say 45MW is more reliable albeit expensive<<

It is extremely sad that we cannot have an intelligent, informed discussion on the use of nuclear power in this country. So much of our political discourse is circumscribed by short-term political expediency that any such proposal would be categorized as "courageous".

As in "a courageous decision, Minister".