Trump Wants to Save Big Coal with $11 Billion Annual Bailout
Source: Newsweek Magazine
BY NICOLE GOODKIND ON 11/2/17 AT 3:31 PM
The Trump administration wants to force electricity customers to pay for a $10.6-billion annual bailout of the failing coal and nuclear industries through surcharges on their monthly energy bills.
The quietly announced proposal would require ratepayers to fully underwrite a new mandate that coal and nuclear plants hold a minimum of 90-days' worth of fuel on-site under the false premise of providing security from power outages. But critics say the subsidy is just a massive government-mandated transfer of wealth from consumers to coal and nuclear companies.
"This is like changing the energy system from capitalism to communismand the U.S. government want to do it within the next two weeks," said Michael Krancer, principal at energy policy firm Silent Majority Strategies.
The Department of Energy says the fuel stockpiles are necessary to prevent power outages in times of supply stress such as recent natural disasters. But only 0.00007% of all major power disruptions over the past five years were due to fuel supply problems, John Larsen, a power sector researcher for the Rhodium Group, told Newsweek.
Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/trump-coal-taxpayers-energy-nuclear-695346
Freethinker65
(10,023 posts)Ray Bruns
(4,098 posts)not picking winners and losers? Oh, yeah. That was when the black guy was in the oval office.
iluvtennis
(19,862 posts)voted for him, let them pay for the bailout...I should not be be unfairly disadvantaged because ppl don't want to admit the coal industry is a nearly dead industry and it's time to retrain.
atreides1
(16,079 posts)Because we should all bail out the dying coal industry, to let Trump keep a promise that he made!!!
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Lack of fuel stockpiles is not the issue causing P.R. to have 85% of the people to still not have power so having a 90 day stockpile would not impact the availability of power. I also suspect that most coal fired power plants lack the physical property to store this extra coal. Lastly, this surcharge for electricity customers would apply to renewable energy like wind and solar too. Lose-lose-lose.
xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)Puerto Rico? An island bathed in sunlight? Please tell me this is not true
TexasBushwhacker
(20,196 posts)dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Nothing in the article addresses that.
atreides1
(16,079 posts)It helps Murray Energy, which if it should go bankrupt would be holding the bag for $11 billion dollars in pension and other payments!
Seems a little strange that the bailout comes up to $10.6 billion...and from the looks of things it's only the coal industry that will be gaining this windfall at taxpayer expense!
All this so Trump can keep a promise he no right to make!!!
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)iluvtennis
(19,862 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)NickB79
(19,253 posts)"A 90 day fuel reserve? Hell, we got a billion YEAR reserve up there (points to the sky)."
bluestarone
(16,972 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)$11,000,000,000 divided by 122 million tax payers.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)TomCADem
(17,387 posts)...and soon you get a tax credit for rolling coal.
area51
(11,910 posts)it's tax & spend republicans.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,492 posts)Anyone that's worked in coal-fired plants knows they keep massive reserves on-site in piles and bunkers. I've never heard of a plant running out of coal. Not experienced in the field, but I'm sure nukes keep plenty of reserve fuel rods around, too.
Many plants may not even have the storage space for a 90-day reserve.
It also does not make sense it would be an annual cost because once the extra reserve is on-site, there's little or no extra cost thereafter. It's like keeping an extra package of toilet paper in the house.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)He* is a complete f*cking embodiment of degenerate "republican family values."
* Comrade Casino, republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief