Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hatrack

(59,587 posts)
Sun Dec 10, 2017, 10:31 AM Dec 2017

Shitstain's Visionary Energy Plan: Raise Rates To Subsidize Dying Coal & Nuclear Plants, Big Donors

EDIT

The biggest champion of the Bruce Mansfield generating plant in Shippingport is Robert E. Murray, chief executive officer of Murray Energy Corp. The coal miner is a prime supplier to the plant’s owner, FirstEnergy Corp., and both companies have lobbied the Trump administration for an industry bailout. It would raise rates for electricity customers to pay struggling coal and nuclear plants to stay open. Regulators Thursday proposed a 30-day extension to announce details of the plan, which had been expected Monday.

The proposal could determine the future of Bruce Mansfield. The energy generator has provided jobs and revenue to Coombs’ hometown, population 210. It’s brought problems, too, from ash that falls like gentle snow to a leaking waste pool just up the road. Now, the plant is running at just 36 percent capacity this year, half of what it did in 2014, and employment is down to 350 thanks to cheaper and cleaner natural gas. FirstEnergy has considered selling it as the unit that runs Bruce Mansfield flirts with bankruptcy.

In this cluster of Ohio River towns a half-hour north of Pittsburgh, it’s easy to find people who share Coombs’ ambivalence toward Bruce Mansfield’s fate. The jobs are important, sure, but the region has become the country’s leading producer of natural gas, thanks to the fracking boom in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations. To locals, those jobs are just as good if not better than working in coal. “Why not use what we’ve got lots of?’’ said Kathryn Gregory, a nearby resident whose son works in natural gas. “We’ve got lots of gas.” “It’s a transition,’’ said her husband, Austin. “If folks lose their jobs at Shippingport, hopefully they’d be able to find work in the gas industry.’’
Bailout Backers

Backers of the government’s proposed bailout say it would add “resilience” to America’s electric grid by rewarding coal and nuclear plants for storing fuel on site. Murray Energy wrote a letter to the Trump administration requesting emergency aid for Bruce Mansfield and other FirstEnergy plants, saying their failure could wipe out 6,500 mining jobs. He’s hailed the proposal being considered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Opponents call the proposed bailout a solution in search of a problem, saying there’s plenty of ways to back up the country’s grid without costing ratepayers billions of dollars a year. While the subsidies are being hashed out in Washington, folks in Shippingport and surrounding towns say they feel hopelessly out of the loop.

EDIT

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-08/trump-bailout-set-for-coal-plant-with-politically-connected-fan

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Shitstain's Visionary Energy Plan: Raise Rates To Subsidize Dying Coal & Nuclear Plants, Big Donors (Original Post) hatrack Dec 2017 OP
"Cheaper and Cleaner "Natural" Gas?" NNadir Dec 2017 #1

NNadir

(33,523 posts)
1. "Cheaper and Cleaner "Natural" Gas?"
Wed Dec 13, 2017, 11:42 PM
Dec 2017

Says who? A Bloomberg reporter?

One wonders if he qualifies as a journalist by having never taken a science or engineering course in his life.

The "cheaper and cleaner" natural gas that this generation is burning with abandon will not be cheap and clean for all future generations who will live with the consequences of the clean up of this myopic and selfish decision.

If external costs were counted - they're not - "cheap and clean" "natural" gas wouldn't be cheap and clean. A gas plant releases 500 g of carbon dioxide for every kwh of electricity produced.

The scientific literature is oozing with calculations of external costs. It is a rote and frankly very dangerous fad with no basic connection to reality to lump "nuclear and coal."

Coal's "waste" is not stored "on site." It's dumped into the atmosphere at a rate of billions of tons per year, just like "natural" gas waste.

The only similarity between the two forms of energy, nuclear and coal, is that they both provide nearly continuous power.

One releases 1200 grams of carbon dioxide per kwh, the other, less than 25.

The author of this article is an ignoramus.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Shitstain's Visionary Ene...