Trump-appointed regulators reject plan to rescue coal and nuclear plants

Fitz · Jan 9, 2018

I seem to recall some months ago a great bruhaha in the papers regarding President Trumps support for the coal industry and one Rick Perry that wanted to support certain cash strapped coal and nuclear plants with guarantees and financial support. From memory there would be some form of support for nuclear plants and "baseload" coal fired plants which would skew the demand due to pricing structures away from renewables?

FERC has 60 days to decide what action to take, and there is no guarantee the independent agency will go along with Perry’s request. Trump has recently appointed people to key posts at the agency — and the commission’s new chairman, Neil Chatterjee, has already signaled he could be receptive to the move.

Trump has tried to skew the various agencies towards his direction of travel which has caused cerain amount of angst around US strategic energy situation but there seems to be light at the end of the chimney stack..... however.....

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday unanimously rejected a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that would have propped up nuclear and coal power plants struggling in competitive electricity markets.
The independent five-member commission includes four people appointed by President Trump, three of them Republicans. Its decision is binding

For republican voters I assume disappointment? His support for the coal energy industry was a major strategy point and by appointments to the various panels and agencies he was trying to manipulate that outcome, however, it doesn't seemed to have worked.

Just a thought but those in the coal lobby who I am sure put the odd dollar or two in the bowl would they be right to ask for their money back?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...c-507pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.85405f597b51

tecoyah · Jan 9, 2018

World energy production has already bypassed the old forms, unfortunately the U.S. hasn't embraced it.

Fitz · Jan 9, 2018

tecoyah said:
World energy production has already bypassed the old forms, unfortunately the U.S. hasn't embraced it.

Are markets embracing it though? The administration is floundering around trying to promote old fasioned protectionist policies but are the markets falling into line with this?

tecoyah · Jan 9, 2018

Fitz said:
Are markets embracing it though? The administration is floundering around trying to promote old fasioned protectionist policies but are the markets falling into line with this?

Our system of capitalism will certainly prevail (already is) in this transition to renewable energy and technology will likely eliminate much of even that in several decades as Fusion becomes feasible. I refer to our current government and its reversal and refusal of science and realities.

Ralph47 · Jan 9, 2018

Relying on one energy source would be foolhardy. Any and ALL must be utilized FULLY.

Fitz · Jan 9, 2018

Ralph47 said:
Relying on one energy source would be foolhardy. Any and ALL must be utilized FULLY.

Isn't the issue though the manipulation of federal funding and the employment of office holders to provide an advantage when the market has moved on.

mcstites · Jan 9, 2018

We need to take a step back and think about this. There are main sources of renewable energy. Those are solar and wind. Neither of these can be counted on every hour and every minute of the year. That mean there must be some for of back up power. That can come from stored energy such as batteries or other storage methods such as pumping water back up to a higher elevation. Neither of these is feasible in the amounts needed.

Ultimately, or at least in the foreseeable future, this is going to require non-renewable or most likely fossil fuels as a back up source. That means large generating plants and people sitting idle for a major part of the year.

I do not have a solution to this problem other than moving slowly away from fossil fuels as opposed to these crash solutions we keep hearing.

Fitz · Jan 9, 2018

mcstites said:
I do not have a solution to this problem other than moving slowly away from fossil fuels as opposed to these crash solutions we keep hearing.

I agree it is an issue and one that needs looking at; that was my thought from the very begining with this trump cornerstone announcement. As popular as I guess it was in the states at the time, was much though put into it? I was wondering what or how Republican supporters would feel that inspite of the initial hype and rhetoric and inspite of moving his people onto the committees it seems to have been rejected by those very people! What is the point of grandstanding policies which need time and intelligent though in order to be of value.

Trump-appointed regulators reject plan to rescue coal and nuclear plants

Similar threads