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

a reply to: shooterbrody

Well sure. But it never worked that way. With any energy development. Oil and gas by far lead the pack with historical subsidies.

The import part is the development stage of new technology.

The benefit of that is beating other countries to the punch and exporting the product. If we don't someone else will and we will have to import it

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

Take it up with Paul Bledsoe. He said that. Not me.

Yeah you are just the one posting pieces with outright lies in them, then telling everyone how wonderful they are.
Your whole op deals with subsides then when shown the op is a lie you blame it on someone else.
What a joke.

a reply to: Bluntone22

That's the thing. We are mostly mining coal to export, but even the export demands aren't covering the demand for coal jobs in Appalachia.

a reply to: shooterbrody

The OP isn't a lie. What are you talking about? This regulation really was unanimously shot down. You didn't disprove that at all.

Just because you found a quote that isn't entirely accurate doesn't mean that everything I've said or even that the article itself is false. You need to do a better job than that to claim victory. Start by showing that Rick Perry's subsidy plan wasn't unanimously voted down.

a reply to: shooterbrody

A dieing industry that is a polluter shouldn't be propped up. The subsidy should be retraining..

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perry made Texas a wind power leader. I have a feeling this was a directive. Not his idea.

a reply to: luthier

Possibly. I can't rule it out, but I'm not holding my breath either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

From your op...

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.

It is the reference to markets that is the big lie.
www.forbes.com...

Although wind received more total subsidies, wind received much less subsidies per kWh produced than solar as it produced much more energy. However, it is nonetheless significant for 2010 and 2013 and about 50 times that of nuclear and fossil fuels, allowing wholesale prices for wind and solar to become negative, unfairly undercutting nuclear, hydro and coal prices.

How are others supposed to "compete" in markets when the govt makes one sources price negative?
As I said your op is a lie.

a reply to: shooterbrody

When has the energy sector ever been about competing?

It's market is based on nation defense.

New technology is going to be subsidized. Particularly defense based technology. Look at the history of intel and chips.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Goes to show, rhetoric and words mean nothing in the face of reality and reality has been saying since before Trump even decided to run for President that the coal industry is on its way out. We need to embrace that demise and help those workers transition to new careers, not prop up a dying industry thereby creating a money sink that only goes to enrich special interests while jacking prices up.

'“The law and common sense prevailed over special interests today,” John Moore, director of the Sustainable FERC Project Coalition'

That says it all, I was of the same mind as you, perhaps more on the issue of health and safety, I mentioned about the mining just yesterday in another thread.This was nothing more than PR stunt to garner workers votes. The world has changed, there's more rational, considered thought these days where it should matter, while the legacy of mining in the way it was done, has still to manifest itself on the land.

While President Trump wanted to save our coal industry, it is sadly an industry in it's twilight years. Nuclear has been the Elephant on the dance floor. Workable, dangerous, costly as in pay now or pay later for disposal. And a deadly commodity not so easily shipped off to some third world storage facility.

Simply, the regulators can be replaced with someone on board with the agenda. In fact, look for that to happen.

originally posted by: Gothmog

Where do you think a lot of those billions went
Right back into Obama's back pocket...passed along "under the table"

That's a waste of forum space, why talk crap for partisan purpose, sheesh, there's always one.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Your source about wind energy doesn't disprove that the proposal was unanimously rejected.

As I said your op is a lie.

No. It isn't. The proposal was unanimously rejected. That is NOT a lie no matter how you try to spin this.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody

When has the energy sector ever been about competing?

It's market is based on nation defense.

New technology is going to be subsidized. Particularly defense based technology. Look at the history of intel and chips.

You are really ignorant on this subject and I will not be doing your research for you.
Perhaps you should research the day ahead market and what FERC,NERC, and the Regional Reliability Organizations do.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hiding behind a supposed "competitive market" when that market has been and continues to be rigged in favor of one source due to govt subsidies does make your op a lie.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I am.not ignorant at all. I have startups myself. In the energy sector oil and gas has been massively subsidized. From the wars to literal financing.

cen.acs.org...

The first 15 years, the report says, are critical to developing new technologies.

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's also rigged for national security so we aren't held hostage by another nation.

Now that is a messy game for sure but your really simplifying the subject.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Hiding behind a supposed "competitive market" when that market has been and continues to be rigged in favor of one source due to govt subsidies does make your op a lie.

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

That is the main point of the thread. Did that or did that not happen? Yes or no? Stop deflecting about wind energy. This thread isn't about wind energy. You are just giving me a "whataboutism" and lazily trying to claim victory

a reply to: Grambler

Oh it can, because coal has an energy returned over energy invested ratio of more than 30, that is it takes 1 unit say ton of coal to deliver 30 tons of coal to market, where fracked oil is less than 5.

a reply to: luthier

Which is insane because alt energies and defense require rare earth metals of which China has a near monopoly