Rick Perry’s Plan to Rescue Struggling Coal and Nuclear Plants Is Rejected
13 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/climate/trump-coal-nuclear.html?ribbon-ad-idx=15&rref=politics"]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/climate/trump-coal-nuclear.html?ribbon-ad-idx=15&rref=politics
[/URL]
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON — Federal regulators on Monday [URL="https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?document_id=14633130"]rejected[/URL] a proposal by Energy Secretary Rick Perry to subsidize struggling coal and nuclear plants, in a major blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to revive America’s declining coal industry.
Over the past decade, an influx of cheap natural gas and the rapid rise of renewable energy have transformed the nation’s power sector, driving down wholesale electricity prices and [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/climate/nuclear-power-retirements-us-climate-goals.html"]pushing many older coal and nuclear plants into unprofitability and retirement[/URL].
In September, Mr. Perry [URL="https://energy.gov/articles/secretary-perry-urges-ferc-take-swift-action-address-threats-grid-resiliency"]warned[/URL] that the loss of these plants could threaten the “reliability and resiliency of our nation’s grid” and asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees regional electricity markets, to guarantee financial returns for power plants that can stockpile at least 90 days’ worth of fuel on-site — which, in effect, meant propping up uncompetitive coal and nuclear units. (Natural gas plants are typically fed by pipeline and would not qualify.)
While a few utilities with significant coal and nuclear capacity supported the idea, Mr. Perry’s proposal [URL="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-nopr-opponents-no-basis-for-expanded-fpa-to-justify-coal-nuke-cost-re/508123/"]generated a fierce backlash[/URL] from a broad coalition of energy companies, free-market groups and former regulators.
Critics argued that Mr. Perry’s proposal would upend competition in the nation’s electricity markets, which have been deregulated in much of the country since the 1990s and currently tend to favor the lowest-cost sources of power.[/QUOTE]
Hey rick, its 0 degrees F outside and Lincoln electric's wind turbines are still spinning, maybe renewables aren't so unreliable...
I just wish first energy wasn't deep in the pocket of Murry Energy (which undoutable pushed this) otherwise they wouldn't be begging our state for subsidies, going bankrupt, threatening to shutdown our two perfectly functional nukes (one which was fixed using taxpayer funds thanks to their incompetence and negligence in maintenance and inspections), and finally because lake erie wind installations have stalled because of them
[quote]Critics argued that Mr. Perry’s proposal would upend competition in the nation’s electricity markets, which have been deregulated in much of the country since the 1990s and currently tend to favor the lowest-cost sources of power.[/quote]
Bit of a deceptive statement given wind and solar farms are subsidised.
[QUOTE=download;53037089]Bit of a deceptive statement given wind and solar farms are subsidised.[/QUOTE]
So are coal. Heavily subsidized actually. My state legislature gets a request for a price bump every year because one of our major utilities won't invest in any actual new power generating capacity
Fun fact as well, durring the last great polar vortex several of our coal and nuke plant water intakes were close to freezing up, almost shutting them down, something his proposal completely ignored.
[QUOTE]An analysis by Resources for the Future estimated that the rule, if enacted, would have prevented the retirement of 25 gigawatts of coal capacity and 20 gigawatts of nuclear capacity. [B]The analysis found that the proposal would have cost electricity users an extra $72 billion through 2045.[/B][/QUOTE]
:speechless:
2045-2018 = 27yr
$72b/27yr = 2.7b/yr
[URL]https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/US-Nuclear-Power-Plants[/URL]
1 reactor is about 720,000 homes worth of electricity. So assuming that 20 of the US reactors would be affected and all the power goes to homes instead of wealthy industrial facilities (who can afford a price hike), 20*720,000=14400000 customers
(2.7b/yr)/14400000customers = $187.5 increase/yr... or
($187.5/yr)/(12mo/yr) = $15.50 increase per month.
Personally I wouldn't mind paying another $16/mo to keep the nuclear plants running, especially since it would prevent natural gas plants from being brought to my area. I don't like the journalism highlighting the aggregate cost when the effect to the average customer isn't drastic.
[editline]8th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;53037093]So are coal. Heavily subsidized actually. My state legislature gets a request for a price bump every year because one of our major utilities won't invest in any actual new power generating capacity
Fun fact as well, durring the last great polar vortex several of our coal and [B]nuke plant water intakes were close to freezing up,[/B] almost shutting them down, something his proposal completely ignored.[/QUOTE]
I haven't heard of this; where do you live? I'd like to read about this since I know Russian reactors operate in very frigid conditions and get better plant efficiency since the coolant temperature helps take away heat from the reactor.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53037093]So are coal. Heavily subsidized actually. My state legislature gets a request for a price bump every year because one of our major utilities won't invest in any actual new power generating capacity
[/QUOTE]
Not denying it. Nuclear is the least subsidised form of energy in the US though.
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences.png[/img]
[QUOTE=download;53037141]Not denying it. Nuclear is the least subsidised form of energy in the US though.[/QUOTE]
I absolutely support subsidizing nuclear, but every single time they tie it to coal. Nuclear builds communities, jobs, and exceptional longevity in the power system, but we have to deal with stockholder's dividend which is a consequence of deregulation and our incredible corporate myopia
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[Quote]
I haven't heard of this; where do you live? I'd like to read about this since I know Russian reactors operate in very frigid conditions and get better plant efficiency since the coolant temperature helps take away heat from the reactor.[/QUOTE]
I live in ohio and the issue was that the lake froze pretty rapidly last time there was a polar vortex, and they were warning people that both our public water intakes and the powerplant intakes could get clogged with ice, its not impossible or unheard of for intakes in places that don't see large ice flows to choke up under extreme weather or even algie blooms which again keep threatening our intakes
[QUOTE=Sableye;53037145]
I live in ohio and the issue was that the lake froze pretty rapidly last time there was a polar vortex, and they were warning people that both our public water intakes and the powerplant intakes could get clogged with ice, its not impossible or unheard of for intakes in places that don't see large ice flows to choke up under extreme weather or even algie blooms which again keep threatening our intakes[/QUOTE]
I can't find anything on Davis-Besse or Perry having ice problems online... though I am aware intake problems aren't uncommon. I once spoke to an Exelon executive who said that one of the plants they own have a bridge upstream that seems to be a suicide hotspot. They've had to fish out the body from the intake because the river would carry it there.
[QUOTE=download;53037089]Bit of a deceptive statement given wind and solar farms are subsidised.[/QUOTE]
Fairly certain all forms of energy are subsidized in the US.
[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;53037132]
Personally I wouldn't mind paying another $16/mo to keep the nuclear plants running, especially since it would prevent natural gas plants from being brought to my area. I don't like the journalism highlighting the aggregate cost when the effect to the average customer isn't drastic.[/QUOTE]
Nuclear plants, sure, because I can see the benefits. Coal plants? Even if the tax hike isn't very large I'm not really interested in propping up failing coal which is less efficient and less clean than natural gas.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;53037185]Fairly certain all forms of energy are subsidized in the US.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't matter. What matters is how much energy they generate compared to the subsidy. Renewables consume the largest subsidy yet produce the smallest amount of power.
[QUOTE=download;53037214]That doesn't matter. What matters is how much energy they generate compared to the subsidy. Renewables consume the largest subsidy yet produce the smallest amount of power.[/QUOTE]
This is so blatantly simplified and leaving out so many factors in the discussion I don't even know how to start so I'm just gonna list the ones I can think of while picking up my coffee:
waste, follow up costs, development, research, availability, mobility, flexibility, sustainability, ressource costs, investments in future...
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;53037141]Not denying it. Nuclear is the least subsidised form of energy in the US though.
[editline]9th January 2018[/editline]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/2016_Energy-Related_Tax_Preferences.png[/img][/QUOTE]
I found the source that you didn't provide
[url]https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52521-energytestimony.pdf[/url]
I connection with Figure one the issue gets more complex.
These tax incentives are shaped by their goals.
[quote]The tax preferences that explicitly target energy use and
production are provided through three mechanisms: preferences
in the income tax system, such as special deductions,
lower tax rates, and tax credits; preferences in excise
taxes, such as excise tax credits; and Section 1603 grants
in lieu of tax credits (see Table 1).6
[/quote]
[quote]Since it was established in 1977, DOE has supported the
development of energy technologies primarily by funding
R&D and technology demonstration projects aimed
at creating new domestic sources of energy. [/quote]
Nuclear is the least subsidized because nobody does anything that warrants a tax writeoff with it anymore.
When it comes to [B]Financial Support for Energy Technologies in 2016[/B] the picture looks different
[quote][B]15 percent[/B] (or $0.9 billion) was for nuclear energy.
The nuclear energy program focuses on making
reactors safer and cheaper, developing a sustainable
nuclear fuel cycle, and maintaining federal nuclear
energy research facilities. [/quote]
On the other hand
[quote]35 percent (or $2.1 billion) was for energy efficiency
and renewable energy. Energy-efficiency programs,
which support R&D to improve the energy efficiency
of buildings and automobiles and also provide grants
for weatherization to improve the energy efficiency of
some low-income housing units, account for about
50 percent of all such funding. Renewable-energy
programs, which promote the development of solar,
biomass, wind, and other renewable energy sources,
account for almost 40 percent. The remaining
10 percent goes toward program administration,
facilities, and overhead.[/quote]
That's 14% for ALL OF THE RENNEWABLES.
Your point being?
Dear god Killuah, good job reading into a throwaway line and taking it as a personal insult you must correct.
Yes, it's a simplification. This is an internet forum where the topic has previously been discussed, not a university dissertation.
[QUOTE=download;53037403]Dear god Killuah, good job reading into a throwaway line and taking it as a personal insult you must correct.
Yes, it's a simplification. This is an internet forum where the topic has previously been discussed, not a university dissertation.[/QUOTE]
What personal insult? What are you even talking about?
You post an uncontextualized graph without a source and when I present some more context your reaction is "hey this is not a university discussion guys take it easy ;^)
What about graphs and facts seems personal to you here?
Maybe reevaluate who takes things personal here, especially since I've seen you quite a few times making some "throwaway lines" that are often arguing against renewables.
(it's you)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.