Renewables in Retreat? Ohio Democrats Vote to Support Nuclear and Coal Power.

Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant over Lake Erie, Ohio Felix Koenig CC

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In Ohio lawmakers have slashed renewable incentives and moved to support coal and nuclear power, with substantial support from state Democrats.

Ohio lawmakers pass bill to cut renewable requirement, help nuclear and coal

Critics say the bill unnecessarily bails out nuclear, coal owner FirstEnergy Solutions.

MEGAN GEUSS –  6/1/2019, 1:26 AM

This week, lawmakers in Ohio’s House of Representatives voted 53-43 in favor of a controversial bill that would permit a consumer-funded subsidy for nuclear plants and possibly for ailing coal plants as well.

The bill would also end Ohio’s renewable portfolio standard, which required that the state’s utilities to obtain 12.5 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2027. Instead, that renewable portfolio standard is replaced by smaller steps to bolster renewable power, but environmental groups say the bill is a step in the wrong direction.

Building support among Democrats

Though the above elements were in the original bill, which is supported by the state’s Republican Governor, the bill was amended early Wednesday to garner support from Ohio’s House Democrats.

Among the concessions: six large-scale solar projects that already exist in Ohio would be eligible to access some of the nuclear subsidy fund. Limits were also placed on how much FirstEnergy could devalue its nuclear properties (a tactic the company could use to reduce its tax liability).

Ultimately, those concessions got enough Democrats onboard to pass the bill (especially those with nuclear plants in their district). The vote wasn’t strictly partisan, though. Cleveland.com notes that one Republican congressman objected to the lack of a third-party audit of FirstEnergy Solutions’ finances to make sure the company actually needs the subsidy, which oil and gas interests dispute. (Oil and gas interests likely stand to lose the most from House Bill 6, since natural gas is the first fuel utilities often turn to when a coal or nuclear plant shuts down.)

Read more: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/ohio-house-passes-bill-that-would-allow-consumer-funded-nuclear-and-coal-subsidies/

This isn’t the only good news for nuclear power. In Australia, a vocal group of MPs is demanding a review of the ban on nuclear power.

Queensland Coalition MPs push for inquiry to lift Australia’s nuclear power ban

Australian Associated Press
Sun 2 Jun 2019 16.17 AEST

Keith Pitt and James McGrath behind move, saying ‘we have to be able to investigate all options’

Queensland MP Keith Pitt and his Senate colleague James McGrath are behind the push, the Sunday Telegraph reports.

“I am not saying that there is a nuclear reactor coming to a shopping centre near you but we have to be able to investigate all options,” Pitt told the newspaper.

“All I am calling for is an inquiry as to whether it’s a feasible option to ensure we are up to date with the latest information.”

The MP says nuclear energy has helped to reduce carbon emissions and power prices in Europe, while also being a reliable source of power.

“If you want to have your cake and eat it to you have to look at every option,” he said.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/02/queensland-nationals-mps-push-for-inquiry-to-lift-australias-nuclear-power-ban

Greens won the battle, but they are losing the war.

They convinced the world to spend billions, perhaps trillions of dollars on their renewable power “solution”. But all the money which was spent on renewables delivered was grid instability, soaring consumer power bills and rising CO2 emissions.

The age of renewables is drawing to a close. A new age of affordable power is dawning.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
100 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John the Econ
June 3, 2019 2:07 pm

Looks like Ohio Democrats caught on to the lesson learned in Australia. Not just when rates increase, but when the lights literally start going out, the voters will take their wrath out on those responsible.

Steve
Reply to  John the Econ
June 4, 2019 4:31 am

Yep. It’s really that simple. Ordinary people don’t want this green crap. They want cheap, plentiful fuel so they can live their lives.

griff
Reply to  John the Econ
June 5, 2019 2:28 am

Though ironically it is past poor decisions on conventional power which have left Australian electricity prices high… and of course in many parts of Australia you can cover domestic consumption entirely with solar plus battery with falling prices for the equipment…

Tom Halla
Reply to  griff
June 5, 2019 7:14 am

Griff, that is about as likely as using unicorn farts to run combined cycle gas turbines.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 5, 2019 12:27 pm

You just need a UF – CH4 converter
A Unicorn Flattus Apparatus

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
June 5, 2019 12:25 pm

Griff
You are absolutely correct.
Prior poor decisions have dramatically increased AU power prices while Unreliables have had negligable to zero effect on both power pricing or reliability factors.

AND

You can cover domestic consumption entirely with solar plus battery…
Plus subsidy
Plus a lack of AC
Plus a lack of Referigeration
Plos a lack of lighting

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  griff
June 5, 2019 12:46 pm

Griff, are you powered by Big Wind and Big Solar?

joe - the non climate scientist
June 3, 2019 2:14 pm

In every industry, progress is being made in making products more efficient, getting more out of less, from computers, farm yields, machinery, etc.

Smaller and more efficient, less polution, less energy use has been the wave of the future since the inceptio of mankind.

Wind and solar Renewable energy is the opposite. Getting less and less from more. Bigger footprint, less energy. More manpower producing less.

Tom Halla
June 3, 2019 2:18 pm

The only thing keeping the wind and solar industries going are “renewables” requirements, and working out a fair way to keep the required backup conventional power sources online seems to be beyond politicians grasp.

HotScot
June 3, 2019 2:20 pm

Whilst I am optimistic, as all climate sceptics are, a single swallow, does not a summer make.

We are only beginning the battle back.

old engineer
Reply to  HotScot
June 3, 2019 5:41 pm

HotScot-

“…a single swallow does not a summer make.” I agree wholeheartedly! Every city in America, including Cleveland, Ohio, has a “climate action plan” to be “carbon neutral” by 2050. I wish I was optimistic, but I’m afraid that the Ohio legislature’s action is an anomaly.

BoyfromTottenham
Reply to  old engineer
June 3, 2019 10:18 pm

Yes HotScot, because the UN’s devious and subversive ‘environment’, ‘climate action’ and ‘social justice’ (and officially ‘voluntary’) policies have for decades been infiltrated like hungry termites into every corner of the West, from schools and universities to local and state government, scientific institutions and thousands of other organisations – even the ISO pushes this cr@p! Key dates to achieve their goals are 2030 and 2050 – arbitrarily chosen, but when pushed a million times by a million fellow-travellers, become virtually self-fulfilling … until DJ Trump at least. God help us, because the socialists won’t.

Steve
Reply to  old engineer
June 4, 2019 4:33 am

I’m not so sure about being pessimistic on this. These “climate plans” all sound great until the bills hit people’s pockets. Then the pols who push the plans lose their jobs. The great elephant in the room of this debate is that the green nightmare can only be imposed on people by force. And it won’t succeed.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Steve
June 4, 2019 9:16 am

The problem is, this has to be stopped BEFORE the bills hit people’s pockets. Because by then, their “climate” bullshit will have been codified into law, and fixing things after that will be damn near impossible. That is why we can’t allow things to “progress” to that point. Once their “plans” and the supposed justification therefore are codified into law, we’re all screwed.

Sommer
Reply to  Steve
June 4, 2019 2:52 pm

In Ontario, the Liberals who brought these industrial scale renewables into rural communities were decimated in the last election. They lost their party status.
Under the new Conservative government, future wind projects have been cancelled but the Liberals signed 20 year contracts on existing projects and this new government still can’t figure out how to say no to subsidizing the projects that are currently in operation and in some cases are due to run for the next 16 years. Ratepayers will be stuck with high electricity bills for the rest of their lives, in some cases, because this government can’t figure out how to do the math and put an end to this.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Sommer
June 8, 2019 10:47 pm

Maybe the trick is not to attempt to cancel renewable energy subsidies, but impose specific taxes on subsidized energy to encourage them to leave the industry.

June 3, 2019 2:43 pm

Blink Blink; has Hades frozen over?

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  _Jim
June 3, 2019 6:36 pm

If it does freeze over, it will surely be blamed on global warming.

griff
Reply to  _Jim
June 5, 2019 2:29 am

Parts of the Christian hell, as portrayed by Dante, are of course fields of ice…

F.LEGHORN
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2019 9:26 am

Wow. You muth be thmart. Jkoc.

Sara
June 3, 2019 2:55 pm

The coal-fired plant north of the state line (about 25 miles from where I live) was closed down and replaced by a natural gas-fired power plant. The old coal plant was demolished. Natural gas is cheaper than coal. It would be nice to get the one coal-fired plant around here to convert to gas and shut down the coal-fired facility, but that would be a while in the making.

G. Grubbs
Reply to  Sara
June 4, 2019 6:39 am

Sara, Be careful what you wish. I am in the power industry and many of the coal fired power plants that I have worked on have been shut down and some of the power replaced by natural gas plants. Here is the thing. Wind and Solar are currently only available when the sun shines of the wind blows, no economical storage capability. Natural gas plants only operate if the natural gas fuel is available as on demand fuel. Again, as with wind and solar, no economical storage capability. Some but minimal. With coal and nuclear a large contingent of fuel is stored on site and ready to be utilized without any deliveries from outside the plant. The coal plants that I have recently worked at had over 60 days of stock pile.

When there are natural gas delivery issues, and there will be, those plants will not be able to run. An area that is too dependent on them will suffer rotating brown outs and black outs. We are committing energy suicide if we grow too dependent on renewables as well as natural gas. We need a balance.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  G. Grubbs
June 4, 2019 11:51 am

G. Grubbs – June 4, 2019 at 6:39 am

Sara, Be careful what you wish. I am in the power industry and many of the coal fired power plants that I have worked on have been shut down and some of the power replaced by natural gas plants. Here is the thing. Wind and Solar are currently only available when the sun shines of the wind blows, no economical storage capability. Natural gas plants only operate if the natural gas fuel is available as on demand fuel.

G. Grubbs, great advice for Sara, ….. and anyone else that’s a fan of renewables or NG.

Take a “look-see” at the 2 Natural Gas pipeline maps denoted below ….. and then consider what a “severe HURTIN” the people would have to endure for those living in the “north-northeast” USA…… iffen there was a severe earthquake that occurred in the Arkansas/Tennessee area ,,,,, that severed a few of those NG “feeder” pipelines.

Their NG powered turbines would most likely be “fossil fuel” deprived for several months.

http://naturalgas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pipeline_map.jpg

comment image

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Sara
June 4, 2019 9:11 am

Natural gas is cheaper than coal due to the boom in supply caused by the fracking revolution. Once the Eco-Nazis secure a ban on fracking, you’ll be wondering who the idiots were that thought tearing down the perfectly good coal-fired power plant was a good idea were.

John Garrett
June 3, 2019 3:00 pm

California’s Largest Utility Warns People To Expect Blackouts This Summer
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/03/729390433/californias-largest-utility-warns-people-to-expect-blackouts-this-summer

Joel Snider
Reply to  John Garrett
June 3, 2019 4:23 pm

The new normal.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  John Garrett
June 3, 2019 5:39 pm

Serves them right to suffer.

Wally
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 3, 2019 10:47 pm

Indeed, I live in So. Calif. and these infantile airheads will never learn anything.
But no doubt, when the blackouts come, and they are slowly starting, they will find some way to blame it on Trump & the Russians. Trust me on this.
We are witnessing the very essence of mass hysteria in a large segment of the population.

Study: People Don’t Change Their Minds, Even When Proven Wrong
https://archive.is/0vx9h

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 4, 2019 9:24 am

Any connection to the “grid” outside the state should be cut, so the people can REALLY understand the consequences of the “renewable” stupidity.

THEN, when they’ve ruined every previously “pristine” bit of CA landscape with ugly windmills and solar panels, when they have too many dead raptors and bats littering the once beautiful countryside to keep the clean up crews ahead of the eyes and cameras of the population, AND they’re living a substantial part of their lives without electricity, MAYBE it will finally sink in that attempting to replace dispatchable, reliable, consistent and inexpensive power plants with “renewables” was a bone-head idea!

observa
Reply to  John Garrett
June 3, 2019 10:59 pm

Why do I detect a strong correlation with lots of unreliables, peak summer aircon demand and we’ll probably have require shut downs to prevent wildfires for your safety folks?

As an aside I’ve been living at my old established suburban Adelaide (SA) address for over a quarter of a century and for the first time tomorrow I’m formally advised well in advance by letter the power supply will be ‘interrupted’ between 8:30AM and 4:00PM (weather permitting) ostensibly because ‘We are interrupting the power to maintain/upgrade the local electricity network’

Hmmm….now why would that be chaps? Not much happens around here in the way of development and don’t try anything 2 storey or out of character with this lot of articulate NIMBYs I can tell you. Solar FIT largesse is a completely different matter of course.

Pierre
June 3, 2019 3:04 pm

Beautiful sunny cold day here in Ohio.

Steve
Reply to  Pierre
June 4, 2019 4:35 am

Get with the plan, Pierre. That “cold” is hot!

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve
June 4, 2019 10:20 am

The HEAT is just hiding under the frost

ColMosby
June 3, 2019 3:21 pm

The fact that power generation subsidies do not apply to “low carbon” generation , but instead to “renewable” generation indicates just how screwy things really are.

Mike Lowe
June 3, 2019 3:32 pm

If the environmentalists are against it, I am for it! If they would just stick to genuine environmental concerns I would support them, but their more recent incursions into communistic politics (including unwarranted destruction of coal-fired plants) are unacceptable.

Joel Snider
June 3, 2019 3:49 pm

If something doesn’t work, you eventually have to deal with that reality.

brians356
June 3, 2019 3:58 pm

Wow! Anyone aware that Tesla has secretly raked in almost $2 billion in revenue by selling regulatory carbon credits since 2010 to GM and Chrysler? Did you know there was such a “carbon credit” system in place, administered by EPA and the state of California? I didn’t.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-secret-source-cash-finally-164120826.html

John Garrett
Reply to  brians356
June 3, 2019 4:15 pm

Tesla has generated almost $2 billion in revenue from selling federal greenhouse gas regulatory credits since 2010.

Source:
Tesla’s Secret Source Of Cash Unmasked As GM And Fiat Chrysler
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/tesla-s-secret-source-of-cash-unmasked-as-gm-and-fiat-chrysler?srnd=premium

Tesla has never been a legitimate self-sustaining business.

The whole thing has been a tax subsidy scam right from the git-go.

WXcycles
Reply to  brians356
June 3, 2019 4:39 pm

If it looks like a scam, and quacks like a scam, it’s probably a scam.

markl
Reply to  brians356
June 3, 2019 4:45 pm

Been going on for years. It’s another scam like the carbon futures and cap and trade. Does nothing, zero, to reduce CO2 emissions ….. kind of like the Paris Discord. Just moves them around and the so called “clean” industries collect the money for doing what they’ve always done.

brians356
Reply to  markl
June 3, 2019 6:20 pm

Fair enough. Then, why doesn’t Trump kill it? The EPA administrator is nominated by POTUS, and confirmed by a Republican Senate.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  brians356
June 3, 2019 7:53 pm

It’s probably statutory, so the Congress has to kill it.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  brians356
June 3, 2019 8:07 pm

This has been known from the start.
The supporters found it helpful to not publicize this.
It is just one of dozens of things they forgot to tell us.
Now that Tesla is showing aspects of its problematic business plan,
namely not have high margin pickup trucks, people are taking notice.
Also, because real companies are starting to sell EVs, they
don’t need Tesla.
To see that people are noticing, note the stock price of TSLA.

Wiliam Haas
June 3, 2019 4:03 pm

The only serious alternative to fossil fuel power generation is nuclear.

MarkW
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 3, 2019 7:01 pm

Not that we need an alternative to fossil fuel power generation.

Wally
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 3, 2019 10:51 pm

There doesn’t need to be an “alternative to fossil fuel power generation” unless it is less expensive and without “subsidies”, aka: taxpayers money.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Wally
June 4, 2019 9:29 am

YUP!

And without subsidies and mandates, there wouldn’t be a nickel of “investment” in windmills and solar panels for grid scale electric generation. NOR DOES THERE NEED TO BE.

John Endicott
Reply to  Wally
June 4, 2019 9:30 am

One day, long in the future, there will be a need for an alternative to fossil fuel power generation. That day isn’t today. It won’t be tomorrow or even the day after but rather many years from now. Naught wrong with exploring possible alternatives now so that we’ll have something when that day does come. But those alternative should not be “forced” as a replacement. If/when they’re economically viable (IE cheaper than fossil fuels) they’ll replace fossil fuels all on their own. and if they’re not economically viable (or until such time as they are) there is no need to use them now.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  John Endicott
June 4, 2019 1:02 pm

” If/when they’re economically viable (IE cheaper than fossil fuels) they’ll replace fossil fuels all on their own. and if they’re not economically viable (or until such time as they are) ”
If and when they cause the cost of fossil fuel to rise exponentially, THEN renewables just MIGHT be able to compete on cost! Notice how shale oil became affordable, once the cost of petroleum oil (OPEC) rose high enough? The oil companies had to wait until prices were high enough! The same will happen again, until ‘renewables’ become affordable. Just sayin…

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
June 4, 2019 5:02 pm

The problem with spending too much time exploring alternatives now, is that we don’t know what technologies will be available when fossil fuels become scarce enough that we will need to start replacing them as an energy source. Look how far technology has advanced in the last 100 years. Now try to guess what will happen over the next 100 to 400 years.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
June 5, 2019 11:13 am

The problem with relying on future technology advances existing when you need it is that those advances only come about by building on the work that was done prior (ie what we’ve previously explored, what we are exploring now and what we will explore going forward into the future), so if people (note I did not say government) don’t begin that exploration now, those future advances are not going to be all that much. Future tech doesn’t magically appear out of thin air just when you need it, you know.

Usurbrain
June 3, 2019 4:06 pm

I can remember when I had to get out the instructions to reset the time or connection on some of the devices I own that were affected by a loss of power. I would go over a year with no power loss. Three years ago the electric utility added a 500 MW Wind farm to their mix and shut down their 500 MW NPP. That year we got an outrage about every other month requiring reset of these devices. Each year after that they have added another 400 to 600 MW from wind. Seems they realized a 500 MW wind farm does not replace a 500 MW NPP. They now have more than 2 GW of Renewables that they sell to the Silicon valley corporations that have Server farms in our service area. These server farms have 100% power service guarentee contracts. And now we get an outage at least every other week [on perfectly sunny days] averaging about 2 a week over the year.
I can now set every device I own without even looking at the instruction book. If this is Green Power, it is not going to work it is just not ready for prime time.

richard
Reply to  Usurbrain
June 3, 2019 7:15 pm

It would help a bit if we knew where you live!

Usurbrain
Reply to  richard
June 4, 2019 9:28 am

It applies anywhere that your electricity include a portion of Renewable Energy – the unreliable energy. The utility providing my electricity now has the capability to provide more than 40% of the electricity delivery from renewable energy. They are in the process of increasing that to 50%. As I described above, as the percentage increased the number of outages increased. These are mostly “momentary” outages. They seem to be caused by automatic protective switching from overloads. They are not the three flickers then loss of all power outages like happens from a lightening strike or car wreck. These outages last anywhere from less than a second to about two seconds. That means that the power to your AC, Refrigerator or Freezer has lost power long enough to damage the compressor. If the device does not have a protective delay to prevent this type of a restart you get to buy a new one. I have already bought two small chest freezers that failed to restart after one of theses “flickers” which of course, are not covered by the utility and well below the insurance deductible. Similar problems can happen to expensive electronics. After the second failure of my flat screen TV, the second one out of warranty, I put it on a suitable sized UPS. The typical protective power outlet did no good.
Coming soon to your neighborhood if your state has renewable energy mandates.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Usurbrain
June 4, 2019 1:04 pm

” If/when they’re economically viable (IE cheaper than fossil fuels) they’ll replace fossil fuels all on their own. and if they’re not economically viable (or until such time as they are) ”
If and when they cause the cost of fossil fuel to rise exponentially, THEN renewables just MIGHT be able to compete on cost! Notice how shale oil became affordable, once the cost of petroleum oil (OPEC) rose high enough? The oil companies had to wait until prices were high enough! The same will happen again, until ‘renewables’ become affordable. Just sayin…

MarkW
Reply to  Usurbrain
June 4, 2019 5:04 pm

If they can get those power outages down to once every week or so, then perhaps you won’t have to dig up the instructions, you will still remember how.
Don’t think of it as a nuisance, think of it as a public service.

n.n
June 3, 2019 4:32 pm

Renewables? No. The sun is still shining. The wind is still blowing.

H.R.
Reply to  n.n
June 3, 2019 7:29 pm

Good point. The sun isn’t at all renewable. When it runs out, what are we to do?

n.n
Reply to  H.R.
June 3, 2019 9:05 pm

It is effectively renewable over an indefinite period. The point is that the renewable drivers: sun and wind, are shining and blowing, respectively, albeit with intermittency in any given frame of reference. The technologies that convert them are neither renewable nor particularly environmentally friendly throughout their life cycle.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  n.n
June 4, 2019 9:33 am

“The technologies that convert them are neither renewable nor particularly environmentally friendly throughout their life cycle.”

Yes – ironic, isn’t it?! The Eco-Nazis are among the least environmentally friendly humans on the planet – and they’re too dumb to realize it.

markl
June 3, 2019 4:50 pm

Inch by inch people are beginning to uncover the AGW scam. All the press in the world can’t overcome reality because inherently people aren’t that stupid to continue being duped. This should snowball as those still swallowing the AGW dogma find out they are being left behind and the world isn’t ending as promised.

Steve
Reply to  markl
June 4, 2019 4:38 am

Imagine being Al Gore or Michael Mann. Even they must wake up in the wee small hours with that dreaded question: do I double down on my stupid mistake, or do I quit now and develop a low profile? [Snip. Let’s leave the insults out, shall we. -mod]

J Mac
June 3, 2019 4:54 pm

RE: “Among the concessions: six large-scale solar projects that already exist in Ohio would be eligible to access some of the nuclear subsidy fund.”

Political subsidy schizophrenia, at its finest! At least they managed to drive a stake into Ohio’s renewable portfolio standard. That’s reason enough to cheer!

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  J Mac
June 3, 2019 5:45 pm

As an Ohio Resident, I can tell you the concept of solar plants in Ohio is flat ridiculous. Columbus is the third cloudiest city in the country. Only Portland and Seattle are cloudier. And the wind doesn’t blow very hard or very much. We do get a lot of rain, there are no water shortages.

Walter Sobchak
June 3, 2019 5:11 pm

A story about the Ohio Democrats and Nuclear Power:

About ten years ago I was at an event with Ted Strickland, then the Governor of Ohio. Ted is a Democrat, but an old fashioned labor union man not at all crazy. He had been elected in 2006 after 16 years of Republican rule flamed out amidst some petty scandals.

I was then, and have been at all times in my life a strong advocate of nuclear energy. I was talking to Ted about the economic problems of the day, which included soaring energy prices. And, of course, the usual suspects were ringing their hands about Global Warming, Al Gore’s movie had been released in 2006.

I told Ted that he could solve the energy and CO2 problems, and obtain thousands of jobs and give Ohio based manufactures a big boost by securing plentiful cheap energy. All he needed to do was promote the construction a bunch of nuclear power plants in southeastern Ohio along the Ohio river.

It is the ideal location for such a project. First. The land is geologically stable. There are no active faults and there have not been major earthquakes in the area for thousands of years. Second, The mountains shield the area from hurricanes and the rough ground breaks up tornadoes. Third, the river provides a limitless quantity of water. Yes, the river floods, but it is not hard to find high ground that has no flooding risk. Fourth, there are no nearby major centers of population. Indeed the whole area is sparsely populated. Fifth, The eastern metropolitan grids and the Great Lakes grid are all within easy reach.

He listened politely, and did nothing. He lost in 2010. But, the idea is still valid. Free to anybody who wants it.

MeMyselfAndI
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 3, 2019 7:19 pm

A brilliant, rational solution, Walter. Unfortunately, there would be so much shrieking downstream from the nuclear power plants, due to the irrational fear of radioactive drinking water, you would be able to hear it in DC. In spite of that, I think Ohio should build as many NPP’s as possible in order to attract industries from states with renewables mandates.

Many years ago, after the Three Mile Island incident, we drove from New York to Florida for Spring Break. At a gas station in Florida, they didn’t want to take our cash, because it might be radioactive. Since we didn’t have credit cards, we managed to convince them the paper money would be safe. By the way, we have a couple of old nuclear power plants in Minnesota; as far as I know, they haven’t killed anyone.

G. Grubbs
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 4, 2019 6:27 am

Walter, I did a lot of work on those coal fired power plants located in the that region. Mainly air quality control issues. Almost all those plants have been retired or gong to be retired. I like your idea and it is a solid one. A little history. Those mountains were the nemesis of wet scrubbers. The stacks were built 1000 feet tall to get the cooled flue gas over the mountains and out of those valleys. Transporting slurry over those mountains to disposal areas was a very unique challenge. One power plant, name forgotten my memory is fading, had to buy a village next to the plant because they had the plume from one of those 1000 ft stacks touch the ground under certain conditions.

ghalfrunt
June 3, 2019 5:29 pm

What’s the difference between backhanders to coal and nuclear and back handers to solar and wind?

adrian smits
Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 3, 2019 6:50 pm

One is intermittent and diffuse and the others actually supply power at a reasonable price!

ghalfrunt
Reply to  adrian smits
June 4, 2019 2:14 am

in uk wind and solar is cheaper than gas and nuclear.
in uk there are a known :
Number of units in service: 9 of 16
Number of reactors in service: 9 of 15
nukes
(from 31st may. since then there would seem to be another 1GW offline! not yet reported)

this is not a safe base load.
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/power-station/daily-statuses

MarkW
Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 4, 2019 7:34 am

It’s amazing how cheap things can get when someone else is picking up most of the tab.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 4, 2019 9:46 am

If somebody built a car that would only goes when the wind blows hard enough (but not too hard), or when the sun is shining brightly, I can guarantee you it would be “cheaper” than a conventional car that goes whenever you have the engine running.

I can also guarantee you that just about nobody would be stupid enough to buy that cheaper car, and there are good reasons for that.

Oh, and the “backhanders to coal and nuclear” would not have been necessary absent the “backhanders to solar and wind,” because without the “backhanders,” and WORSE, the “mandates” that solar and wind power be given “preference,” there wouldn’t BE any worthless solar and wind power to talk about.

LdB
Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 3, 2019 6:54 pm

What backhanders to the coal and nuclear industry?
I don’t know of anywhere that either of those gets subsidized, so you best explain.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 3, 2019 9:34 pm

Coal and nuclear actually work, and are worth investing in.

John Endicott
Reply to  ghalfrunt
June 4, 2019 9:20 am

What’s the difference between backhanders to coal and nuclear and back handers to solar and wind?

Eh? What “secret, illegal payments (bribes)” are being paid to any of the above named entities?

back·hand·er.
[ˈbakˌhandər]
NOUN
backhanders (plural noun)
2.
BRITISH
informal
a secret payment, typically one made illegally; a bribe.

June 3, 2019 6:12 pm

“Ohio Democrats Vote to Support Nuclear and Coal Power.”
Again, a pretty slapdash headline. No Democrats are named. The vote was 53-43. Numbers in the State House are 60 Rep, 38 Dem. If some Dems voted for, then even more Republicans voted against.

brians356
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 6:24 pm

And your point is … ? Do you have proof no Democrats voted to support it? Obviously not, so why the accusatory comment?

Reply to  brians356
June 3, 2019 8:07 pm

The point is the headline is not supported by the text.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 9:50 pm

No more sensationalist than AOC stating “The world is going to end in 12 years” if we don’t fight climate change by
Dismantling Capitalism,
Embracing Socialism,
Scrapping everything related to fossil fuels,
Kowtowing to the fascist GND principles,
And
Anointing AOC as supreme ruler

Q 2 Nick…
Will I honestly need to prove all 5 points above? 2 minutes with Google will prove all to be true

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 10:07 pm

Sorry Nick you are wrong … AGAIN

You inkling that more Republicans must have voted against it than Democrats for it

>>> Ten Democrats supported the bill, including Rep. Richard Brown, D-Canal Winchester, the only Franklin County lawmaker to vote yes. Meanwhile, 17 Republicans voted no <<<<

Hence the -7

https://www.ohio.com/news/20190529/ohio-house-passes-bill-that-shores-up-nuclear-coal-plants

It was only carried because of the democrats and the headline is correct.

Reply to  LdB
June 3, 2019 10:40 pm

So 10 Democrats voted for, 26 against, and so the headline can baldly say:
“Ohio Democrats Vote to Support Nuclear and Coal Power.”
Would
“Ohio Republicans Vote to Oppose Nuclear and Coal Power.”
also be accurate?

LdB
Reply to  LdB
June 4, 2019 2:37 am

SLAP you are officially a dropkick.

As stated it is the NEWS norm except in the idiot lala world of Nick Stokes.

LdB
Reply to  LdB
June 4, 2019 2:59 am

I used to think you were just blindly mislead half intelligent layman but you are actually a troll and will be treated as such.

The Contrarian Troll: Intellectual dishonesty. They will lie about things they’ve said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
June 4, 2019 8:51 am

I used to think you were just blindly mislead half intelligent layman but you are actually a troll and will be treated as such.

Most regulars here long ago figured out that Nick is a troll. That he is an articulate and intelligent troll makes his dumb trollish behaviors all the more frustrating when you encounter them.

Bryan A
Reply to  LdB
June 4, 2019 10:18 am

So 10 Democrats voted for, 26 against, and so the headline can baldly say:
“Ohio Democrats Vote to Support Nuclear and Coal Power.”
Would
“Ohio Republicans Vote to Oppose Nuclear and Coal Power.”
also be accurate?

10 of 36…hmmm…that’s nearly 30% … I am surprised that So Many Dems would show that level of support for Nuclear and Coal. Shows a certain ammount of wisdom amongst Democrats to back energy supplies capable of actually producing useful energy 24/7/365

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 10:21 pm

I am going to slap you Nick if you try a Stokes defense on this.

It is standard political reporting that when a minority crosses a floor to support the majority we say the bill passed because of the minority. It only ever becomes important when some of the majority defect which is true in this case.

The headline as written is correct.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
June 4, 2019 9:01 am

Indeed, if the bill would have passed without a single democrat vote, then the fact that democrats voted for it would be irrelevant and not “news” worthy (in such cases the headline is “legislature passes bill with overwhelming support” or “near unanimous support” depending on how may of the minority party voted alongside the majority party. That the bill passed *because* democrats supported it (IE without the support from members of the minority, the bill would have failed to pass) is considered politically “news” worthy and is what typically gets the type of headline we see here. The headline is supported by the facts and the text.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 4, 2019 8:55 am

Sorry but the headline is supported by the text – 10 democrats voted for it, enabling the bill to pass hence “Ohio Democrats Vote to Support Nuclear and Coal Power” is a perfectly correct headline given the facts and standard practice in regards to minority party members crossing party lines to pass a bill.

J Mac
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 8:36 pm

Your ‘research’ illuminated nothing… and was slapdash, at best.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 3, 2019 9:53 pm

Last time I checked “Democrats” is plural and requires a minimum of 2 to make the statement true. Did at least 2 Democrats vote to support?

LdB
Reply to  Bryan A
June 3, 2019 10:22 pm

10 did .. 17 republicans went against it hence the -7

Bryan A
Reply to  LdB
June 4, 2019 6:01 am

Dang, now Nick doesn’t need to respond.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
June 4, 2019 9:11 am

10 did .. 17 republicans went against it hence the -7

Indeed. And the fact that those 10 democrats were the difference between passage and failure, means the bill passed with *bi-partisan* support. The headline is entirely justified.

Bryan A
Reply to  John Endicott
June 4, 2019 10:22 am

and with almost 30% (27%) of Dems in support.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 4, 2019 9:07 am

If some Dems voted for, then even more Republicans voted against.

Irrelevant. It passed with *BI-PARTISAN* support and would not have passed without that bi-partisan support. Hence “Ohio Democrats (10 of them) Vote to Support Nuclear and Coal Power (enabling the bill to pass).”

Al Miller
June 3, 2019 7:34 pm

Reality bites when unreliable power is put to the test. Thank goodness it isn’t happening to any great extent where I live. I’d be madder than wet hen ( frozen hen) going through a Canadian winter on windmills!

Jim
Reply to  Al Miller
June 4, 2019 3:32 am

Rolling brown outs, black outs, smart meters, and more expensive bills. What is not to love about that? Go Renenwables! (sarc)

June 4, 2019 11:17 am

Where is Rud Istvan?

Does he still stand by his “analysis” of the Hydrino, or no?

Is he aware of continued progress with that technology?

griff
June 5, 2019 2:26 am

regardless of ANY other arguments on nuclear power, it is hugely expensive to build new palnt… much more so than coal, gas or renewables.

It also takes a long time to build and the end of life clean up costs are rarely accurately predicted or provided for in advance.

Look at the UK nuclear programme: the Hinkley reactor will take 10 years to build and to cover costs must be guaranteed a hugely expensive price for electricity in advance of construction. (Plans for two further UK nuclear reactors have now been suspended because no agreement can be reached on funding/investment return)

EDF in France is functionally bankrupt due to late life nuclear plant repair costs and unplanned decommissioning costs.

China is building reactors, yes… but in a state monopoly large scale programme in which even Chinese observers claim safety considerations have been dangerously ignored.

New nuclear is simply too costly… natural gas or renewables are the only realistic contenders for new power capacity.

John Endicott
Reply to  griff
June 6, 2019 5:06 am

New nuclear is simply too costly… natural gas or renewables are the only realistic contenders for new power capacity.

If that is indeed the case, than the only realistic contenders for new (unsubsidized) power capacity is natural gas, as renewables are too unreliable and need a non-renewable backup to fill in the gaps when the sun isn’t shinning and the wind isn’t blowing.

%d bloggers like this: