#45 wants to regulate the power industry, to save coal and nuke

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Jun 2, 2018.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    #45 wants to regulate the power industry, to save coal and nuke

    Yes, #45 is trying to find ways to force power girds from buying what is now more expensive power from old coal and nuclear power plants.

    Even the normally pro #45 Fox Business let out a little caveat on this issue:
    Yes, calling on War Powers to save a fading power industry segment.
    Regulating an industry, something completely opposite of Republican ideals and efforts.

    This and the Steel tariffs is another tactic to fulfill his campaign promise to save the Coal industry, but in doing so jeopardize American industry as a whole, and force the average American to pay more.
     
  2. SoggyCheese Suspended

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Barcelona, España o Londres, Reino Unido
    #2
    This is exactly the sort of thing that always leads to Trump businesses failing. The man hasn’t got a clue about implications.

    Come on Republicans. Let’s see you defend this, when you know full well how ridiculous it is.
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    Adam smith is rolling over in his grave...
     
  4. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    I think we should go hard into solar. Get some of that in Puerto Rico too!
     
  5. bopajuice Suspended

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Location:
    Dark side of the moon
    #5
    I think we are making good progress with moving our country forward. Make America great again by bailing out coal and nuclear. Great idea.

    I wonder. Trump and his party are climate deniers, but are they also against solar, wind and water energy? If so why?
     
  6. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #6
    He's railed against wind energy a lot on Twitter. Mostly because he thinks they're ugly.
     
  7. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #7
    They don't like liberals and wish to spite them.
     
  8. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #8
    Trump is bitter about losing his fight against a wind farm near his golf course in Scotland.
     
  9. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #9
    Lets build a nuclear PP in view of his property instead.
     
  10. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    He just hates when he's playing mini golf and his ball gets stuck in the windmill
     
  11. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #11
    Mercury News has a clearer article on the details of #45 plan.

     
  12. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #12

    Republican defense: "But but but…. but her emails…."
    --- Post Merged, Jun 3, 2018 ---
    [​IMG]
     
  13. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    Well, we do have a bit of a looming energy problem. As these older fossil fuel and nuclear plants age into retirement, building new ones is unfavorable and just about impossible. Wind and solar are great, but until these systems become more efficient and energy storage becomes cheap enough, they can’t really replace our existing energy sources entirely.

    I believe our best answer to energy independence and environmental concerns, at least in the short term is nuclear. I imagine this is an unfavorable platform but the reality is solar and battery technology is still probably many decades away from the efficiency we need. People get all NIMBY about nuclear when the reality is the US has 99 operational reactors (according to google) and the chances you live near one isn’t too far to fathom. Sure nuclear has its problems, but in terms of providing a bridge to even cleaner technology, I think it’s the best option and is believed to have its own untapped potential.

    That said, I’m not sure Trump’s decision here has the right intentions (policial instead of actual energy concerns) nor is necessarily the best solution (natural gas > coal). Trump needs to stop meddling with all these commercial industries.
     
  14. Micky Do macrumors 68000

    Micky Do

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Location:
    An island in the Andaman Sea.
    #14
    The Donald is after making himself look great amongst his own, in his own sandbox. Neither much knowledge nor interest in what goes on beyond the garden wall. Hell bent on making America irrelevant, and doesn't give a hoot.

    Fossil fuel is the tech of the past century or so. Nuclear may have a small place in the future, but should be far from the preferred option.

    Wind must have massive, at least while powered by the present windbag in chief blowing hot and cold.

    Small scale hydro can often be done with minimal environmental impact, but large scale projects can be devastating.

    Solar electric power, used directly as well as with batteries or other means of storage is the fastest developing, is clean and must be favourite for the future, but the fossil in the White House doesn't want to know about it.....
     
  15. Solomani, Jun 4, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018

    Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #15
    I doubt that you hear very many non-Republicans actually protesting the use of nuclear energy (outside of extremist environmentalist groups). Coal on the other hand, is inherently dirty. So many problems with coal, I can't even begin to list the problems for both the environment as well as the danger to American citizens. Did that criminal Coal Baron (Trump's BFF) that was running for Senate ever serve more than 1 year of jail time? The one that was found culpable/negligent for the deaths of many miners….sheesh.

    I'm actually in favor of all modern nations embracing civilian nuclear energy. And yes, that even includes nations that we don't like (e.g. Iran, China). The long term outlook is that nuclear energy can satiate energy demands for many populations, which could theoretically decrease international conflicts rooted in "energy resource warfare" like fighting over oil and gas. In WW2, among the motivating factors for Japan's entry was its desperate need for resources (e.g. oil), which was sparse in the Japanese Empire. And Hitler was smart enough to know that holding onto the oil fields of German vassals (e.g. Romania had immense oil fields) was key to winning/losing the war. Without vast oil fields, there was no chance in hell that the Wermacht's tank divisions would continue to operate. Those German tanks were gas guzzlers… almost as bad as Ford pickup trucks. :p

    These days, nations still "fight" over oil and gas. We just do it more subtly. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the other Gulf States, they mix their international proxy wars along with using oil as a weapon/threat. Iran these days always does the exact opposite of what Saudi/OPEC wishes to do with oil pricing, if nothing else but to slap SA in the face. And part of the reason why Qatar was "blockaded" and blacklisted by the Saudis and their allies? Because Qatar cannot seem to break its old alliance/partnership with Iran. In fact, it's very difficult for Qatar to simply "leave" its partnership with Iran. Both nations have co-owned an immense gas field along their territorial border. Yes. They are co-owners of a lucrative gas field for decades. Hence, despite all the other Sunni Arab countries (along with Sheik Jared bin Kushner) trying to twist Qatar's arm, it's just very difficult for Qatar to leave a partnership that they have depended on for decades.


    Iran and Qatar jointly control the world’s largest natural gas field.
     
  16. eltoslightfoot macrumors 6502a

    eltoslightfoot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    #16
    This.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2018 ---
    What I don’t understand is why a pro-capitalist president isn’t letting the free market sort it out. If he did anything, it should be to remove regulations in this area. Maybe that is what he is doing? Removing subsidies the other direction?
     
  17. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    To be clear, the power industry is already heavily regulated, by both federal and state governments. At the federal level, Part II of the Federal Power Act requires that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission determine that all wholesale sales of electric power are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. For big regional electric markets, they have exercised that responsibility by approving market structures designed to allow market forces and competition to set reasonable prices. those market structures are far from perfect and require constant oversight by independent market monitors and FERC. State regulators have the responsibility (in states without full retail competition for electric supply) to approve utility resource plans, including the types and quantities of new generation to be built. What Trump is doing is completely overriding all of that regulation by forcing those large regional markets to buy power from high priced coal and nuclear plants. Those higher prices will be passed through to end users. If you live in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic or Midwest, this plan will force you to pay considerably more for electricity in order to keep these coals plants running when they are no longer economic. And, yet, people still pretend that Trump is in this for the little guy.
     
  18. eltoslightfoot macrumors 6502a

    eltoslightfoot

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    #18
    This is a really good point. Although, I still maintain that people don’t value nuclear enough. We are going to need it as a legitimate source of energy to go with wind and solar. It doesn’t contribute to global warming. Thorium reactors are what we need though, I am not sure I like the idea of forcing old plants to stay open by manipulating something...
     
  19. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #19
    Because there's still one barrel of oil left in the ground? :rolleyes:
     
  20. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #20
    Seriously though, when is this stuff gonna run out?
     
  21. LizKat macrumors 601

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #21
    The problem is, not before we should (already have) quit burning it.
     
  22. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #22
    Just looked it up. 55 years at current levels. Hey, it could run out sooner. Unfortunately, we have more coal so they would probably just go back to that.
     
  23. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    The catastrophic issue with nuclear is the safety issue.
    When a BWR fails, there is a very good chance of escaped radioactive materiel, and of significant contamination.

    Conversely there are at least 2 fail-safe and efficient nuclear reactor designs that have been proven to work, but no one is willing to spend the hundreds of billions to make a 1MW plant. It will take the US Gov to take the world lead in making this safe plant, but no, its all about keeping a handful of people happy working at crumbling time bombs.
     

Share This Page