Leaked Document Shows Trump Officials Planning To Force Americans To Keep Coal & Nuclear Plants

[red dog 1]

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2018, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

LEAKED DOCUMENT SHOWS TRUMP OFFICIALS PLANNING TO FORCE AMERICANS TO SPEND BETWEEN $311 MILLION AND $11.8 BILLION A YEAR TO KEEP UNPROFITABLE COAL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANTS FROM SHUTTING

BOINGBOING.net (blog)
June 2, 2018


Officials in Trump's Department of Energy prepared a plan to use unprecedented "emergency powers" to force the US grid to rely on expensive, unprofitable coal and nuclear power, rather than paying market rates for cheaper sources of energy: renewables and natural gas.

The plan will cost Americans an additional $311,000,000 - $11,800,000,000 per year, according to estimates from researchers at Energy Innovation and the Climate Policy Institute.

The plan poses the "premature retirements" of these unprofitable power-plants as a national security matter, that would leave the country vulnerable to cyberattacks and extreme weather events.

The plan proposes action under the Cold War-era Section 202 Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act invoked by Harry Truman 68 years ago to subsidize US steel production.

More:
https://boingboing.net/2018/06/02/defense-production-act.html

[hedda_foil]

1. Check your header line. Leaded instead of leaked.

[red dog 1]

2. Thanks for that

After posting this, I rushed over to the DU Lounge to post another thread & missed my mistake

[VMA131Marine]

3. Distributed renewable generation is a lot less vulnerable to weather events than a fixed power plant

If every home had solar panels on the roof and some battery storage, people could count on having at least some power everyday even in the event of a widespread power outage.

[red dog 1]

4. + 1

Also, wind farm technology has made great strides in the last 2-3 years.
I forget which state, but one state has something like 20% power on the grid from wind farms

[RandomAccess]

5. Surely, surely this can be prevented --

Can someone (who?) sue to prevent that? Perhaps some of the energy companies already trying to move beyond coal because it's too expensive -- ?

[Chakaconcarne]

6. It's just optics

It would be cheaper to give workers unemployment.

[world wide wally]

7. So much for letting the "free market" decide.

I don't ever want to hear another Republican ever spout that shit again.