Ohio GOP lines up bill to save FirstEnergy nuclear plants

[Marlin]

Ohio GOP lines up bill to save FirstEnergy nuclear plants


https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ohio-gop-lines-up-bill-to-save-firstenergy-nuclear-plants/552237/

[tagline]

They are not needed, close them. Just curious, what have the workers at these Plants offered pay-cut wise to keep their own jobs? If they want ratepayers to pay more and sacrifice, they should in good faith sacrifice also. Please save your "but gas prices will increase" comments for others, I have heard them all. I am not pro-gas or anti-nuke, just playing Devils Advocate. Government should not pick winners or losers, whether it be Nuke, Gas, Coal, Solar or Wind powered Energy. They control to much of our lives as it is. Just my $.02.

[SloGlo]

butt when yew have the pro gas drum beaters overwhelming the anti carbon crowd with "fax" of nukes contributions two the energy market, it is important to remind them (the anti carbon, global warming enthusiasts) that nukes provide 90 percent of ohio's carbon-free electricity.
a couple bucks a month is about half a starbux🤪

[RDTroja]

They are not needed, close them. Just curious, what have the workers at these Plants offered pay-cut wise to keep their own jobs? If they want ratepayers to pay more and sacrifice, they should in good faith sacrifice also. Please save your "but gas prices will increase" comments for others, I have heard them all. I am not pro-gas or anti-nuke, just playing Devils Advocate. Government should not pick winners or losers, whether it be Nuke, Gas, Coal, Solar or Wind powered Energy. They control to much of our lives as it is. Just my $.02.

While I agree that "the govenment that governs least, governs best" in this case al that is being asked for is a level playing field. Wind, solar, biofuels, and even gas are all being subsidized in one form or another. Why not the energy source that is clean, reliable and, oh by the way, ALREADY THERE and WORKING? Who in there right mind would think that throwing away the money already invested is a good idea and that investing more money in technologies that are far less reliable and no more safe/secure/clean/you name it is just peachy?

This is all profit motivated, politically driven bull****. If Nuclear has to exist on its own, current merits, so should all of the other power sources at least until one is found to be so far superior that it is worth abandoning all others... and nuclear should be abandoned last, not first.

Yes. if profit for the power companies is the only concern, first burn all of the coal and oil we have. Mine the crap out of the planet, destroy the landscape and pollute the air to the point that all of the life forms that have stupidly damaged their own environment are dead and the earth can start over. If you don't agree that is a good idea, then at least lets do the least damage at the lowest TRUE cost... or maybe just level the playing field for the technologies that don't wreck the planet and let the chips fall where they may.

[tagline]

Should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for a company who says that "we want out of power generation because it is not profitable"? No one seems to have a reply for the workers at these plants taking a pay-cut for their own betterment in the long run. I am just bringing up a viable option that could keep the plants operating and everyone happy about "carbon emissions". I don't think that the taxpayers should foot the bill for the hefty bonuses these workers get every year.

[hamsamich]

Yeah that makes sense, maybe we should do the same thing with our Army.  So since we aren't using the Army right now we should just cut it and raise an army when we need it?  I mean, there isn't a war right now, so yeah, that makes sense.  We have nuclear weapons as a deterrent so you know, we don't really need an army right now.  Okay

100s of billions of dollars of our infrastructure could all be closed just because another company could undercut them by 10%? For now?  Okay.

It costs 15 billion dollars to build a nuclear plant and we shouldn't hold on to the ones we have...really?  Okay.

Screw it. Screw all regulation and just open up the market.   Everytime any power company can't make a profit for the year on a power plant let's just close it....until it becomes real profitable to open one because we don't have enough power anymore and we are at the mercy of said plants.  Okay.

Things sound great on paper for a couple great reasons, but things never go like you planned when reality sets in at a later date.  You can't tell me it isn't a good idea to have nuclear power plants in the mix for our country's energy needs unless they were WAY more expensive than all the others, which they aren't.

There is a reason the roads aren't controlled by private corporations.....and that reason spills over into the reasons we need regulation of our nation's energy needs and why it isn't completely on the open market.

[RDTroja]

The only reason that Nuclear is 'unprofitable' is that other sources of power have been given subsidies or have not been assessed penalties for pollution (and I am not talking about carbon.) If Solar was not subsidized it would not be profitable (in fact if it was taxed based on the pollution it causes in the manufacturing process, it would be totally run off the market.) The same for wind... it would not make it on its own and if it keeps killing birds (particularly eagles) it will never recover from the black eye it will get from the environmentalists that are currently supporting it. And lets not forget that they both need backup power sources (i.e. fossil fuels.)

I would be in favor of removing ALL subsidies... but if not, then you have to include nuclear in the game, too. Not for the nukes, but for the sake of the environment (not to mention just for the sake of logic and fairness, but I know our government has no sense of either.)

To save the planet for our children and theirs we need to stop burning fossil fuels to create electricity (we also shold stop the foolishness of burning food to replace gasoline when a significant portion of the planet is starving.) To replace fossil fuels TODAY we need nuclear. If it costs money to save the planet, OK, we should do that. Its not about carbon, either. Not burning fossil fuels will reduce all kinds of pollution including, as counterintuitive as it may be to some, airborne radioactive material pollution.

If we throw away nuclear power we are making things far worse in almost every respect. Should we move to a Fusion/Hydrogen/Wind/Solar/whatever-technology-is next system when we can? Sure. Are we ready to do that today? Not even close. Should we stop burrning fossil fuels TODAY? YES! But we are neither advanced enough nor smart enough nor coordinated enough nor driven enough to do that. I am old enough that I will likely not live to see the ultimate results of our stupidiity, but I am very sorry for the next couple of generations and hope that they are smarter than we have been so they can produce generations after that. Dramatic? Maybe. But I am afriad if nothing is done soon, I am not far off the mark.

</rant>

[SloGlo]

sew, tagline, yins are looking four workers too lead the parade inn cutting the wage cost line of the budget. oh kay, how bout their bean a sliding scale fore compensation reduction. the lowest payed could reduce 1%, the highest 50%. put 50 pts on that scale, won four each percentage and let the reductions apply as thy hit.

[Bonds 25]

Irrational fear blinds people of rational sight.

[GLW]

Irrational fear blinds people of rational sight.

[TVA]

Oh pish posh. Nuclear is one of the most heavily subsidized industries around. Always has been and always will be.

Utilities have ONE purpose. Make money. That isnt an if. I invest in a public utility I have every right to demand a return on my investment. It isnt the army or the navy. It's a publicly owned entity.

The enemy of nuclear isnt wind or sun. The enemy is gas pure and simple. It is no more subsidized than coal. I worked for a gas company and they felt strongly enough of it to build a billion dollar gas line. A VP told me gas would be cheap for 15 years maybe 20. I can build an 800 million dollar 1100 mwe electric plant in a year and utilities have done it.
I can operate and maintain it with 50 people.
Its just as reliable as a nuke and a LOT less expensive to operate and maintain.
If you own the gas company you build the plant right next to the main supply pipe and wham.

In the late 90s all the northern nuclear utilities were banging for deregulation and they made insane amounts of money. The southern plants adopted a we shall see attitude. Turns out in the long run they were right. A northern utility ACTUALLY proposed a state should regurgitate all the regulation and staff and pay the utilities for losses while they did it. Insane.

I have a neutral opinion on subsidies for nuclear because I hate seeing anyone lose their job.
On the other hand no one has lost a job due to shutting down a nuke. The utilities have been more than generous in giving jobs to ex nuke employees. Some have had to move but so be it. Many like their new jobs. I can tell you this.. taking a pay cut is worth 40 hour weeks.

It's ignorant to even think anyone should take a paycut in return for subsidies. The average employee has no say in the matter.

But let's stop pretending nuclear is unsubsidized and lets stop whining about solar and wind. The industry with the axe is gas and they arent going away for at least 12 years ( I base this on the guy telling me 15-20 years in 2016 )
I said it then and people told me I was full of it yet here we are 3 years later. I am not wrong.

Dang.

[GLW]

Oh pish posh.....

I don't disagree EXCEPT,....

burning natural gas to push electrons down the wire is bleeping ignorant,...

vis a vis a national energy policy,....

which,....

or country does not have,....

[TVA]

The only policy the government can apply anything to is TVA

Public Utilities. Nope never

[TVA]

Burning gas is inexpensive as hell

[GLW]

Burning gas is inexpensive as hell

Until it's gone.

Of course, we should have fusion by then,....

[Mounder]

You can't trust the gas/oil companies to allow nuclear to nose back into the electric market once they've taken full control.  While they run happy little commercials promising diversification and reinvestment into alternative energy sources, it's always been a public relations smokescreen.  They will lobby and fight in the courts to keep NEW nuclear sites from trying to build a nuclear plant. They can't stop the existing ones.  You let Davis Bessie and  Perry be dismantled, that will be the end for nuclear power in Ohio forever. Once they're torn down, good luck getting one approved to be built again.  The gas and oil companies will be funding the environmentalists to fight proposed nuclear plans and they will wage their own "clean carbon" war.  It's already happening today. They will kill nuclear just like they've killed smaller gas companies trying to start refineries.  They eat their offspring, just for a tighter monopoly.

[GLW]

...They eat their offspring, just for a tighter monopoly.

always have,...

[GLW]

Its just as reliable as a nuke......

depends on where you live,.....

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/regional-electricity-outlook/grid-in-transition-opportunities-and-challenges/natural-gas-infrastructure-constraints

and the weather,....

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=natural_gas_factors_affecting_prices

and your politicians,....

https://moorlach.cssrc.us/content/climate-change-policies-california

[Marlin]

Long term planning for power looks beyond today's cost, public opinion, supply, and political environment. Today's nukes are clearly not the future but a bridge to a grid that we probably have not envisioned. Natural gas cost is below projections and newer projections are lower than the previous ones. When looking out 20 to 50 years while rolling the dice on predictions that have proven unreliable make for shaky ground for older dinosaurs of the nuclear industry. If it was not for concern about anthropogenic global warming there would not be a question on the closure of these plants they would be gone.

[hamsamich]

You can say all day long that nuclear plants get subsidies, but those subsidies are probably outweighed by the cost of onerous regulations the United States puts on nuclear plants.  Ridiculous.  Oyster Creek is one great example....why did Oyster Creek shut down? How much money is spent on litigation and permits and special staff for all the other bunk you have to do just to operate a nuclear plant that really isn't nesc.? If you can't see that your eyes are glued shut with pish posh.   Good word though.  Any discussion of nuclear plants getting subsidies has to be followed with WHY it is so expensive in the first place.  Splitting an atom safely to produce power does NOT have to be nearly as expensive as it is...it is obvious to everyone I know who has a brain and works in this industry.  A person who has a BWR and A PWR lic. should be the first one to know this....unless his eyes have pish posh in them.

[hamsamich]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/10/durham-north-carolina-explosion-1-person-dead-building-collapse/3422977002/

how much more regulation ($$$$$$) would nuke plants be getting if this was a nuclear plant related explosion...

[GLW]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/10/durham-north-carolina-explosion-1-person-dead-building-collapse/3422977002/

how much more regulation ($$$$$$) would nuke plants be getting if this was a nuclear plant related explosion...

this has nothing to do with natural gas plants,...

and nukes have had explosions and fires:

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/07/transformer-explosion-at-ny-nuclear-power-plant/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-utilities-operations-entergy-arkansas/entergy-arkansas-nuclear-reactor-offline-after-transformer-fire-idUSBRE9B80SL20131209

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0930/ML093090256.pdf


DC Cook is back on line,...


ANO is on line,...


IP is on line,...


last I checked they're all making enough money to stay viable,....


we should not veer into apples and oranges just because we're emotionally attached to the topic,...

[GLW]

Long term planning for power looks beyond today's cost, public opinion, supply, and political environment. Today's nukes are clearly not the future but a bridge to a grid that we probably have not envisioned......

[Marlin]

I am sure you have a point. 

[GLW]

I am sure you have a point. 

the "bridge" notion is well over played,....

but that "bridge" leads to nowhere but the land of promises, unicorns, fuzzy bunnies and rainbows,...

[hamsamich]

Yes it does have to do with gas plants.  Anything nuclear that kills people WILL come back to the industry as more regulations and more money if it is an actual nuclear issue.  Gas explodes BECAUSE it is gas and it is flammable/explosive.   Nuclear plants explode or meltdown because they lose cooling or have a reactivity excursion.  But since you mention it, most nuclear executives I've talked to say anything that happens in a nuclear plant to the negative has a greater effect since it happens in a nuclear plant...if the same thing happened at a gas plant or other plant....no big deal.  I believe them.  People come from other industries to work in nuclear and usually comment on how much more the safety regs are enforced.  Why do you think that is?   If nuclear plants were killing birds due to a radiation issue, what would happen to said nuclear plant?  But windmills can do it all dam day...no prob.  Think about it.  Fukushima didn't kill anybody with radiation as far as I can tell, yet it may have set back the nuclear industry at least a decade and cost 100s of millions of dollars or more to refit with Fuku mods.  I could go on and on.

Do you really think that if a truck spilled nuclear waste on an national hwy they would care whether it was nuclear waste from bomb making or from a nuclear plant.  Nope.  the regs would change for everyone, including  nuke plants most likely ($$$$$).  Is it fair that chemical plants could blow up way easier than a nuke plant but have much less security ($$$$$)?  Nope.  How many examples do you need?

[Marlin]

the "bridge" notion is well over played,....

but that "bridge" leads to nowhere but the land of promises, unicorns, fuzzy bunnies and rainbows,...

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Long term energy planning depends on frequently flawed projections. Gas prices are one of those flawed estimates the cost is lower than expected and projections for the future have been lowered. AGW is currently used as a justification to extend the life of older power plants that are no longer profitable making them a bridge to whatever replaces them maybe renewables maybe SMRs  or a source not talked about much hydrogen. Trying to stay on topic from the original article that talks about two plants that require additional subsidies to remain operational. The need to preserve these plants depend on the projection of the evolution of technology and political attitudes. I might add that it is the use of gas that has reduced carbon emissions more than any other effort world wide making the AGW argument of preserving uneconomical nuclear plants less effective. More of a bridge to the unknown than a bridge to nowhere.

[GLW]

Perhaps I was not clear enough. Long term energy planning depends on frequently flawed projections. Gas prices are one of those flawed estimates the cost is lower than expected and projections for the future have been lowered. AGW is currently used as a justification to extend the life of older power plants that are no longer profitable making them a bridge to whatever replaces them maybe renewables maybe SMRs  or a source not talked about much hydrogen. Trying to stay on topic from the original article that talks about two plants that require additional subsidies to remain operational. The need to preserve these plants depend on the projection of the evolution of technology and political attitudes. I might add that it is the use of gas that has reduced carbon emissions more than any other effort world wide making the AGW argument of preserving uneconomical nuclear plants less effective. More of a bridge to the unknown than a bridge to nowhere.

okay, nice 161 word review,...

[mjd]

You can say all day long that nuclear plants get subsidies, but those subsidies are probably outweighed by the cost of onerous regulations the United States puts on nuclear plants.  Ridiculous.  Oyster Creek is one great example....why did Oyster Creek shut down? How much money is spent on litigation and permits and special staff for all the other bunk you have to do just to operate a nuclear plant that really isn't nesc.? If you can't see that your eyes are glued shut with pish posh.   Good word though.  Any discussion of nuclear plants getting subsidies has to be followed with WHY it is so expensive in the first place.  Splitting an atom safely to produce power does NOT have to be nearly as expensive as it is...it is obvious to everyone I know who has a brain and works in this industry.  A person who has a BWR and A PWR lic. should be the first one to know this....unless his eyes have pish posh in them.

Just use the acronym for "special staff for all the other bunk", it's shorter.... INPO.