So much of this bailout is based on misinterpreted or flat-out made up facts.
The coal and nuclear guarantees of existing available fuel that will make our energy grid more secure in case of attack or natural disaster is simply not true. For starters, attacks on the electrical gris affects transmission, not supply. You could have all the coal and nuclear on site that you could want, but if the electrical grid or utilities are attacked, you cannot transmit the energy. Coal doesn't move itself. As for attacks, if you think an attack on a gas pipeline would be devastating, how about an attack on a nuclear facility? Chernobyl, Fukujima, Three Mile Island were all disasters and NONE were from a terrorist attack, they were from natural or man disasters.
The security of an existing fuel supply is also a myth. During natural disasters such as hurricane, flood or extreme cold (polar vortex) the coal beds freeze or are flooded and inaccessible. Nuclear plants often close down during hurricanes. During Harvey, the Texas nuclear plants stayed open, but during Irma, the Florida plants closed.
This is a blatant bailout of a political cronie. Nothing more.
5
Let them EAT Coal. Right, Donald ???
3
Paying for a wall. Paying for a "tax credit" for the rich. Paying for "Scott Pruitt and his transgressions". Paying for Trump at Mar a Lago (costing us more than Mueller). Paying more for groceries. Paying more for health insurance. Paying paying paying......Come on Trump voters.....wake up. Do you need to have a picture drawn for you?
7
Yeah, and Boston wanted a tunnel, and guess who paid for it?
Can I ask a question? Here it is very gingerly submitted.
Does the NYT still want to be polite too this guy?
If so, what is the reason for it, pick two and explain yourself why you did that.
a) He is ready for mental institution, and knows not what he speaks of.
b) He is such a consummate actor, and he is able to manipulate the the entire Country, and often the world-by changing the subject.
c) Despite the fact that he knows less than the fourth grade student about our government, he is the chief executive of it
—that requires skills of greatest magicians, escape artists, and conmen rolled in one.
d) He single-handedly is about to change our form of government from a pretty darn good representative democracy to a 21st century bizarro dicta-oligarchic-I-am-the-law type of system (fashionable in our era) whose practitioners are in the increase.
I am anxious to read your responses.
3
Yet another move to further clarify the intent of the MAGA sloganeering: America was greatest when coal was king, when robber barons ruled, when outhouses were common, when antibiotics and vaccines were a fantasy, when the KKK flourished, when foreigners were excluded, when minorities knew their place, and when women had no electoral voice. White Anglo-Saxon males never had it so good, and they want it back.
5
I'm with you, but with this minor revision:
Some white males 'had it so good.' But most were no better off than the women and minorities the ruling class encouraged them to revile and abuse.
They went down in the mines in droves, where they were maimed or killed in accidents and contracted debilitating lung disease. They worked long hours on farms and in factories for lousy pay, no benefits and with no measures taken to protect them from accidental injury and inevitable, chronic industrial disease.
Their bosses and the 'robber baron' class massacred them in an effort to stop them from organizing unions and gaining power over the terms of their employment. And in the South, most of them were exploited, impoverished sharecroppers, just like their African American brethren, except they could get their jollies putting on white sheets and burning crosses for entertainment.
The 'conservative' ruling class kept a permanent underclass of poorly educated, poorly paid white men and women underfoot, just as the cynical GOP 'leadership' attempts to do today, by selling them vicious hatred and resentment of scapegoated minorities; 'white privilege,' which was nothing but a myth for those whites not in the moneyed class; and 'that old time religion,' which served then, as it does now, as a powerful opiate of the masses, exhorting them to vote against their own interest, for politicians whose sole governing principle is to implement policies that further enrich the wealthy.
3
Buying votes - again.
1
Why is this corporate welfare okay to fund, but welfare for poor Americans is not?
2
It does not appear that the Blue State citizens will ever realize that the Republicans are orchestrating a war between the States to win electoral votes. The Red States already get more federal money than the blue ones. The Red States would be like Central America if those Blue State ‘elite’ financiers and slicksters (who don’t respect them enough) didn’t bail them out all the time. And yet they complain. A recent article in the Times had a guy bragging that Alabama (Alabama!) was not as bad as Mississippi. I don’t expect that this additional welfare to coal country will shut them up. When will the Blue States strike back?
1
“Beautiful, organic, clean coal”
The Chinese government has budgeted hundreds of billions to develop its alternative energy industry over the next decade. Here in the United States, our shortsighted 'conservative' Trump administration proposes doing CPR on the coal industry to stave off its inevitable death from natural causes, lowering fuel efficiency standards for autos and other regressive policies.
Guess which of the two nations will be the world leader in energy technology ten years from now? Hint: you'd be wise to encourage your children to learn to read, write and speak Mandarin Chinese.
4
What is truly ironic is the Republican non-stop rhetoric about the federal government insinuating itself in so-called free markets. Call it what they will but Trump hasn't a clue about free markets. An old, tired, environmentally unsound industry has been made obsolete by technology and Trump just plows on, uncaring about anything having to do with free markets. He's going to show a few thousand people in West Virginia "what a guy" he is at the expense of the rest of us, our future, and our simple ability to compete.
My God! If any American is sane by the time Trump goes away, it'll be a miracle in itself. The nation may look like San Francisco in 1906, the day after all the fires were finally put out.
2
Trump BFF EPA chief Scott Pruitt received court side seats to a Kentucky basketball game, courtesy of a billionaire coal baron.
Pruitt is dirtier than coal, thanks to all of the bribes he's openly taken from just about every lobbyist under the sun.
Donald is also on the take, albeit he tries to hide it. Trump is "for" coal not for security or to protect the hard working coal miners. He couldn't care less about them or any constituents that can't afford a membership to his golf clubs.
Trump spins hateful us vs. them discontent to rally his "base", all the while doing deals that will make him rich and keep him in office.
No wonder he admires the China, North Korea and Russia dictators so much. He wants to be just like them.
Not to mention the mercury emissions which surely cost us all in Medicare bills and higher health costs. "How many roads,.......". The answer is literally "blowin' in the wind."
1
Next, Trump will abolish the sale of hybrid and electric cars and require the purchase of gas guzzlers.
In order to get voters in West Virginia and Wyoming trump will allow coal industry moguls the right to blow the tops off mountains, reduce the health and safety regulations of miners (you don't need many to blow the tops off every mountain in West Va, !), return to the good old days of black lung disease, and destroy the old capitalist concept of free markets by choosing dirty coal over relatively punditry natural gas (the real reason that Big Coal is sinking - not Obama!). There is nothing right about this decision but then there's nothing right about trump either.
4
live in Franklin county and will be one of those most effected due to the incredibly large towers they want to put in to transport power to areas that are not needed. It has already caused problems as farmers have lost crops to the companies as they have driven their heavy equipment back and forth over the fields to survey them. The offer has been $250. for a crop of wheat. These towers will take out a great deal of productive farmland from small family farms (this not the Midwest), which is something the farmers can not afford. It will also compact the soil so much that it will be impossible to get a decent crop for a number of years. We also h@ve a large number of dairy farms and the towers and the electricity have a negative effect on the cows.
We also live in an area known for its’ sinkholes. Check any of the maps that survey sinkholes and you will find a rather red spot
I would rather see the monies(taxes) go to help anyone who might be unemployed by the shutdown of these plants rather than to the companies and stockholders.
1
Sounds like welfare for the wealthy Coal Industry Owners.
2
Sounds like welfare for the whole state of West Va.
We along with all the Trump supporters are getting taxed to death by Trumps feckless decisions/delusions. Gas along with the prices of most things we need are on the way up while Trump and his swamp buddies cash in on the fleecing of all of US. No health care, no transportation bill, no nothing for US.
6
We better prop up the horse and buggy Industry then.
If we spent 2 trillion to upgrade our grid including hardening it against storms and 3 trillion on solar power plants we would have still spent a trillion or two less than the Iraq war or the Wall Street Bank bailout.
1
If wind and solar are such a sure thing we are tax payers also subsidizing them?
German political leadership is forcing the closing of nuclear power plants, which have given them clean non-greehouse gas, electric power for decades, and are replacing it with solar and wind. The result, massive power shortages and the opening of new coal fired plants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-re...
Don't know what you mean with massive power shortages - can't remember witnessing, or hearing about, any major power failure in the last two decades. The power infrastructure does need some big modifications, indeed, and since the energy market is much more nationalised in Germany, the cost are shared by the consumers - to the advantage of the industry btw. But when we pay more to get a more modern and sustainable grid, Tump follow suit to shelter your used up old one.
3
Ugh, maybe he's working in the right direction for the wrong reason.
We're sitting on the world's largest coal reserves, but they just happen to have been economically infeasible to exploit for a long enough time that coal-fired plants are becoming economically unjustifiable.
Natural gas has been cheap enough for long enough that decisions about what kinds of plants to build, maintain, and close are being made under the tacit assumption that energy prices will stay this way forever (or on par with plant life expectancy.)
The referenced laws exist as a check against market self-interest in the interest of longer-term national security.
It pains me to concede this, but maybe this barrel of pork is coincidentally sitting on a legit strategic concern?
2
If you don't mind poisoned water, earth and air, and a largely inhospitable planet, along with the sixth extinction.
Things haven't gotten better, they're being buried in falsehood.
2
This isn't about energy, and everyone knows it. It's not even (mostly) about corporate profit. It's about identity and shoring up votes for the midterms and 2020 in coal country and the hard right.
9
How is it preferable to leave this energy-dense material in the ground? Burning it isn't the only other option.
1
Even by the logic of the executive order, wouldn’t renewables such as wind, solar and falling water also constitute generation capacity with non-disruptable fuel delivery?
4
Coal doesn’t even want to save coal. Coal miners only want coal because they’re offered no alternative. Build wind turbine plants in mining towns, pay comparable wages and watch miners flock to clean jobs that won’t compromise their health or the future of their kids.
8
Wind farms like wide open spaces. Coal veins show up among the foothills of mountains.
Everyone who could leave these communities, has. Those left, couldn't. Vanishingly few remain truly by choice alone, despite what they may tell you on the record.
How are those tar sands working out these days?
1
China invest in the future with AI, quatum computers, mag-lev trains and solar. The US invests in coal, fighter jets and building walls. You tell me which country owns the 21st century, and beyond?
16
@ GTM, Nailed it! Thank you.
1. There's a lot more than a 90-day fuel supply blowing through wind farms and beaming down on utility-scale solar arrays and rooftop installations.
2. There's a lot of domestic nat gas coming out of the ground, plenty to supply peaking power needs till we get it figured out how best to do it without fossil fuels.
3. A next gen nuke design might be a big help, but propping up old tech and aged plants isn't the answer.
11
Bring back 'beautiful, clean rotary dial telephones and fixed landlines'.
Hail to the corrupt Idiot-In-Chief !
30
"beautiful, clean coal.”
Expensive, polluting, filthy, destructive, unwise, subsidized, disgusting, dirty coal.
There are 1000 reasons to impeach Donald Trump.
"beautiful, clean coal” is one of them.
32
To be prepared for natural or man made disasters, having these power plants kept operable with 90 day fuel supplies on hand is wise...Nuclear power is the only way to slow or potentially stop carbon emissions, the technology should go forward. Going all in on wind/solar is folly.
1
Coal...why? It’s bad for the climate and it sickens those who mine it. It was a very necessary step in our country’s development but we can discard it now, and we should. Maybe the money spent bailing out coal and nuclear could be spent retraining miners to work with renewables.
Most days, solar generates a lot more than we use. We net meter the rest to the grid to cover the cloudy days. In winter we may use hydro power from Canada. Our last bill was $7.16 (to cover the power lines).
16
Several neighbors have solar panels. All are either electricians or engineers who have done the cost analysis.
1
What’s next, taxpayer subsidy for manufacturers of VCR’s and cassette tapes? Telephone booths?
15
Back in January, Freedomlover's Diary on RedState whined that the "government shouldn't pick winners and losers." (https://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomlover1776/2018/01/05/government-sh...’t-pick-winners-losers/)
Last July, Paul Ryan tweeted "Elites in Washington should NOT be picking winners & losers—that’s a recipe for a closed economy—for cronyism."
(https://twitter.com/speakerryan/status/758454281804455936?lang=en)
You can find hundreds of other examples of Republicans parroting this slogan during the recent past. Like so many other easy-to-remember Republican "conservative principles," this one has been exposed as a sham as soon as the financial interests of Republican donors are involved. Republican politicians and commentators are mute as Trump picks coal to be a winner.
The party of hypocrisy.
23
Trump promise: we will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. What Trump delivered instead: we will save coal and you will pay for it!
11
I guess it's now OK to pick winners and losers.
13
Coal exports have gone up 60%. We may be using less, but somebody is burning it, some place, probably with fewer controls. Deals with the devil are mostly like this. A whole different way of thinking, way of living and lot fewer humans may get us out of this, but currently we are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic and taking it out on the rocket scientist in the WH. He's playing politics, were avoiding the facts, and the world continues to deteriorate.
4
So much for "free" market conservatives.
8
Another deplorable decision by a deplorable president !
18
Part of Trumps Rescission package sent to congress to cut federal spending was $7 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP's. Part of a $15 billion dollar package attacking social and welfare expenditures.
So...now we know where the money is going.
Socialization and welfare for the rich, while children and the sick go wanting and dying.
Truly a great country. /s
19
Why are we NOT subsidizing buggy makers (as in horse and buggy)? Makes just as much sense.
25
Watch out! He's not done yet.
I will never eat at McDonalds again.
2
Trump isn't doing these communities any favor by bringing back coal jobs. These mining operations cost millions of dollars to clean up and these poor communities usually end up footing the bill. We might as well just move these people to areas where they can actually get jobs that are sustainable and don't endanger their water supply. Enough of subsidizing communities that can't support themselves!
12
All you coal miners are going to be stabbed in the back by your hero and supposed savior, Donald Trump. You are in for such a rude awakening. Good luck.
17
Once again the American public is going to be left holding the empty bag so djts donors can reap the benefits of his largesse. What a corrupt person he is. It is a shame that the US Congress is not willing to stand up for the taxpayers, whom pay for all of djts current excesses and corrupt policys. Not to leave out the enviornmental damage that coal does to the atmosphere. Where are the people who fly the flag, but do nothing to protect the future for our families.
7
Jackie Fisher started to wean the Royal Navy off coal in 1912, coal use in the US peaked in 1920. That was 100 years ago. What is that idiot in the White House thinking?
35
Fisher did indeed. To see why look for a video of coaling the fleet in Aden. Pumping oil was very much easier, and by then Britain had access to oil.
It means ships could spend a higher fraction of time at sea.
1
He's thinking of his pals that own the mines and how much they've spent to get him elected. He's going to return the favor because that is what Trump is about. Keep his rich friends rich and the rank and file suckers who voted for him: promise them the moon and give them glowworms! There is a certain schadenfreude in watching the losers lose!
The rescue can come from breakthrough technology! To the surprise of almost everyone, ambient heat, a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, larger than earth's fossil fuel reserves, can generate electricity 24/7. See aesopinstitute.org
Presently neglected, as the new science bends long accepted textbook physics, which has become dogma, rapid development can replace fossil fuels very much faster than intermittent wind and pv solar farms.
A Ford engine has been successfully converted to run without fuel. The inventor is finishing conversion of a Kia engine which will be certified by a State laboratory.
Piston engines and turbines designed to run fuel-free will power everything 24/7 from homes to vehicles, ships & aircraft.
Electric cars, trucks & buses will be power plants when suitably parked, selling electricity or powering buildings. Parking lots & municipal garages will become multi-megawatt power stations, superseding the need for coal plants worldwide.
Trolls attack as the technology is hard-to-believe. Science has been said to move forward funeral by funeral. We no longer have that luxury.
Revolutionary invention of this nature is by individual inventors and small companies, poorly supported at present. Should that immediately change, it can create new hope and quickly combat climate chaos.
The economic implications are extremely positive. The transition will create lots of new jobs and an abundance of opportunities.
3
A strictly ambient heat engine would run contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. It’s best not to put our hope in impossible perpetual motion machines. The physics on this is solid and immovable
1
Ken Rauen patented an engine designed to run on ambient heat more than a decade ago. That design could not overcome friction, but it proved that the second law of thermodynamics needs modification. He has addressed that issue at several AAAS meetings, presented evidence and was never contradicted. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES at aesopinstitute.org
But wait! That isn't part of America becoming great again. I mean, back in the 1950s when rivers were burning and we couldn't eat the fish out of our lakes!
Thank you for making us aware of this technology. It is very exciting. If only the fool in the white house and his cronies as well as our GOP congress would fund this type of research instead of inventing ways to keep the old stuff around.
His Orangeness and Secretary What Is Third E should suit up, grab their hardhats and pickaxes, and descend to get a close look at how clean and beautiful that coal really is. Then after the get back to the surface (assuming it’s not a Blankenship mine), they can bond together studying the deficit issues related to the Black Lung Disability Fund. That’s the Fund that will take $15 billion out out pockets to pay the expenses of the coal miners who’we spent enough time down there to be totally disabled.
18
And one can only hope that when they go into the unregulated mine that something catastrophic happens and they never come out. Then I may feel better about coal...
6
If you want to have a future for yourself and your younger friends and family, coal is not the way to go. It isn't even economical.
Poisoning the earth is just flat out stupid, and coal is toxicity multiplied. People are dying just from the local waste, let alone the widespread destruction. Why go back to the 19th century. The majority were not bosses, and today even the bosses are not going to do well if this goes on.
For an amusing and well researched take on Trump's swamp buddies and their crimes, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw6RsUhw1Q8
3
Back in April, Senator Joe Manchin (D ? West Virginia ) wrote to President Trump begging him to do just this very thing.
It is proudly displayed on his website.(https://www.manchin.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Manchin%20Letter%20to%20Pot... We are being urged by the DCCC to fight to save Senator Manchin. This begs the question, "What doth it profit a party if it saves Joe Manchin but loses the planet ?) Apologies to the original author.
10
That isn't what the letter from Joe Manchin says, altogether, and here's a thought: is he spozed to dismiss his constituents altogether?
If we get creamed in November, congrats. This will be why.
1
I have a great suggestion; To show his support for coal, Trump should switch all his properties to coal for power and heat. If it is so clean, there shouldn’t be an issue.
16
Everything Trump does from tax reform to trade wars will hurt consumers.
17
But we will all be able to pay for it with that "yuge" tax break we all got.
Actually, that was eaten up by how much my health insurance went up and the price of gas. All thanks to Don the Con.
2
My head is spinning. I just opened the paper today--after a long, long snooze to read that Republicans--the very same party that opposed EVERY single bailout of the auto industry during the Great Recession--now supports a costly bailout of the coal and nuclear power industries, both of which cannot survive against more efficient energy producers. Further, I read today that the Republicans now assert that the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional. Was this not the same party that supported such an investigation of Sec. Clinton for purely political reasons? Further, I read this morning that the President according to his Republican lawyers is above the law. If so, then by what right did they accused Obama of illegally "tapping" candidate Trump's wires and pursuing an extralegal imperial presidency? Please explain. It's almost as if the Republican party has turned on its own principles yet still supports the men--all are men--who now espouse ideas that are no longer held by the party itself. Surely, this is all a bad dream. Can it be that Washington is now ruled by men who have no moral compass and only desire power for the sake of power and money?
48
Exactly. “Republican” is not a philosophy or ideology anymore. It is nothing more than a brand name now. There are no principles left.
14
Yes, you're right. Virtually every comment in NYTimes comment sections blames the same things you do, and they're right too. The real problem is nobody has ideas on what to do about it.
2
Yes. That is who is ruling Washington. Sick.
It all about survival in the capitalistic market. Nothing killed “coal” except when natural gas became cheaper. No amount of acid rain, global warming gases or heavy metals in coal ash was good enough to kill coal. And now the people that say they hate government intervention are ok when the government will use tax payer money to bail out a losing industry just like government intervention is being used to set tariffs to save our losing auto industries against the winning German and Japanese auto industries. In America hard work gets you tariffs and losers get government bail outs.
It never been about minimal government, it is as we knew...whose government? The government that bails out losing and none competitive industries or the government that wants to help the least of its citizens.
9
Mr. Nesbit fails to acknowledge that consumers pay for subsidies to many forms of energy, including the wind and solar renewables he supports. The Trump proposal is ham-handed, as is much of what this inept 'we hate government but don't know how to do it" administration is attempting. but the argument against the idea of subsidizing forms of power too achieve certain goals is precisely what got solar and win on the map as growing sources of clean power. And if done right (via a price on carbon) it's precisely what we should do to extend the life of retiring nuclear plants.
2
Smoke stacks, pollution , and bigotry, we're going back to the '50s, except with unaffordable healthcare, mounting war debt, no allies, and a lying, greedy, megalomaniacal fake president who is being controlled by special interest groups that are not interested in making America Great Again.
16
So much for the economic idea of highest and best use.
2
More proof that Trump does not care about average Americans. All his ranting to stir up his base is just a smokescreen for his allegiance to money.
11
Worse, these old coal plants are filling the ocean with 470 metric tons of toxic mercury per year. We all eat it in the fish we consume. It makes no sense at all to keep coal plants pumping noxious gases and heavy metals into the atmosphere and oceans when natural gas is clean and plentiful right here in the USA. State sponsored industries smacks of the US-SR just before it collapsed...
8
Trump should consider demanding that the railroads bring back coal fired locomotives, that new houses be required to have coal fired furnaces, that all our navy ships go back to coal fired boilers, and finally, that Elon Musk drop his electric car fantasy and bring back the Stanley Steamer, which of course would be coal fired. Complaining about air quality would be made illegal.
7
It's disappointing that the dirtiest, coal, method to produce electricity is linkef with the cleanest, nuclear. If you kill the technological infrastructure of our nuclear power industries you might as well enjoy climate change, because you've help create it.
2
But Republicans have always insisted they hate the government picking "winners and losers." At least that's what they said when Obama was the President. Oh right, I forgot, now that we have a self anointed King, that only applies to renewable energy.
9
To make it perfectly clear, we are not talking about replacing coal with a commodity from China. We're talking American gas into electricity plants built and run by American employees.
The only counter argument is that we can run out of natural gas and will have to fall back on coal. If that day comes, the pollution will have poisoned us and they'll be surfing on the ocean beaches of Denver. Our primary expenditure of resources must be in non-carbon sources of energy, not flushing those resources down Trump's campaign promise rat hole.
7
You forget to mention Trump's plan to completely gut the funding for the treatment of black lung disease.
I'm sorry, I should have said, "beautiful, clean, black lung disease".
28
There is no CLEAN coal.
21
Please send Trump down into the depths of a coal mine with a shovel. Tell him we expect him to come back clean.
1
I doubt he's ever even held a shovel.
Have you seen the smiling images of the coal miners as the moron-in-chief signs off on the legislation to force the American public to subsidize the dying coal industry? These guys are the last people making "buggy whips" in America.
3
More right wing welfare.
Can’t these illiterate, opioid addicted, right wing religious slackers make it on their own privilege?
31
Yes, this is how we make America great again: we pay to help kill our planet.
And some of us still don't understand why the rest of the world laughs at us?
7
Why are we being subjected to the insane musings of a charlatan whose every utterance affects markets and our security?
Thank you, GOP.
You've been had by a carnival huckster who has the intellect of a needy child.
6
Everything this sad sack President promotes is dirty.
8
Maybe he can resurrect the asbestos industry next. Think of the jobs!
7
Snd bring back lead paint!
3
How about DDT. That pesticide killed just about anything.
Building a wall is equally fallacious... It is a ridulous expense to give into the whims of the big baby
7
Buying votes. What's next, bailing out typewriter manufacturers ? No, wait. Confederate Flag Makers. Perfect.
16
Smug liberals here forget that this is what his base wants. The price does not matter. The economics does not matter. Who gets hurt, even if it is themselves, it does not matter. Trump getting what he wants is what matters to his base, regardless of what it is.
It does not matter how immoral he is, the Christians support him. It does not matter how corrupt he is proven to be, the law and order Republicans support him. This is how cults are.
16
Bail-outs for Corporate Welfare Bums, courtesy of the supposedly free market loving GOP.
Who would of thought?
3
Can we have a serious conversation about National Security and energy? Not with this administration, with its penchant for tossing out the "national security card" whenever it suits and shutting up any institution or agency--such as the Pentagon--more judicious about evaluating the full meaning of security. Continued dependence on coal puts at risk the nation's coasts, the nation's food supply, the nation's health, and more; but Mr. Trump, the most ignorant president we've ever had, can't be troubled to understand the real costs of his stupidity.
9
Come on guys, bailing out losers and criminals is a bipartisan issue. Remember st Obama? Didn't he have something to do with bailing out Wall Street and the big banks? As I remember the crooks got to keep their jobs, bonuses and "special" tax rate. Seems losing your job should have been a minimum if not jail time, but we were told we needed to keep "good people". You know, the same ones that caused the collapse. Geithner went on to a multi million $ career at, surprise! Wall Street. Now rederegulating the banks is a bipartisan issue as well. Trump is just carrying on, if in a more spectacular manner, the coddling of the rich and powerful.
At least Obama's bailout of the Wall Street banks actually resulted, given enough time, in a profit for the Treasury, that is, for us, as partial compensation for the damage done to us. I do wish that we had a crowd of those thieves behind bars.
6
Fair enough, but we are all letting our partisanship get in the way of solving the very real problems we are facing as a country and species. if we like the guy, we worship him, if we hate him, he can't do anything right. If you're blind on the right or left- you're still blind and it's time to get past this way of thinking.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The coal industry is dying. It is being replaced by gas and other sources. Your analogy is ridiculous comparing it to the banking system.
Nothing like some crony capitalism to start your week.
3
Simply another scheme in the Criminal Enterprise. You know good and well that they are getting bribes to do this.
5
This is merely a waystation to bailing out the whaling industry. Make New Bedford Great Again.
6
Just think of all that whale oil going to waste. Probably makes Donnie shed a tear.
Coal is about as clean as the trump WH. Why are we subsidizing plants that need to be retired and why fossil fuel like coal that is not a source of energy for our future or our planets. Coal is like Trump a dinosaur.
3
thought NYT was supportive of technologies to reduce Global warming? Why the hypocrisy on nuclear?
1
Good point. I support using tax breaks to help any energy source that decreases CO2 to help the transition from fossil fuels. Our country made such a mess with nuclear plants waste management and site issues.
Nuclear is not clean. Remember Fukushima.
Nuclear is a nonPC issue. Can't be for it and unfortunately, we can't get by without it. If we really cared about the future and energy we'd partner with the French and everybody else using this stuff to get an acceptable solution to the waste issue. It will not be cheap and it will come with lots of compromises. Of coarse anybody who does that will be labeled a sell out to the nuc lobby. And this doesn't excuse DJT and coal.
The same number of tech engineers in Silicon Valley lose their jobs annually as the total number of employed coal miners in the US. If it's a recession, or they are victims of age discrimination, they are unemployed and unemployable for years, possibly permanently.
Those positions targeted for layoffs come back filled by H-1B visa engineers or college new hires. A fifty year old engineer has the same market value as a 50 year old coal miner in Backwoods Holler, WV.
As Trump and the Republican majority Congress ended extended federal unemployment benefits, it seems obvious that Trumps efforts on the part of Coal is for the benefit of the owners (party contributors) not the miners. The withholding of Medicaid benefits is another indicator of priorities.
8
Using public funds to support unprofitable industries is the definition of pork barrel spending. Coal miners, as well as the power plants they supply, need to disappear. We no longer need them. Additionally, subsidizing uncompetitiveness is no different from paying for public assistance. At least if we had to pay for these people to go on welfare, we won't have to breath the pollution that they produce. These people need to improve their education levels so that they can find new work. Of course, this would not be in Trump's best interest. Better educated voters means less votes for him.
11
Yes let's give welfare, our tax dollars, to the rich owners of outdated industries. And let's just continue to let the rest of the world get ahead of us in developing the jobs of the future which are in producing green technology and renewable energy sources.
I always though that the way he lied to people in coal country communities, whose towns are really struggling to survive, telling them he could save their industry was one of the cruelest manipulations to get votes. What they needed and deserved was the truth, and investment in new job producing industries that have a future.
30
That's what Hillary proposed and it was ignored. She may be wonkish, but some of her proposals are good.
9
Kinda like Obama and the banks and Wall Street huh?
See, welfare is fine, as long as it's given to the "right" people.
If you are a Republican, and you've ever said you believe in the free market, you are a liar.
90
Mr.Trump, we are aware you are willfully ignorant of the facts, and progress; and coal's demise in favor of cleaner and cheaper alternatives is a fact even coal miners are fully aware of. Why do you have to destroy things, and keep lying against the evidence biting you already? There is a name for that: stupidity. But in your case, it is malevolent, vengeful, and ultra-short-sighted stupidity. You are a real disgrace for the health of these United States. And your irrelevancy is becoming the order of the day. No shame, no scruples?
12
While we're all patting ourselves on the back for being "real environmentalists" for using gas and excoriating trump for his coal stand our coal exports to other countries is taking up the slack. It appears that if we don't burn the stuff somebody else will. Just like when we banned DDT much of it went to third world countries and came back to us on food. Turns out the world is not as simple as we'd like.
1
This abuse of Executive Power through stratagem is vile and must go. Baby-T must get his Lolli (fan based plaudits). What an instance of Narcissistic Personality Disorder: skating on utter fantasy at our expense.
6
Will be fun to watch you smelt aluminum with that expensive power.
14
Very nice.
2
It makes perfect economic sense—he is giving tax payer money directly to the Koch Brothers. It's not like it's a new thing for tax payers to give them money, after all who can get by on just $100 billion in assets?
We gave money to wealthy bankers with no strings attached.
Question is how many more millionaires/billionaires need public assistance, and how broke will America become in order to get them just a little bit more wealth? The Waltons employ the largest number of welfare recipients in the country, and they're only worth $140 billion.
This country really can't afford much more of the Republican agenda.
49
Coal is an old and outdated technology as well as being an environmental disaster. Donald Trump's views of the economy may be mired in the 1950s, but this is the twenty-first century and the coal industry is withering away because of its own obsolescence. We might as well subsidize the use of steam locomotives on our railroads, or sailing ships in oceanic commerce, as attempt to revive King Coal.
25
Sailing ships are actually a good idea. Wind-assisted at least... it's free power.
Investments in any energy systems- wind, solar, hydro, gas, coal, nuclear, hydrogen- will always be passed along to consumers. The question is which industries provide positive 'externalities' for our society? Are jobs in Appalachia a 'valid' social benefit? Is reduction of CO2 a 'valid' social benefit? How about restoration of streams and rivers? Given that these costs and benefits fall asymmetrically, what would be helpful is an honest and well document accounting. This article does not provide help in that direction.
1
this kind of analysis has been provided a zillion times over. This being America, they've been routinely ignored.
2
Let's not lump coal and nuclear into the same pile. Nuclear power is 24/7 carbon free baseload power which doesn't depend on the weather. Our government has already been subsidizing wind and solar for years so why not nuclear as well? If we start to loose our nuclear fleet we will never even come close to hitting our COP carbon targets.
5
Actually, that's not at all true. Nuclear is fantastically inflexxible, which makes integrating it with renewables very difficult. In a renewable based electricity system, we need sources that can ramp up and down quickly. Pretty much the only things that can hit that target are demand response and batteries, and to a lesser extent solar, wind and hydro. Everything else is a pain to work with because of minimum spinning speeds and slow ramp times.
1
Yeah, coal will harm the atmosphere for hundreds of years, the mercury will harm fisheries for hundreds of years, but nuclear energy will harm us for tens of thousands of years.
2
to foster the development of cleaner energy production businesses, new manufacturing and energy production plants should be built in areas that are currently invested in coal extraction and coal-burning power plants.
yes, this would be harder to do, but as JFK once said, "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win"
5
Which, was what Clinton and Sanders both proposed, and you know how much those places voted for them.
Sure, it's be great to do this, but if the people there want those industries to go somewhere else, then so be it.
1
The bailout is a gift to Trump’s friends who stand to profit. The nuclear plants in bankruptcy or closed need to be revived to compete for the new markets in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia wants our technology ostensibly as an alternative energy source, but the weapons grade will surely follow, given the tension in the region. There are close pals who already gave greased the wheels.
4
Trump is trading a few coal and steel jobs for thousands in other industries which will be hurt by this nonsense.
22
There's nothing beautiful or clean about coal. Coal mining is known to cause a lot of respiratory ailments (black lung is one example) and cancers. Unfortunately, proponents of the continued use of coal at any cost are simply short-sighted.
15
Can we please stop talking about coal and nuclear in the same breath just because the Trump administration has chosen to do so? Coal is a highly polluting, greenhouse gas emitting fuel that needs to be phased out. Nuclear is America’s single biggest non-greenhouse gas emitting source of electrical energy.
As such, nuclear offers environmental benefits that may be worth subsidizing, just as we subsidize certain renewables because there are societal benefits to be had for doing so.
Until renewables are proven to have replaced every coal and gas plant in this county while providing a stable and reliable source of electricity (we’re still along way from there), nuclear energy has an important role to play.
Lest we forget, nuclear provides 60% of America’s clean, non-CO2 emitting electrical energy. 60%!!
6
Of course it will hurt everyone's wallet but we need to look at this from the president's perspective. In a close election, garnering the electoral votes from Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky could make all the difference between one and two terms in the White House.
Concern for coal miners has never been a priority for Trump. Concern for their votes is something else entirely.
9
Mr. Nesbit says this initiative will make the plant owners very happy. But - won't it make the workers, who get to keep their jobs, happy too? Trump is delivering on his campaign promises to those who elected him. BTW - Free Market - and Darwinism aren't the same thing. I see a lot of Liberals make this mistake. It's clear why Trump was elected. And now he is delivering just what he promised.
Well, Karen, then those people working in those industries should be happy to see their utility bills rise because of this bailout. Just as steel workers should be happy to see the costs of their refrigerators, cars, dishwashers, car parts, etc. rise. I have a friend who works at a Honda motorcycle business. He's an inch away from losing his job because the dealership is failing in this economy, and with the tariffs, it's going to go under. Oh, and my friend who works at a plant supplying oil field services and equipment? He's been given notice that the plant will close with the tariffs. It seems that American companies cannot supply the equipment the company needs to do the job. And let's not forget that the cost of fruit, vegetables, etc. will also rise under this presidency after NAFTA goes down the drain. So for all of his rhetoric of being for the common man, so far all of Mr. Trump's actions are going to cost the common man dearly and make his cronys even more wealthy than they are. I'm still waiting for some sign that wages are going to rise because we all know that corporations will pay people more under the President's tax plan, right?
9
He's talking about social darwinism, AKA the general rubric under which dog-eat-dog, laissez-faire capitalism operates.
And if you'll show me where Trump promised extravagant government subsidies to obsolete, failing industries, paid for by taxes and increased power costs for just plain folks, I shall certainly be interested to see it.
By the way, ever seen anybody slowly choking to death from anthracosis?
Because I have, and no, they were not happy.
1
Dear Karin:
It's not a free market when my tax dollars are goi g to subsidize a dying polluting industry. Especially when we could be creating jobs for those coal workers.
2
Of course it will cost consumers but it will save West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania for Republicans so it is well worth whatever it costs in money or environmental damage. One has to have priorities.
6
The three benefiting states should then be saddled with the bill. Many miners were given the chance for Gov't paid retraining but refused. Do the 50,000 active employees in the coal industry matter more than the 200,000+ workers in retail who will lose their positions as brick and mortar shutter their stores?
This program is nothing but the corporate welfare to assist the few at the expense of the many. As usual the Republicans will enrich the rich while keeping the workers in the mines armed only with the illusion the company and the president cares about them.....they don't.
3
More free stuff from the government. Oh, wait. It's free stuff for businesses that the "free market" says should be retired in favor of better, newer plants and energy sources.
Republicans hate free stuff, unless it is their's and love the free market, unless they want something else.
Humans will pay, but not to the extent other species will.
1
I hope Ohio consumers get hit with the biggest bill for this policy. They voted for Trump and now they can pay to keep inefficient local industries alive so that poorly educated workers can be paid more (rather than just put the money into education). Go figure.
12
Painting with a rather broad brush, aren't we? I didn't vote for Trump nor did my husband or any of my children. My husband and I both have Ph.D.'s and believe evidence-based thinking. We spend a lot of time working with various groups to counteract the debacle that is Trump. Honestly, we need everyone engaged in defeating Trump---even those of us who live in the offending states.
6
Paul Ryan in 2011: "This is industrial policy and crony capitalism at its worst. It's exhibit A for how this kind of economic policy doesn't work. We shouldn't be picking winners or losers in Washington. We should be setting the conditions for economic growth so that the private sector can create jobs. Washington is not good at picking winners and losers, so we shouldn't try."
Paul Ryan in 2018: The deafening sound of crickets.
56
Frankly, I am more worried about my grandchildren's health. EPA is supposed to protect us. And choosing to push dirty tech to help the oligarch's friends is *not* a good idea.
4
This is yet another payback to the Koch brothers. First they got their massive tax cut, now they get huge subsidies.
Where does this money come from? Not from Trump's taxes...
35
We should bail out the nuclear plants as they help us minimize green house gasses released into the atmosphere
Environmentalists should cheer this part of the plan
2
And as for the waste with a half life of thousands of years should be dumped where....the East river?
1
The stuff isn't going away. The French are probably going to put it way down in the ground. We were going to do that but politics, as usual, got in the way. There is no free lunch with any technology, yes solar and wind have draw backs and down sides. The only way out of this mess is a combo of technologies, reducing our use, and the one one thing no one can even mention, a plan to cut our birthrate and eventually get to a sustainable population.
Coal jobs are NOT coming back, but coal profits will come back thanks to...that guy impersonating a real President. Always about the money, isn't it?
2
First, there is no free market! Republicans don’t believe in free markets. They believe in subsidizing their corporate friends through tax breaks and direct grants as well as allowing them to use our public programs to pay their personnel costs.
Trump doesn’t care what it will cost me or you or the next guy. He only knows the coal mine owners Andre his “friends” the way the Chinese and the Saudis are his friends.
7
Sounds and smells like socialism to me, or at least what the GOP and conservatives has bashed for decades. This is pandering to a very small minority and at worse subsidizing a dying, polluting industry, is exactly what we should NOT be doing.
3
Could it be that the visionary trump sees a war in the months ahead? Then we will be patting him on the back for saving our national electrical grid in an worldwide emergency. What-a-guy!
1
In 2008 First Energy’s stock price peaked at $83/share. And since then it has been on the “going out of business curve”. Today they sit at $33 /share, about a 60% drop in company value. It would cost a fortune, as the author states, to keep these plants running. Coal plants have an inherent problem, coal is a corrosive, caustic, a bulky fuel, and plays havoc to the power plant. Maintenance costs when their new are expensive, after 40-50 years their prohibitive.
Nuclear plants aren’t much better, the chemicals induced into the water for making steam make maintenance costs for valves, pumps, etc. most expensive. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) makes almost continual changes to the regulations for safer plants. And that costs a ton of money to the utilities and ultimately the consumer. This is another terrible idea coming out of the White House to satisfy some stupid campaign promises.
“The Dumb just keep getting Dumber”.
9
This is like subsidizing wagon manufacturers when cars became popular.
13
A place where better to follow NJ's lead than CA's...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/nyregion/new-jersey-renewable-energy....
First - notion that coal and nuclear are being "subsidized" is ridiculous...In fact, the opposite...
Renewables so fragmented, ad hoc, and erratic - the baseline power industry has been turned on its head to accommodate them...
Only thing that's kept the grid from imploding is that the utilities have been quietly building in rapid-on/off gas-fired plants to absorb the swings - and renewable reality falling so short of expectation and evangelism...
Incidentally, the efficiency of such gas plants when waste energy captured for heating – untouchable…
If you think NYC subways are unreliable now - just wait till Indian Point shutters...
Second - coal about the dirtiest and most vile thing that could be burned for fuel...But the excesses of environmentalism have everyone distracted by CO2 sequestration...
Yet - all of China, Germany, and India are going to burn even more coal this year than last - and then more again next year...
Third - nuclear power can run a country, and with almost no waste...French did a magnificent job of proving this - and then, somehow, imploded their industry...
But - China apparently didn't get the EuroMemo - and is about to leave everyone else in the dust, for nuclear technology...
Does 50’s-era nuclear power have safety issues - yes...
But so did 50's cars...
We didn’t stop driving – we fixed the cars…
6
What about the Chinese Telecom, Mr. President? Are we protecting them so that your royal family contracts can enjoy protected status in PRC? Princess Ivanka’s businesses must be allowed to flourish in China! Everything is so transparent. There’s never been a more transparent American presidency.
10
Hopefully the courts will stop this action. Propping up this dying industry really is beyond stupid. Even the miners themselves know it. And it's not to save the 50,000 coal jobs which is ridiculous in the grand scheme of things anyway. It's to give those few billionaires that are too dumb to invest in new forms of power a gift. First Energy, the company that connived to give Bush OHIO and win the election... Investing some in Nuclear to see what to do with waste over the long all I can see, and we probably do that anyway. But this move is just blatant banana republic corruption that will hurt us all in many ways, even the people it's supposed to help.
3
Populism before practicality..or profits..or people.. or planet....amazing just how wrong this creature is..so often..
2
Why doesn't he pay...since he has milked all of us and more out of money over the years!
1
Another example of Trump's corruption. Interestingly just hours after Trump's minion Scott Pruitt watched basketball with his son as the guest of a coal baron ($130 'market priced' court side seats? Doesn't even pass the laugh test as far as I'm concerned.)
The citizens, the environment, the voters be damned,
1
Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that the US would impose a carbon tax of 40 $/MTCO2e (metric ton of CO2, emitted). This is close to current estimates of the social cost of carbon ... before Scott Pruitt cut it to $1
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/us-watchdog-agency-study-social-c...
If this were done, and all other government subsidies for the various energy resources were ended ... what would happen?
Existing nuclear plants would be economic, it might even spur further construction.
Wind and Solar energy would do very well indeed.
Natural Gas would do OK; it would be the peaking/backup fuel of choice.
And coal would be DOA.
This would be reality folks -- real economics. There are real (and serious) costs of carbon.
6
National security makes sense - to a point. Witness the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But subsidizing coal is clearly a ruse. If national security was truly a concern, more distributed renewables would seem to make a whole lot more sense. Nukes can also play a role and there's all that natural gas. Preserving outdated coal plants as opposed to investing in more secure future generation will keep us in the dark for years to come.
2
I don't own energy stocks. I'm not a member of the energy lobby. But most voters want cheap energy & aren't willing to pay more for renewables. We're still not ready to move to 100% clean energy. We can't & won't stop burning coal for the foreseeable future. Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is still inexpensive. It's a major factor in the low cost of electricity in the U.S. In 2015, 33% of our electricity came from coal. Renewables can't fill that gap at the present time. Coal & other fossil fuels are currently the only way we can meet the high demand for power now. The electricity demand on the power grid must be generated as its needed, in real time. There's no other option. When the demand for electricity suddenly spikes, we need to have the means available to generate that power immediately. Fossil fuels provide this capability, as we know that we can use an X amount of it to generate a Y amount of energy in a reliable manner at anytime, day or night. Solar, wind & hydro power is limited as we cannot generate hundreds or thousands of mega watts of power upon request if the Sun isn't shining or if the wind isn't blowing sufficiently. If we were simply forced to generate power through only clean methods at this point, there would be rolling brown-outs and power curfews like there are in 3rd world countries. The public won't stand for this. People are in favor of alternatives, but they don't want those alternatives compromise their lifestyle.
1
There’s a reason major utilities are decommissioning coal plants and it’s not because they are cheap to operate. Do some research ... tube leaks cost availability and are not always easy to repair. Coal clinkers are a pain to remove and there’s a reason that a gas plant can produce the same amount of power with a tenth the personnel .... maintenance
I have done the research. Facts are facts. We will continue to burn coal for decades to come. And there's no way we will leave trillions of dollars of fossil fuels in the ground.That isn't happening.
Bill -- the utility industry isn't shutting down coal plants because tree-hugging goo-goos tell them to, particularly when Trump is president.
Coal is dying because it costs too much, for the electricity it can generate. The fact of the matter is that right now Natural-Gas-Fired (NGF) plants are cheaper that coal-fired, almost everywhere in the country. Why should any plant burn coal, when natural gas is cheaper?
And then here's the stunner: at favorable sites both wind and solar energy are now cheaper than the fuel cost alone, of NGF! If you don't believe it, go check it out.
What this means is that the most economic solution is build the renewables AND the NGF plants -- dispatch every watt of renewables, burn only the natural gas you need to burn to satisfy further demand. Fossil fuels are now peaking/backup only. "Baseline" is meaningless now.
And this is exactly what is happening.
1
How about using that money to train those workers with new skills dealing with clean energy alternatives and investing in clean energy alternatives themselves. Donald Trump is taking the country backwards.
9
I understand the pain of working in an obsolete industry such as coal mining but to prop it up as it dies of its own volition is just plain stupid and wasteful. It's delaying the inevitable at HUGE cost to the lives of the miners themselves, the health of the environment, and the cost of retrofitting power sources that have already moved on to natural gas, solar or wind, not to mention passing those costs onto reluctant consumers-most of us wanting cleaner sources of energy anyway. Move miners into industries that have a future, or employ them to repair and replant the land that strip mining has destroyed. Government might be helpful in getting new innovative energy sources such as solar a good start, but to spend OUR tax dollars to prop up the energy sources that are of the past is just plain foolish.
17
Obsolete?
No, we won't run out od coal for a long time. Some of the best coal ground is out West and hasn't even been touched yet.
I'm not referring to the supply of coal when I call it obsolete, I'm referring to its impracticality when other options are cleaner and increasingly cheaper.
L'osservatore -- are you familiar with the quote "the stone age didn't end due to lack of stone?"
If not, go check it out, and you'll be surprised who is most associated with this quote (he may not be its originator).
There's no lack of material to make buggy whips, or vinyl records, or typewriters ... or steam locomotives. They are all obsolete technologies now.
1
Considering the difficulty with and lead time for getting any new nuclear plants approved and the large environmental impact associated with their construction, letting the ones we already have retire early is an unambiguously terrible idea.
It is even possible that this is such a terrible idea that if the choice is to help both coal and nuclear or help neither, we may be better off with the former. Of course, this is not the choice we have and linking these two things together is nonsense.
2
Alright then, Mr. Nesbit: please explain how we can meet base draw plus twenty with solar, wind etc. while feasibly producing enough panels and turbines without polluting the world with the panel manufacturing process at that scale.
You can’t. Not without lying, anyway.
Accept nuclear as the future.
1
Uh CS ... it is you who is making false claims.
"Base draw + 20" is an expression about sales commissions ... has nothing to do with electric power sales.
You are likely conflating it with the concept of "base load" -- but this concept is no longer meaningful in electric power monopsonies (ISO/RTO power pools) where power is bought by auction.
All sources of power simply bid to supply the demand -- the winners are the lowest bidders, they ALL receive the bid price of the last (highest) accepted bid.
Nuclear power is in trouble because wind, solar, natural gas are too cheap. If you want to reward nuclear for lack of CO2 emissions then pass a CO2 tax ... and wind and solar will still underbid nuclear when they are available. Can nuclear make it as a peaking/backup source? If so, fine. If not, it goes broke.
Subsidies to emerging and non-extractive power industries which do not pollute are one thing, but to subsidize an outdated industry from past centuries which pollutes the air, damages the environment, causes lung disease, has huge transportation costs and consequences, and destroys the land from which it is dug out is another. Coal may or may not have a place in the overall picture, but I have listened to the coal trains day and night delivering it to the coast to be shipped to China. Why should we destroy our lands for China's coal use?
33
The author failed to acknowledge the considerable subsidies enjoyed by both the wind and solar industry when talking about competition with these alternative sources of energy. According to the University of Texas Institute for Energy research, wind and solar lead the pack in the number of dollars per kilowatt/hrs of subsidies. If the subsidies were removed, solar and wind would fail to compete. Look to Germany to see where electrical utility prices have gone when more power is generated by renewable sources. The most good to the American people is served by lower electricity prices, not higher.
4
American people are also served by clean air and less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It makes perfect sense to subsidize technologies of the future.
I mean, why not subsidize horse carriages?
79
Renewable power subsidies are meant to foster infrastructure investment when the entrenchment of existing power sources prevents superior/innovative movement. This model applies to just about every sector that is required for society to function. When entrenchment skews markets and thereby negatively affects consumers in aggregate, subsidies are the best option to reasonably balance a market. When the old entrenched industries fail as a result of newly balanced market, the government then subsidizes workers through retraining and other means. To me, this seems to be the perfectly obvious and most cost-effective policy.
15
Wind power creates TWICE the number of jobs that coal mining does ... Wind power is the future ...
10
It may be all wrong but he'll do it
And all of us are bound torue it
Has no Science sense
Ignorance intense
Those voting for Trump really blew it.
42
How mistaken you are! Those who voted for Trump are getting what he promised them. Privileged Coastal Liberals don't register that these "flyover states" are inhabited by struggling people of the actual human sort. Thank God for them he won! And I am a privileged Coastal Liberal who is terrified of what's become of our party.
How are they being "helped?" By income redistribution. I thought conservatives hated that.
But, if it is going to happen, wouldn't it be more efficient just to send annual check to the coal miners?
1
While I agree with the bulk of this article companies like FirstEnergy out of Ohio don't deserve to be saved, that company caused the great black out of 2003 and then was ordered to make upgrades to their system which they chose not to do.
If Trump truly wants to save the coal industry he should challenge our industrial schools to come up with a way to burn it cleanly and then what to do with the left over ash, but that will never happen.
10
First Energy also came a sixteenth of an inch from blowing up their Davis Besse nuke plant in 2000. A very close call.
Besides the costs to consumers described in this piece, the subsidizing of coal will cost me and my family plenty -- our health and perhaps our home. Coal is the source of mercury in the abundant Atlantic Ocean fisheries, and I eat a lot of it. My home is near the water and rising sea levels have already had an impact during Superstorm Sandy. Burning more coal will only make that situation worse, despite Mr. Trump's lies about it.
107
socialism for the well connected - nothing new in this administration. upward redistribution.
71
Only a fraction of the proposed subsidy will go to corporate profits. The biggest expense at those facilities is labor. Hence, the vast majority of the money will go to the Americans workers at those plants.
Last I checked Nuclear power plants have a very small workforce. Coal powered plants have a larger workforce but still is fully automated. You won't see significant blue collar jobs but you will see higher electric bills, more pollution and larger bonuses for the owners. Coal miners will have very little increased employment since American coal mine are becoming highly automated. Trump's actions are solely to make rich people richer.
6
Thanks Janice. I've already got a nice bridge.
7
That 11.9 billion dollar figure certainly doesn't factor in the costs to the environment or human health (or animal health, either, for that matter).
135
Lives don't matter to Republicans, only fetuses.
9
It seems to me that the 11.8 billion dollar extra cost to consumers would be enough to pay 118,000 coal workers $100,000 per year or if we decided to be stingy, 236,000 coal workers $50,000 per year...healthier environment, healthier workers. Who knew governing could be so easy?
This coal "bailout" makes no "economic sense," but a lot of political sense in red coal states where Democrats are defending their Senate seats like Jon Tester in Montana, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, and Joe Manchin in West Virginia. it's just the latest in Trump "pay to play" politics; and it amounts to nothing more than the equivalent of an illegal campaign contribution, or to be blunt, a bribe.
140
Yes, and the voters in those states are going to be very happy because their president is enraging us "libtards." Those people don't care what happens to the rest of us.
7
Perhaps 45 will change his mind after the elections.
1
I don't own energy stocks. I'm not a member of the energy lobby. But most voters want cheap energy & aren't willing to pay more for renewables. We're still not ready to move to 100% clean energy. We can't & won't stop burning coal for the foreseeable future. Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is still inexpensive. It's a major factor in the low cost of electricity in the U.S. In 2015, 33% of our electricity came from coal. Renewables can't fill that gap at the present time. Coal & other fossil fuels are currently the only way we can meet the high demand for power now. The electricity demand on the power grid must be generated as its needed, in real time. There's no other option. When the demand for electricity suddenly spikes, we need to have the means available to generate that power immediately. Fossil fuels provide this capability, as we know that we can use an X amount of it to generate a Y amount of energy in a reliable manner at anytime, day or night. Solar, wind & hydro power is limited as we cannot generate hundreds or thousands of mega watts of power upon request if the Sun isn't shining or if the wind isn't blowing sufficiently. If we were simply forced to generate power through only clean methods at this point, there would be rolling brown-outs and power curfews like there are in 3rd world countries. The public won't stand for this. People are in favor of alternatives, but they don't want those alternatives compromise their lifestyle.
2
I guess the coal companies, like the banks, are 'too big to fail'. You know what the flip-side of 'too big to fail' is, right?
'Too small to succeed'.
GOP 'free market' is looking more and more like a rigged casino.
104
"GOP 'free market' is looking more and more like a rigged casino. Excuse me, Phil. But are you just now figuring that out? There are no 'free markets' anymore. Of course, it's rigged. And will be until there is a revolution.
2
Trump is missing a huge opportunity to create thousands of good jobs and SAVE middle class consumers significant amounts on their electric bills by helping renewable energy projects.
Instead he’s pushing these crazy inefficient dinosaur plants, wasting money that should be invested in new grid instructure, tax rebates for renewables, battery research, and accelerating off-shore wind projects.
Coal plants are largely robotized today, as is coal mining, so this Trump policy is a let down for his supporters, who just didn’t know how much their coal jobs are now done by robots. Think how there should be free college for wind turbine techinicians, and installers, solar installers and maintence in West Virginia, followed by a federal subsidy to get those renewables in this neglected, impoverished state that has been devasted by the coal industry. It would create good jobs, and save consumers money on their power bills.
62
Like the just announced tariffs on steel in the guise of "national security", now Trump might have found a way, also in the guise of "national security", to make good on another one of his campaign promises. I'm beginning to believe that this man can pretty much do anything he wants and not be held accountable. All the while while Congress seems to sit paralyzed into inaction
69
Unfortunately, everything he "does" is going to hurt the country. It would be one thing if he was actually a despotic genius but he's an imbecile. And the Congress sits by while Nero fiddles.
9
All this is about is giving federal funds to Trump's buddy Bob Murray, the coal magnate.
Good grief, is there no end to the corruption of this White House?
70
"Good grief, is there no end to the corruption of this White House?", umm, no.
9
No Panthiest, there is no end to the corruption of the Trump crime organization and no end of the corruption of the GOP who enable his amorality and corruption with their own amorality and corruption.
12
Which party complained about Pres. Obama backing Solyndra's solar panel manufacturing, explaining the government should not be picking winners and losers? Yet where's the indignation about Trump's plan to subsidize coal mining? And this is happening at the same time the Chinese are betting on quantum computing, big data, and other high tech advances. China's picks may not all be winners, but putting money into coal mining seems about as likely as going broke owning casinos.
Oh... Never mind.
47
I have no problem bailing out the people who work in the coal mining industry, but I have a big problem bailing the industry itself. Retraining these people for 21st-century technology jobs is not just the socially right thing to do, it's a strategic economic investment into the country's future.
49
That just makes too much sense for this President and his Congress..