Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 10, 2018

One of the Trump administration's most ambitious plans to buoy the struggling coal and nuclear power industries has been shot down. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission unanimously rejected a proposal to subsidize coal-burning and nuclear power plants on Monday. Its defeat hands a victory to the motley coalition -- of environmental groups, natural-gas companies, free-market advocates, and Democratic state attorneys general -- who had opposed the rule and promised to fight it in court. The 5-0 rejection was all the bitterer for the administration because four of the five commissioners who lead the agency were appointed by President Trump, and three are Republicans.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Gosh, now we won't get to see any more flat topped mountains or glowing mountain streams. I just have to laugh at all the Trumpeters who actually believed he was going to bring back coal. It was preposterous and no one with half a brain cell still functioning ever believed a single word he said about it.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-10 08:40 AM | Reply

Subsidies for nuclear power plants? How the mighty have fallen.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-10 09:32 AM | Reply

Trumps administration cannot even get Trumps promises pushed through.

Proppping up poisonous energy sources is of course the correct way to go.

#3 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-10 10:27 AM | Reply

Winning !

#4 | Posted by ghoti at 2018-01-10 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This thread is a great opportunity for rightoecentre to show us some "arm flapping" over what was promised by who

#5 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-01-10 11:44 AM | Reply

Trumps entire campaign was arm flapping and the alt right loved it.

#6 | Posted by bored at 2018-01-10 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How is dotard going to blame democrats for this?

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-10 12:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Coal is still important, about 30% of our electricity, and all our steel,(initially) uses that fuel. I see coal trains one hundred cars long pass by my house every day. Texas burning Wyoming coal.

#8 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-10 12:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Texas burning Wyoming coal.

#8 | Posted by docnjo at 2018

Not for much longer.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-10 12:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#9 | Posted by Zed, Who is going to stop us? If we run out of Wyoming coal, we have plenty of our own, or coal in Oklahoma, Arkansas and other places you don't consider coal producers.

#10 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-10 12:56 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

coal trains one hundred cars long

Are one of the reasons coal is a lousy fuel.

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-10 12:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Who is going to stop us?

#10 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-10 12:56 PM

The answer, my friend, is blowing on the wind.

#12 | Posted by Zed at 2018-01-10 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Wow, 5-0! I had no idea there might be any hope at all, let alone a unified vote.. which wasn't explained very well in that article. What I did find interesting is that Perry flip-flopped so obviously that he is undoubtedly being paid by those non-competitive electric generation special interests. Apparently Texas breeds nothing but corruption.

#13 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-01-10 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 | Posted by Zed, Have you ever seen a power plant in Texas? I guess we could be more like California, NOT.

#14 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-10 01:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

This thread is a great opportunity for rightoecentre to show us some "arm flapping" over what was promised by who

#5 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES AT 2018-01-10 11:44 AM

Still inside that cramped little parrot head of yours, I see.

Actually, when Trump started talking about coal power plants I said it would never happen. Looks like I was right.

I'm sure Hans will correct me if I misspoke.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-10 01:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nothing like rubbing salt in the wound if this report turns out to be true:

Andy Slavitt‏ @ASlavitt

BREAKING: In the next 48 hours, the Trump Administration is planning to issue policy on how states can stop people from receiving Medicaid coverage if they don't have a job.

And they plan to put this in action in their first state -- Kentucky.
8:04 AM - 10 Jan 2018

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-10 01:30 PM | Reply

Trump and Republicans are playing with fire here. I'll never forget this town hall Bernie did with Trump voters in WV's coal country:

'Healthcare is a Right': Bernie Sanders Finds Common Ground in Trump Country

In rural McDowell County, West Virginia, a crowd of Trump supporters cheered progressive senator's call for universal healthcare

www.commondreams.org

#17 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-10 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"BREAKING: In the next 48 hours, the Trump Administration is planning to issue policy on how states can stop people from receiving Medicaid coverage if they don't have a job."

I wager there's maybe three right-wingers on the whole DR with sufficient intellectual bandwidth to determine why this won't save any money overall.

In fact it will probably increase costs.

That's what happens when you take health insurance away from people, health care costs go up. (That's the thing these stupid right-wingers can't figure out.)

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-10 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18 | Posted by snoofy The problem, the rub is most of us don't want the same people that run the post office, the IRS and the Department of"Justice" also provide health care. Demand causes prices to rise, not administration. If all health care access is "free" will demand go up? What services are to be provided to all? Will we fund liver transplants for chronic alcoholics? Will we fund elective surgeries? I see a two level health care system like they have in Europe, one for the rich, and one for the rest of us. Want to see what I mean? Go to a rest home where most of the residents are funded by the government, then see one that is paid for by private funds.

#19 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-10 03:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#16
incredible. no way.

#20 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-10 03:20 PM | Reply

#19 the rub is most of us don't want the same people that run the post office, the IRS and the Department of"Justice" also provide health care.

what, your brain surgeon is your mail carrier?

non sequitur.

#21 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-10 03:27 PM | Reply

#21 | Posted by ichiro, As we said in the Army many times encountering new equipment, "the contract always goes to the lowest bidder". Every government program I have seen is run in a inferior manner to any in the private sector. There is no drive to be effective, economical or accountable in any government agency I have encountered. Your trust and faith in the federal government is more like a religion than reason. No evidence supports your contention that these people would do a better job at this task than they have at every other task they have. Honestly, if you want to make something expensive, ineffective and glacially unresponsive is to give it to the federal government to do.

#22 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-10 03:40 PM | Reply

"The problem, the rub is most of us don't want the same people that run the post office, the IRS and the Department of"Justice" also provide health care."

I don't necessarily want that either.
However, those same people are the ones I want running the payment mechanism on the back end, e.g. the funding instrument, i.e. the health insurance company.

Compare administrative overhead on a government program like SSI to private sector health care. And then look at the money private sector collects in health insurance premiums and uses to cut dividend checks to investors. That's money that people spent on health care and didn't get any health care for their troubles. But you as a savvy investor profited from it, so I bet you're happy right?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-10 04:53 PM | Reply

"Every government program I have seen is run in a inferior manner to any in the private sector."

Enron.
MCI WorldCom.
Long Term Capital Management.

Just to name a few companies run worse than even the State of Kansas.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-10 04:54 PM | Reply

"Coal is still important, about 30% of our electricity"

Really, it's that low?
Wasn't it like 70% fifteen years ago?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-11 02:20 AM | Reply

The problem, the rub is most of us don't want the same people that run the post office, the IRS and the Department of"Justice" also provide health care.

In the rest of the industrialized world, doctors provide health care, not mail carriers.

#26 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-11 07:06 AM | Reply

The sooner the US gets off fossil fuels, the better.

#27 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-11 07:07 AM | Reply

#25 Natural Gas has taken a large portion of that away.

#28 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 07:14 AM | Reply

Natural Gas has taken a large portion of that away.

As well it should.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-11 07:16 AM | Reply

#29 Not sure if that is true or not. It certainly can be cheaper, but depending on the method acquired, not necessarily more environmentally friendly.

#30 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 08:19 AM | Reply

I just meant as a fuel. Its cheap and much easier to transport and burn than coal.

Coal is a good fuel if your power plant is right beside the mine, but that's about it.

#31 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-01-11 08:40 AM | Reply

#31 Problem solved, portable power plants!

#32 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 08:53 AM | Reply

Coal is still important, about 30% of our electricity, and all our steel,(initially) uses that fuel. I see coal trains one hundred cars long pass by my house every day. Texas burning Wyoming coal.

#8 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Yeah. That's nice.

The problem is not that we don't have enough coal. The issue is the demand for it is so low, that the industry is dying off. So whats the problem?

#33 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-11 11:24 AM | Reply

#33 | Posted by Sycophant, You are showing total ignorance. We have enough coal to supply all our fuel needs for around 400 years. The reason we are not using as much anymore is we have a lot of natural gas, easier to transport and easier to use. Most of the power plants here in Texas are duel use, they can use coal or natural gas. BTW, Natural gas is a fossil fuel.

#34 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-11 11:56 AM | Reply

"Most of the power plants here in Texas are duel use..." - #34 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-11 11:56 AM

Pistols at dawn?

#35 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-11 11:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Our government shouldn't be subsidizing any industry, energy or otherwise. Nor should it be imposing usage mandates. Level the playing field and the best forms of energy will win.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-11 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#36 | Posted by JeffJ Like ethanol? Which is a true boondoggle. It required as much fossil fuel to grow the corn as the ethanol replaces.

#37 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-11 12:21 PM | Reply

#16
incredible. no way.
#20 | Posted by ichiro

Trump administration opens door to let states impose Medicaid work requirements

The letter to state Medicaid directors opens the door for states to cut off Medicaid benefits to Americans unless they have a job, are in school, are a caregiver or participate in other approved forms of "community engagement" -- an idea that some states had broached over the past several years but that the Obama administration had consistently rebuffed.

The new policy comes as 10 states are already lined up, waiting for federal permission to impose work requirements on able-bodied adults in the program. Three other states are contemplating them. Health officials could approve the first waiver -- probably for Kentucky -- as soon as Friday, according to two people with knowledge of the process.

www.msn.com

#38 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-11 12:22 PM | Reply

#36 | Posted by JeffJ Like ethanol? Which is a true boondoggle. It required as much fossil fuel to grow the corn as the ethanol replaces.

#37 | POSTED BY DOCNJO

Ethanol was at the forefront of my mind when I clicked "publish".

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-11 12:36 PM | Reply

"Our government shouldn't be subsidizing any industry, energy or otherwise."

Why the hell not?
Do you not think Americans need energy to survive?
Does freezing to death promote the general welfare, in your confused understanding of the Constitution?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-11 12:40 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That's idiotic. The government's job is to catalyze industry, not subsidize it. That means incentives for economically competitive energy sources like solar and wind; not pissing away our tax dollars to subsidize lazy members of society.

#41 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-11 12:49 PM | Reply

There was a pre-Colombian empire in South America whose entire legal system consisted of three laws. Don't lie, Don't steal, Don't be lazy. We should take that to heart. As Ben Franklin said, "We should have sympathy for the poor, and be generous, but not to the point that poverty becomes too comfortable.

#42 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-11 01:06 PM | Reply

Our government shouldn't be subsidizing any industry, energy or otherwise. Nor should it be imposing usage mandates. Level the playing field and the best forms of energy will win.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-11 12:13 PM | Reply

WOW How short sighted thou are.

#43 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-11 01:10 PM | Reply

--That means incentives for economically competitive energy sources like solar and wind;

If solar and wind were "economically competitive" they wouldn't need subsidies. Today's technology is simply inferior, and has a poor EROEI.

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-01-11 01:18 PM | Reply

"Our government shouldn't be subsidizing any industry, energy or otherwise." - #36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-11 12:13 PM

If that was the case...

The railroads would have never crossed the lower 48.

The Isthmus of Panama would still be impassable.

We wouldn't have microwave ovens, CAT scans, or Tang (okay, maybe that'd be no loss).

There would be no Internet.

Healthcare would be beyond the reach of most Americans.

Polio and other contagious diseases would still be running rampant.

There are a lot of reasons why we all should be grateful that the government provides subsidies.

#45 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-11 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#45 | Posted by Hans You realize that almost all the things you listed were financed wholly or in part by the Army. The railroads were financed by land grants from the federal government, the capital to build them came from private funds. The Panama canal would not have been built without the efforts of a team of Army doctors. The internet was first used by the department of defense in the early 1970s, DARPA developed it long before CalTec. Microwaves and Cat scans grew out of radar tech in WWII. Many medicines we use today were manufactured initially for the military including most inoculations. I have been given shots for anthrax and plague, have you?

#46 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-11 02:11 PM | Reply

#38 Might get some people back into a job and back buying insurance premiums, lowering the premiums for everyone else (especially the high risk pool)

#47 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 02:13 PM | Reply

"You realize that almost all the things you listed were financed wholly or in part by the Army." - #46 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-11 02:11 PM

Why is it that some people don't believe that military spending ("the Army") is government spending?

#48 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-11 02:15 PM | Reply

#48 people usually consider it broken down between constitutionally reference government spending (the military) and unnecessary government spending (the things the government has begun spending on not related to their duties in the constitution.

They still consider military government spending, just true government spending over improper government spending.

Just clearing it up so you can attack the right thing.

#49 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 02:26 PM | Reply

"people usually consider it..." - #49 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2018-01-11 02:26 PM

Only people who are trying to delude themselves into thinking that all government spending on military is good, while government spending on other things is bad.

Just clearing it up so you can attack the right thing.

#50 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-11 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I am a libertarian, which does not mean that I am ageist government. But I do believe we should keep government close enough to keep an eye on those who exercise political power. At this time only about 25% of the people who enter public office in Washington are millionaires. Most who retire or die are and even those who are already wealthy make tons of money while in office. To my knowledge no one has lost money being in office in my life time. Much more money than their pay is involved. In my world I call that income graft, bribes and corruption- but I guess I am simpler than most.

#51 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-01-11 04:27 PM | Reply

"At this time only about 25% of the people who enter public office in Washington are millionaires."

Really?
I thought it was closer to 100%.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-11 05:09 PM | Reply

"The government's job is to catalyze industry, not subsidize it."

Dude. Subsidizing energy catalyzes industry. Say that to yourself in a Jeff Goldblum voice so it can, like, blow your mind!

Case in point: Bonneville Power Administration catalyzed Alcoa, which in turn catalyzed Boeing and the entire aerospace industry.

Im kind of mystified this isn't common knowledge, but maybe it's owing to living out West and seeing first-hand the impact these of hugely beneficial government programs.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-11 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

China's "subsidized industries" are kicking our ass. Maybe they understand what makes one country more competitive than others. This country has subsidized various industries all of its existence (including when it was being run by the people who wrote the Constitution. I think they understood what the Constitution intended.

#54 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-11 11:46 PM | Reply

--That means incentives for economically competitive energy sources like solar and wind;
If solar and wind were "economically competitive" they wouldn't need subsidies. Today's technology is simply inferior, and has a poor EROEI.

#44 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-01-11 01:18 PM | REPLY

It is YOUNG technology.

Oil and gas have been heavily subsidized for over 100 years.

Give solar and wind the same opportunity.

They used to dump gasoline as a waste product in the making of kerosene.

#55 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-01-12 01:55 PM | Reply

"If solar and wind were "economically competitive" they wouldn't need subsidies."

Maybe if the only government in the world was the USA, and it wasn't subsidizing fossil fuels. But there are many governments, and basically all of them subsidize fossil fuels.

Wen other countries (and the USA) are subsidizing fossil fuels, it's ignorant to say solar ought to be cheaper, without subsidies.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-12 02:35 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort