Author Topic: UPDATED: Ohio Senate Approves Nuclear Subsidy Bill That Tosses Efficiency Standards  (Read 380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kidd

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
See Reply #21 for update - Bill signed

The legislation moving out of the Ohio Senate will subsidize nuclear, solar, and coal power while getting rid of requirements to invest in energy efficiency programs and weakening overall renewable energy policies.

The bill would tack on an 85-cent fee to your monthly electric bill, that along with higher rates for commercial and industrial users will generate $150 million for nuclear plants and $20 million for solar farms.

With a last minute change, the bill would delay the new charges and subsidies for one year.

The bill passed by a vote of 19-12.

FirstEnergy Solutions announced in 2018 that it was filing for bankruptcy and had to close its two nuclear power plants, Davis-Besse and Perry, unless they received “legislative relief.”

Lawmakers say the money generated through the new charges will be the help nuclear power plants need to stay open.

The bill allows utilities to also charge ratepayers up to $1.50 a month to subsidize Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) coal plants, Kyger Creek (Gallia County) and Clifty Creek (Madison, IN).

Republican legislators in the House and Senate said they did not want to move the bill forward with these subsidies unless it was ultimately a rate reduction for Ohioans.

The Senate says they’re bringing down rates by reducing the renewable energy standards, which require utilities to have a certain amount of renewable energy sources in their portfolio. The standard, which was passed by the legislature in 2008, is currently set at 12.5% by 2026. This bill brings it down to 8.5%. The energy efficiency mandates that required utilities to achieve a certain amount of saved energy will end in 2020 through the bill.

During the debate on HB6, Sen. Sandra Williams (D-Cleveland) offered several amendments to continue energy efficiency programs in one form or another. Those amendments were rejected.

Sen. Rob McColley (R-Napoleon) made an attempt to bring back a provision that would allow local townships to hold votes on proposed wind farms. This measure was included in the House version of the bill, but Senators turned that proposal down.

The bill now moves to the House for agreement. If representatives do not approve of the Senate changes, the two chambers will go into a conference committee to reach a compromise.


Source:
https://www.statenews.org/post/ohio-senate-approves-nuclear-subsidy-bill-tosses-efficiency-standards
« Last Edit: July 25, 2019, 11:18:00 AM by kidd »

Offline kidd

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
I have mixed feelings on this

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,028
I have mixed feelings on this

Personally, I do not like this. The feds and states should move to end all production/construction subsidies for all forms of power production.

BTW...I spent a couple of years working at both Davis-Besse and Perry as a contractor. Davis-Besse was a sweet running pant, Very efficient and very stable.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,139
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Personally, I do not like this. The feds and states should move to end all production/construction subsidies for all forms of power production.

 :yowsa:  Get the damned government out of the way and let the markets work their magic unimpeded!

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,107
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Personally, I do not like this. The feds and states should move to end all production/construction subsidies for all forms of power production.

BTW...I spent a couple of years working at both Davis-Besse and Perry as a contractor. Davis-Besse was a sweet running pant, Very efficient and very stable.
You likely meant this, but in addition to subsidies, any type of mandates that favor one energy form over another.

Also exemptions such as the special exemption given wind companies on the amount of eagles and endangered birds they kill.  Many thousands per year.
Obama admin regulation allows wind turbines to kill up to 4,200 bald eagles per company
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/obama-admin-regulation-allows-wind-turbines-kill-4/

As a comparison, Exxon was hit with a fine of $7000 per migratory bird, not just eagles.
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/exxon-fined-for-causing-bird-deaths/
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,028
You likely meant this, but in addition to subsidies, any type of mandates that favor one energy form over another.

Also exemptions such as the special exemption given wind companies on the amount of eagles and endangered birds they kill.  Many thousands per year.
Obama admin regulation allows wind turbines to kill up to 4,200 bald eagles per company
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/obama-admin-regulation-allows-wind-turbines-kill-4/

As a comparison, Exxon was hit with a fine of $7000 per migratory bird, not just eagles.
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/exxon-fined-for-causing-bird-deaths/

Those mandates are just another hidden subsidy.

Offline kidd

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
:yowsa:  Get the damned government out of the way and let the markets work their magic unimpeded!
Well the problem is if the government doesn't encourage a variety of electricity generation then everybody is going to build gas turbines and that sets us up for a potentially serious energy crisis should there be any disruption in the supply of natural gas

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,139
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Well the problem is if the government doesn't encourage a variety of electricity generation then everybody is going to build gas turbines and that sets us up for a potentially serious energy crisis should there be any disruption in the supply of natural gas

I'm not at all sure that is true. IF the government truly got out of the way, nuclear would be much more competitive than it currently is.

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,028
I'm not at all sure that is true. IF the government truly got out of the way, nuclear would be much more competitive than it currently is.

On a level playing field, It is definitely competitive with coal, and beats the hell out of wind and solar.

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,107
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
I'm not at all sure that is true. IF the government truly got out of the way, nuclear would be much more competitive than it currently is.
I agree.  Natural gas might make sense in places where it is abundant or pipelines are in place, but definitely not in some areas where coal is cheap or where existing nuclear generation already exists.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline kidd

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
I'm not at all sure that is true. IF the government truly got out of the way, nuclear would be much more competitive than it currently is.
Government regulation is an enormous fraction of the cost of nuclear plant construction and operation.

If the government truly got out of the way, and all the reporting, traceability, redundancy, licensing and excess safety measures go away...
...and plants were free to provide maintenance to keep their plants safe and operable for the sake of safety and operability...

then nuclear power would be the cheapest source of power. Even the NRC thinks that they regulate too much.

With advanced alloys, passive safety systems, vastly improved inspection technology/experience/techniques that are far far superior to what was available in the 80s, American nuclear power has become unnecessarily safe - at the expense of unnecessary high construction and maintenance costs. This is changing...

For example, it used to be that steam generators had to be inspected every outage and it took 4-5 weeks with many workers receiving their maximum  allowable radiation dose.

Now, steam generators can be inspected every third outage and it takes only a week, with inspections performed robotically and no one receiving anything near the maximum allowable dose

Now I'm conducting work to show how the inspection frequency can be relaxed further without sacrificing safety margins. The NRC is willing to listen, but is cautious.

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,755
It has always amazed me how the Federal Government mandates containment domes for all civilian nuclear plants, yet their own reactor at Savannah River doesn't have one.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,322
It has always amazed me how the Federal Government mandates containment domes for all civilian nuclear plants, yet their own reactor at Savannah River doesn't have one.

Savannah River has nine production reactors that were built at the Hanford Site between 1944 and 1963.  All are shut down.

https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html#ZZ16

Name   Start-Up Date   Shutdown Date
B-Reactor   September 1944   February 1968
D-Reactor   December 1944   June 1967
F-Reactor   February 1945   June 1965
H-Reactor   October 1949   April 1965
DR-Reactor   October 1950   December 1964
C-Reactor   November 1952   April 1969
KW-Reactor   January 1955   February 1970
KE-Reactor   April 1955   January 1971
N-Reactor   December 1963   January 1987
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,755
Savannah River has nine production reactors that were built at the Hanford Site between 1944 and 1963.  All are shut down.

https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html#ZZ16

Name   Start-Up Date   Shutdown Date
B-Reactor   September 1944   February 1968
D-Reactor   December 1944   June 1967
F-Reactor   February 1945   June 1965
H-Reactor   October 1949   April 1965
DR-Reactor   October 1950   December 1964
C-Reactor   November 1952   April 1969
KW-Reactor   January 1955   February 1970
KE-Reactor   April 1955   January 1971
N-Reactor   December 1963   January 1987

Well that explains it.  I had thought they generated their own power.  Must have gotten bad info from people at the site.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,028
Well that explains it.  I had thought they generated their own power.  Must have gotten bad info from people at the site.

Or people who said they were at the site but really were not. Given the training EVERY worker at a nuclear facility gets, that little detail would be one of the things they knew.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,322
Well that explains it.  I had thought they generated their own power.  Must have gotten bad info from people at the site.

They used to, back when they ran the reactor.

N Reactor was placed in interim safe storage, a process known as “cocooning,” in June 2012. As part of cocooning, workers removed all of the ancillary buildings and sealed up the reactor. The enclosure and roof for N Reactor, the largest at Hanford to date, enclosed the reactor building (85,450 square feet) and the Heat Exchange Facility, which held the steam generators used to produce electricity.

https://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/NReactor
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,755
I was referring to Savannah River in South Carolina, not Washington state.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,322
I was referring to Savannah River in South Carolina, not Washington state.

@Hoodat

Sorry, somehow I started at the Savannah River then copied the info from Hanford.  From the same link:

https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/pu50yc.html#ZZ16

Five heavy water production reactors were built at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina between 1953 and 1955. The production reactors used heavy water as a moderator primary cooling medium. The primary coolant was completely contained in the reactor building. Heat was extracted through the use of heat exchangers cooled by water from the Savannah River.

The order and dates of operations of the production reactors at the Savannah River Site are as follows:
Name   Start-Up Date   Shutdown Date
R-Reactor   December 1953   June 1964
P-Reactor   February 1954   August 1988
K-Reactor   October 1954   Standby July 1992
L-Reactor   July 1954   June 1988
C-Reactor   March 1955   June 1985

The five Savannah River reactors each were originally designed to operate at less than 500 megawatts (MW) thermal. During the period from 1955 through 1965, the thermal power levels of the reactors were increased to approximately 2500 MW by engineering enhancements such as installing larger pumps, more heat exchangers, larger pipes and optimizing the reactor physics, internal coolant flow designs and improved fuel element designs. Currently all reactors are shut down except for K-Reactor which is being maintained in cold standby, as a near term contingency for tritium production.
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Online Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,755
Yes, K-Reactor is the one.  I had assumed it was active.  Either way, the standards the government puts in place for civilian reactors is not applied to its own.  The site has fenced off areas with yellow and magenta radiation placards warning of radiation under the soil.  This would never fly at a commercial nuclear power plant.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-

Online IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,107
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Yes, K-Reactor is the one.  I had assumed it was active.  Either way, the standards the government puts in place for civilian reactors is not applied to its own.  The site has fenced off areas with yellow and magenta radiation placards warning of radiation under the soil.  This would never fly at a commercial nuclear power plant.
The worst polluter in the country is the US government.  It is no surprise that Nuclear cleanup of the DOD uses so much of the DOE budget.  https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/02/f48/DOE-FY2019-Budget-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Joe Wooten

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,028
The worst polluter in the country is the US government.  It is no surprise that Nuclear cleanup of the DOD uses so much of the DOE budget.  https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/02/f48/DOE-FY2019-Budget-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Yeah, the cleanups at Savannah River and Hanford are the biggest nuke contractor magnets left now that there is very little civilian plant construction left.

Offline kidd

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 819
UPDATE:
Ohio governor signs bill to save nuclear power plants


Ohio’s governor signed a bill on Tuesday to create subsidies to avoid the early shutdown of the state’s two nuclear power reactors, according to analysts tracking the legislation.

[snip]

The new law will provide an overall reduction in consumer power rates by weakening the state’s renewable and energy efficiency goals even though FirstEnergy Solutions would receive an estimated $150 million a year during the 2021-2027 period to keep its reactors in service .

[snip]

Analysts said the bill would also provide about $60 million a year through 2030 to keep a couple of Ohio Valley Electric Corp’s (OVEC) coal plants in service, one of which is in Indiana. OVEC is owned by American Electric Power Co Inc (AEP.N), Duke Energy Corp (DUK.N) and other Midwest utilities.

The natural gas industry opposed the bill in part because gas-fired power plants would make more money if coal and nuclear plants shut.


Source:
https://in.reuters.com/article/ohio-nuclear/ohio-governor-signs-bill-to-save-nuclear-power-plants-idINKCN1UI2XO?il=0


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf