Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H2'ed 6/1/19

Ohio Stumbles, With a Team Trump Nudge, Toward Nuclear and Coal

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     (# of views)   3 comments
Author 1642
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Harvey Wasserman
Become a Fan
  (22 fans)

From Common Dreams

- Advertisement -

Defying all laws of competitive economics, climate change, and technological progress, the state House has voted in a ratepayer-funded bailout for two aging nuclear power plants

In return for footing this bill, the citizens of Ohio stand to gain obsolete burners that doom their state to dirty air, above-market electric rates, and radioactive danger.
In return for footing this bill, the citizens of Ohio stand to gain obsolete burners that doom their state to dirty air, above-market electric rates, and radioactive danger.
(Image by Photo: GuenterRuopp, Common Dreams)
  Details   DMCA

Defying all laws of competitive economics, climate change, and technological progress, the Ohio House has voted in a ratepayer-funded bailout for two aging nuclear power plants on Lake Erie, and two even older coal burners, one in Indiana, but owned by the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, based in Piketon. According to Politico, a senior adviser to the Trump reelection campaign, Bob Paduchik, pressured at least five members of the Ohio House of Representatives to vote "yes" on the bill.

- Advertisement -

If it passes Ohio's Senate next week, the astonishing multi-billion-dollar public handout will guarantee the Buckeye State a prime spot in the new millennium's can't-compete Rust Belt rumble seat for decades to come.

Passing 53 to 43 on May 29, the bitterly contested House Bill 6 forces ratepayers throughout the state to fork over $190 million per year in over-market payments to keep the decaying Perry and Davis-Besse reactors in business. The money is to come from all Buckeye electric consumers, even though many get zero power from the plants being bailed out. Ten Democrats voted yes, guaranteeing the bill's passage. Seventeen Republicans voted no, mostly on libertarian grounds.

HB6 was originally marketed as a "clean air" initiative. But the bailouts for the coal burners have stripped even that thin veneer from the bill's real purpose: saving Akron-based FirstEnergy from its ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. The bill strips state funding for renewable and efficiency programs that had saved Ohio millions in utility bills and inched it toward a modern green-based power supply.

- Advertisement -

The bill also left intact a unique setback clause that prevented big privately funded wind farms from being built in the "North Coast" region along Lake Erie. Many farmers I personally visited in this flat, breezy stretch of agricultural land eagerly support new wind projects, whose lease payments can bring in hefty payments. The potential sites are near urban customers and are criss-crossed with transmission lines.

Despite a huge potential for jobs and profits, the setback clause has left Ohio out of the hunt for big new wind farms. Indiana, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania all have at least more than twice as much installed wind capacity as does Ohio. Buckeye lawmakers fret over the roughly 2,000 jobs at Perry and Davis-Besse, but have killed new turbine projects that could create far more in construction and maintenance, while dropping electricity rates throughout the region.

Ironically, because of its historic industrial base, Ohio is a leading producer of wind turbine components -- most of which are shipped out of state because the setback clause has buried the local demand.

Many of the current jobs at the nuclear power sites would be preserved in a decommissioning process. Green activists advocate a "retain and retrain" program that would retain local workers tearing the plants down while training others for jobs in wind, solar, and efficiency.

Now the Senate will debate fossil-nuclear subsidies aimed at protecting a company whose top 10 employees are collectively paid more than $20 million annually. Opensecrets.org has reported that last year FirstEnergy spent more than $3 million on lobbying, much of it to turn a legislature now poised to grant the utility a hundred times that much in public money.

- Advertisement -

Among the bailout's biggest supporters is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, representing staff at the nuclear plant. IBEW presence was strong at the bailout hearings in Ohio. The union plays less of an advocacy role for the wind and solar industries, whose jobs far outnumber those in coal and nuclear production.

Offshore Ohio boasts some of the strongest winds of the Great Lake states. The fresh water avoids the salt corrosion plaguing ocean-based wind developments. Northern Ohio developers recently won a $40 million federal grant for the nation's first major offshore freshwater wind farm, to be sited off the coast of Cleveland. Developers will also soon open two new Ohio solar farms totaling 275 megawatts.

East of Cleveland, Perry was the first U.S. nuclear power plant to be damaged by an earthquake. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 42-year-old Davis-Besse has suffered one of the worst U.S. atomic accidents on record.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

- Advertisement -

Rate It | View Ratings

Harvey Wasserman Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Harvey is a lifelong activist who speaks, writes and organizes widely on energy, the environment, election protection, social justice, grass-roots politics and natural healing, personal and planetary.He hosts "California Solartopia" at KPFK-Pacifica and "Green Power & Wellness" atprn.fm. (more...)
 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Will 9 GOP governors put Romney in the White House?

Four Ways Ohio Republicans are Already Stealing the 2012 Election

Toll of U.S. Sailors Devastated by Fukushima Radiation Continues to Climb

Is Fukushima now ten Chernobyls into the sea?

Humankind's Most Dangerous Moment: Fukushima Fuel Pool at Unit 4. "This is an Issue of Human Survival."

Japan's Quake Could Have Irradiated the Entire US

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments


Alexander Kershaw

Become a Fan
Author 500827

(Member since Nov 25, 2014), 3 fans, 356 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

What effect looming sea level rise and extreme weather will have on the safety of nuclear power plants and what should be done about it is little discussed. Decomminsioning plants and moving of fuel rods should be part of the national and international agenda. I do not want to seem hyperbolic but this could be the most dangerous thing about global warming. There has been a solution to nuclear waste since at least the 80s. Burial in deepsea sediment. The waste could be encapsuled in screw shaped containers, taken to midocean and dropped. The containers would bury themselves in oxygen poor clay like sediment that would keep the radioactivity isolated. The waste would be slowly buried deeper in sediment and tectonic action would carry the waste to be subducted into the mantel. The Atomic Energy Commission considered that but has not mentioned it since the 80s. Imagine a solution for nuclear waste that would not be a source of revenues for corporations from the taxpayers forever. Scientific American even had an article about it.

Submitted on Sunday, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:58:02 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Harvey Wasserman

Become a Fan
Author 1642
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since May 16, 2006), 21 fans, 176 articles, 8 quicklinks, 99 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

there are no solutions for nuke waste other than to stop creating them. that's our first order of business. deep sea burial may sound good, but a single mistake (which is virtually certain) and our entire ocean planet can be ruined. these wastes are a clear and present danger and must be stopped.

Submitted on Monday, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:20:55 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Alexander Kershaw

Become a Fan
Author 500827

(Member since Nov 25, 2014), 3 fans, 356 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Yes Yes Yes Harvey. The risk is relative and as sea levels rise and severe weather events become more common the probabilities of having many Fukushimas get higher. Storage pools need cooling else the boil over. Deep sea disposal will eventually lead to the waste being part of shale deposits that get subducted into the mantel. In the long long long term it is a better solution for future generations than salt domes or Yucca Mts.

After Fukushima I moved to Ecuador. South America has one nuke in Brazil. The air and water masses do not mix much so it is safer here.When I see a baby I can have happy thoughts. Keep up the good work please. It is much needed.

Like you I fought Diablo Canyon pre construction. I used the economic argument. It is more immediate and certain. Nuclear energy is a "blue chip" rip off of the 99% and monitored storage by parasitic corporations will be the same.

Submitted on Monday, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:21:42 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment