Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday April 04 2018, @04:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the dirty,-expensive,-obsolete-technology dept.

Common Dreams reports

FirstEnergy Solutions (FES)--together with its subsidiaries FirstEnergy Generation and FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company--announced its bankruptcy [April 1] after years of short-sighted business decisions and executive mismanagement that resisted investing in clean, renewable energy, and its workers. The company now has a serious obligation to protect its workers and their benefits from the bankruptcy process, as well as meet its environmental responsibilities--particularly if its coal and nuclear power plants are retired or sold.

FES has power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana.

In response, Mary Anne Hitt, Director of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, released the following statement:

"FirstEnergy Solutions' bankruptcy is a cautionary tale for utilities, investors, and public officials who think the coal and nuclear industries will somehow rebound in the coming years. They will not. America's 21st century energy market demands cheap, flexible energy resources that can rapidly shift with electricity demands and don't pollute local air and water. Coal and nuclear plants are too expensive and too dirty to compete in the modern market.

"FirstEnergy Solutions is in bankruptcy because it continually ignored America's shift to clean energy by investing in uneconomic coal and nuclear plants which have been losing money for years. Now it's time for the company to accept its mistakes and concentrate on protecting its workers and their benefits during the bankruptcy process, while also meeting its environmental obligations--particularly if its plants are decommissioned or sold. FES must do everything it can to help those being harmed by its negligent business practices and focus on transitioning them to new economic opportunities."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Wednesday April 04 2018, @03:56PM (10 children)

    by Pav (114) on Wednesday April 04 2018, @03:56PM (#662527)

    China can't deal with the polution it already has. It's a problem which must be solved, so it will be. Political will is a magnificent thing. Cost certainly isn't a problem, especially if they want to transition to an economy driven more by local demand - infrastructure is good for that. Coal exporting countries will be able to afford fewer Chinese good though of course.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 04 2018, @07:01PM (9 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 04 2018, @07:01PM (#662586) Journal

    China can't deal with the polution it already has.

    But it could deal with it if it had scrubbers on its coal plants and a variety of other environmental measures.

    Cost certainly isn't a problem, especially if they want to transition to an economy driven more by local demand - infrastructure is good for that.

    Global trade didn't happen because local was better.

    • (Score: 2) by Pav on Wednesday April 04 2018, @11:39PM (8 children)

      by Pav (114) on Wednesday April 04 2018, @11:39PM (#662686)

      It wasn't for China, but then it was. It was for the US, but then it wasn't.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 05 2018, @03:34AM (7 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 05 2018, @03:34AM (#662767) Journal
        What is "it"? Certainly isn't global trade.
        • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:15AM (6 children)

          by Pav (114) on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:15AM (#662810)

          Sorry to break it to you [tradingeconomics.com]...

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 05 2018, @11:50AM (5 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 05 2018, @11:50AM (#662878) Journal
            Break what to me? You aren't showing what you think you are showing.
            • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday April 05 2018, @12:25PM (4 children)

              by Pav (114) on Thursday April 05 2018, @12:25PM (#662887)

              Bretton Woods failed in the 1970's, and the US has been running a trade deficit ever since, made up for by financialisation/Wallstreet. Unfortunately China isn't an economic client of the US, so the trade balance isn't being made up for any longer because China Inc. isn't run from Wallstreet - 2008 was a side effect of that in large part. The US MUST fight a war with China/Russia, or permanently become #2 or #3 (after China and the EU). Unfortuately for the US it's most probably already too late for that, and unfortunately for the US populace the leadership class doesn't want to accept that fact.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 05 2018, @01:39PM (3 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 05 2018, @01:39PM (#662906) Journal

                Bretton Woods failed in the 1970's, and the US has been running a trade deficit ever since, made up for by financialisation/Wallstreet.

                And that's bad for the US how? You state here that the US is buying a lot of foreign goods with financial assets rather than physical assets. And keep in mind that due to intentional inflation on the part of the Chinese, the part that goes to China gets devalued more over time than if it had stayed in the US.

                The US MUST fight a war with China/Russia, or permanently become #2 or #3 (after China and the EU).

                Why again MUST the US fight anyone? And even if we take your statement at face value, we still have the problem that the US MUST win said war. As Sun Tzu wrote:

                Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.

                Moving on:

                Unfortuately for the US it's most probably already too late for that, and unfortunately for the US populace the leadership class doesn't want to accept that fact.

                Not at all. Just have better legal infrastructure, freedom, and a cheaper business-creation and expansion environment. The US still has a significant fraction of the population of China and that proportion will grow in the US's advantage over the next century.

                • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:17PM (2 children)

                  by Pav (114) on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:17PM (#663062)

                  Making up for a trade deficit with financialisation/Wallstreet would be great if it still worked, but that system finally failed in 2008. Obama bailed the banks out not only on the backs of taxpayers, but also wheeled out the currency printing presses - that way a continuing failure can look like a success because the billionaires can look at those figures popping and feel they aren't losing wealth, and the real economy still maintains enough liquidity to function. In a functioning economy printing money would lead to inflation.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:48PM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:48PM (#663076) Journal

                    Making up for a trade deficit with financialisation/Wallstreet would be great if it still worked, but that system finally failed in 2008.

                    What's not working about it presently? We still have financial asset creation (for recent examples, high tech companies and Bitcoin) and we still have elevated inflation in China.

                    In a functioning economy printing money would lead to inflation.

                    There are two effects that are happening here which are anti-inflationary. First, the assets (like untradable junk bonds) for which money was printed are extremely low velocity - inflation is also proportional to velocity of money. Second, the closely related primary purpose of such purchases has been to stabilize banks. So we're speaking of purchasing overleveraged loans which don't have sufficient backing reserves. Printing money in such circumstances results in greatly reduced money in actual circulation while reducing short term costs of bank failures.

                    • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday April 05 2018, @09:07PM

                      by Pav (114) on Thursday April 05 2018, @09:07PM (#663108)

                      What's not working? The banks are larger and more highly leveraged for one, and also China isn't working as hard to stabilise the US anymore, so Chinese Wallstreet and property investment is dropping as it successfully grows its domestic economy. That's not to say another US crash wouldn't be a disaster for China, but they're increasingly untied because anyone with eyes can see the US is high risk (to put it kindly).

                      And regarding printing money and inflation... that's exactly what I'm talking about. The US economy is losing its heartbeat, so the doctors are putting in transfusions of cash to keep the patient alive which unfortunately doesn't modify the long term prognosis.