SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 04 2018, @07:19PM (4 children)
I already bolded the part that was the problem (and let us note that you brought the comparison of feelings and science up in the first place). You went from "reality" to the feelings of the masses. They are not the same.
Not at all, which is what I actually did. But since we're writing about it. New technologies cause shifts in what is most economic, obsoleting old technologies. That happened here. Past that, I don't think there would have been a point to FirstEnergy Solutions repositioning itself. It was overcommitted to coal and nuclear so adding the claimed renewable mix would have cost more for it than it would for other electricity companies with a weaker share of coal and nuclear. Betting on the future doesn't always work out and they happen to be one of the losers. I don't think there is an object lesson here beyond that.
(Score: 1) by Barenflimski on Thursday April 05 2018, @07:42AM (3 children)
In the context of people, decisions in politics are usually made by feelings, modified by science, which creates the "reality" we live in. In this case, I'm pointing out two ends of the spectrum, feelings and science. By definition they aren't equal, and in this case can be looked at as opposite sides of the spectrum. I'm not sure what upsets you about this, but your passion is appreciated.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 05 2018, @11:56AM (2 children)
That there's nothing in your posts to tell the two apart. It's not relevant to lecture on the "spectrum" of emotion and science in decision making, if no distinction is ever made.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05 2018, @03:08PM (1 child)
The first post in this thread was a little confusing, but if you drop trying to parse the paragraph with perfect grammar/logic the meaning is clear. Then there is the ridiculous thread you engaged in. Are... are you trying to pass the Turing test??
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 05 2018, @06:51PM
Ok...
Here's what the "paragraph" looks like to me.