Duke up the river

Published March 18, 2014

by Gary Pearce, Talking About Politics, March 17, 2014.

Duke Energy badly fumbled the political/PR ball on the coal-ash spill. Duke should have quickly rolled out a clear plan to clean up the Dan River and to deal with long-term management of ash ponds.

 

All we heard was the CEO saying ratepayers would pay. Politicians filled the void with preaching, posturing and their own policy proposals. Now Duke is floating down the political river taking on water.

 

But let’s be honest here. For the last 40 years, state government – and regulators – tacitly or expressly supported what Duke did. Why? Because it was cheap to use coal to generate electricity. And the ponds were the cheapest way to store the ash. That meant North Carolina could offer cheap, plentiful electricity to industry. Which helped build a booming manufacturing economy – and employ tens of thousands of people.

 

Now the question is what to do with the stuff. The quantity is so enormous and the ash so repugnant that there’s simply nowhere to send it. Even if you could move it, it would be the state’s largest project ever: billions of dollars and a decade or more.

 

There is a parallel to the nation’s storage of nuclear fuel waste. Tens of billions of dollars (ratepayer dollars) were spent on Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. Politicians (Sen. Harry Reid) vetoed Yucca, so the nuclear waste continues to be stored at individual nuclear sites around the country. The billions of dollars were wasted. And nothing was done.

 

Given Duke’s cluelessness and the state of politics today, how do you think this one is going to work out for you?

 http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com

Read More NC SPIN >>

March 18, 2014 at 11:23 am
TP Wohlford says:

FINALLY a person who gets it -- this (akin to illegal immigration and the national debt) is a bipartisan sin.

March 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Norm Kelly says:

As a taxpayer, I'm screwed.

As a Duke ratepayer, I'm screwed.

But what's the alternative to 'cheap' coal-fired power? Natural gas? But that means replacing existing coal fired plants with natural gas plants. A process that takes years. And that requires things like fracking that is opposed by libs.

Nuclear? A viable alternative but despised by libs. Why? No real reason, just because it seems 'dangerous' to them. They can't point to a real reason. It's just 'not for them'. So, ask libs a simple question. Usually with libs their problems can be determined with simple questions. Simple minds, simple questions. If the French can safely operate nuclear power plants, why can't Americans? Show me where the French are better at anything than Americans, and I'll believe it when you tell me they can do nuclear but we can't. Food? Really?! Even their style of food is hated by American libs; it's too high in fats. New York would ban French food if given the opportunity.

The most viable alternative may be nuclear. Proper design and regulation would result in relatively inexpensive, safe power. And when the ignorant Harry is replaced, perhaps Yucca can be useful. Why spend the money, time, effort on Yucca and then have one uneducated boob stand in the way of progress? I'm willing to bet that Harry stands in the way because he's generally opposed to nuclear power. A stand that he can't explain but makes him feel good and garners points with his supporters. Is there a reason the people who want to set us back are called 'progressive'? There isn't anything progressive about these people. They want to stifle job growth, not progress it. They want to stifle power generation, not progress it. They want to cripple the medical industry, not progress it. So what's progressive about these people? Socialist, yes. Power hungry, yes. Progressive, not by any stretch of the imagination.