1. “The coalition that the interest groups have formed is deceptively named. It’s not a citizens’ group.”

    According to the Citizen’s United decision of the SCOTUS, corporations are people too, so I guess it could technically be a citizens’ group, lol.

  2. On a more serious note (vs my prior comment):

    “It would be better for the state’s economy to resist interest groups seeking short term profits by increasing the in-state demand for natural gas. . .nuclear plants should be seen as partners in the effort to increase exports of valuable Pennsylvania products.”

    Good luck with that. I’m sure those groups see that if PA nuclear plants are shut down, then PA gas-fueled electricity plants will have more business *both in and out of state* (because if PA nuclear plants are exporting electricity, that is electricity that PA gas-fueled plants could be exporting instead) and the gas producers can pass on higher prices to those gas-fueled plants.

    Seeing as no other states are really planning much in the way of new nuclear build, at this time, there is little threat to PA from out-of-state nuclear, and so no reason to keep around in-state nuclear.

    1. @Jeff S

      A flaw in your logic is the fact that there are far more gas consumers than gas producers in Pennsylvania. That give nuclear plant operators a strong argument for pealing off such interest groups as the Pennsylvania Manufacturers by producing high quality analysis of the effects of a tighter balance between supply and demand for natural gas. Home heating costs are also likely to increase, but nuclear proponents need to make a solid case and make it very publicly.

      1. Perhaps I misunderstood your comments. It sounded to me from your text that you thought the gas producers could be convinced to be allies of nuclear in the name of exporting more energy.

        If you are talking to all the other people in the state of PA, then, yeah, if people can be convinced to think rationally about their self interests as a state, I think nuclear is in the self interest of every state.

        I just don’t think it would be easy to convince gas producers that nuclear can be their ally by competing with them for energy customers both domestic to a state/nation, and for exports.

  3. ROFLMAO!!! So, how are those flowery predictions about a new beginnig for NE under this lying treasonous administration working out for you, Rod?

    I see Exxon has just applied for exemption from the sanctions against Russia, right on the heels of Tillerson meeting with the Russians.

    And still you do not use your bully pulpit to patriotic purpose, instead opting to pursue an agenda doomed by the very forces you championed. Tillerson, Pruitt, these are NE’s enemy, as well as the enemies of the people, our chidren’s future, and the health of our planet. And you just prattle.

    1. I think you are straw manning Rod’s position a bit. I don’t think he ever stated definitively that Trump would be good for nuclear energy, but rather, wrote articles with an eye towards trying to convince Trump to embrace nuclear. Which may or may not happen; looks like probably not – but, as soon as you define Trump as the enemy, you lose all hope of getting any cooperation from his administration; why make enemies if you don’t need to?

      Of course, if they champion policies and regulations that undercut Nuclear (as it seems they are on the road to doing), you do eventually need to ‘cut bait’, and then try a different strategy.

      In any case, I don’t think Rod is a “champion” of the Trump administration. I think that’s a misrepresentation.

      1. Jeff, I have to disagree with you. Going along to get along is a form of championing. Rod has a bully pulpit. And that bully pulpit comes woth a responsibility. Barely 90 days in with this administration, and the level of uncompetence, malfeasance, dishonesty, and corruption is unprecedented in our entire bistory.

        Do you think these groups, such as this thread is occupied with, exist in a vacuum? Are not emboldened by Trump’s cabinet choices, words and deeds? Yet Rod has consistently chose to offer absurdly optimistic essays. And when he strays from the sacharin, and offers criticism such as we see on this thread, nary a mention of how Trump’s slither into office has provided a comfortable environment for the oil industry to stifle innovation and progress in the energy sector, based on voodoo science and a complete lack of environmental concern.

        For years now we have seen Rod decry the efforts of the fossil fuel industry, in a vast conspiracy, to undermine the use and scientific wisdom of nuclear energy. But now, with the foxes running rampant in the hen house, all we get is an occassional weak squeek, and more often than not an optimisic bit of blather that is in full flight from reality.

        Its time to fight, put up, or shut up.

  4. Heres a Trump admin. plan to increase solar output to 10 terawatts by 2030.


    Care to show us a comparable Trump plan for NE?

    So lets see….

    Ramp up coal through deregulation. Restart two pipeline projects. Deregulate fracking. Advocate and plan for expanded solar. Make a sleaze play for Exxon to slither under the Russia sanctions in order to develop oilfields.

    Gee, Rod, whats missing from this list?

    And by the way, just ran a search on Perry. Uhm, seems he is pretty much irrelevent. Oh well. Hooda thunkit?

  5. “Though AARP might qualify as representing citizens . . .” I don’t know to what extent most members of AARP would support this coalition or any other. I’d guess that most members are more interested in the insurance offers than in any kind of citizen coalitions. A friend talked me into signing up when I turned 50, and I dropped out after a few years of chucking unread magazines into File 13.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts