[ad_1]
A coal group claims that spending $ 4 billion each year to subsidize coal and nuclear power plants is not a heavy burden for consumers, as it would create energy security and enhance national security.
"While $ 4 billion a year," says a new document from the Coalition Coalition for Coal Clean Coal, which will be released Monday.
The paper goes on to explain that the expenditures of the Department of Defense are greater than those of other investments for national security. The last three fiscal years have averaged about $ 645 billion a year. As a result, "paying $ 4 billion more per year to promote national security would represent less than 0.6% of federal funding for the same purpose," says
. subsidizing the fixed number of coal-fired and nuclear plants that are ending, as proposed by the Trump administration, would cost between $ 1 and $ 4 billion a year
The group badociated study ICF to the argument of national security that a note from the National Security Council of the White House explained. The note argues that the order to keep open several of these unprofitable plants was necessary for national security because they "have a secure supply of fuel on-site," which makes them "essential to sustain defense facilities, critical energy infrastructure and others ".
The group points out that critics of the plan proposed by the Trump administration generally cite price as a key problem. A broad coalition of industries including oil, natural gas and renewable energy trade groups opposes the plan, arguing that it chooses winners and losers and will distort the markets of the world. 39; energy.
"The cost could be borne by taxpayers or taxpayers. depending on what the administration decides to do, "according to the document. "No matter who pays, it seems like any price is too high for these critics."
He argues that solar and wind tax credits are nearly double the annual amount that would go to coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants. The cost of the best estimate of $ 4 billion a year is considerably lower than the federal tax subsidies that have supported renewable energy sources for four decades, "says the group report. 39, wind and solar energy will have received tax subsidies of an average amount of $ 7.3 billion per year over the period 2016-2020, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, "the document continues. and solar energy do not ensure fuel safety. "
Monday's report of the Coal Group is part of a series it will publish over the next few months to justify the closure of a number of power plants.
Many power plants are closing because they can not compete in the national electricity markets that are dominated by power plants in the United States. low-cost natural gas Natural gas plants are the least expensive to operate because of the low cost of their fuel fueled by the boom in shale drilling.
But the White House also points out that natural gas is not as safe as a fuel source. , because of its dependence on pipelines. President Trump argued this point in a speech last week in West Virginia
"You know, you're bombing a pipeline, that's the end of the pipeline," Trump said. "With coal, this material is indestructible." [19659002] "For reasons of national security, I do not think people are talking enough about it – coal," he said.
Trump ordered June 1 to Rick Perry to develop a proposal to save a number of coal and nuclear power. Perry is expected to release the cost estimates from the Energy Department for what it would cost in the coming weeks.
Opponents of the Trump plan also plan to publish their own cost estimates in the coming months. weeks, say the sources of the industry.
[ad_2]
Source link
