While I agree with most points, I don't understand bashing bailout for nuclear energy plants. Putting them into the same basket with coal-based energy plants is rather unfair. Nuclear energy is the only practical and CO neutral way of energy production that we have now, right now. We can dream about fully renewable energy, but we are simply not there yet, but global warming is happening now. I think a lot of "pro eco" people missing this, unfortunately.
From my reading of this, it sounds more like that the last bill was very optimistic, and those targets are not going to be met so they've been revised.<p>In addition, it sounds like those plants are still used. It would be great to say "screw them" if some percent of the state wants to give up on having air conditioning and refrigeration - that would really help the climate for sure.<p>I am concerned that the renewable standard isn't set to be maintained after 2026, was that meant to be followed up in a separate bill which will set additional standards?
I’m a huge fan of nuclear.<p>That said, this is a great example of what may happen in the midst of a widespread, government push for it. Industry will extract as many concessions as possible to meet a “market” and “climate” need. They know they hold the cards and will maximize their return.<p>And this gets to a lot of challenges related to climate policy. It’s not so much that folks disbelieve in climate science (although some do). It’s that there are real costs to doing something about it which have deep financial and policy implications. That’s the crux of pushback.
I googled "Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder", this is the first video that came up : <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urKKzGybKb0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urKKzGybKb0</a>
This is dangerously fake opinion piece.<p>To reiterate another persons point:<p>"Nuclear energy is the only practical and CO neutral way of energy production that we have now"