• 3 minutes Oil Price Could Fall To $30 If Global Deal Not Extended
  • 7 minutes Middle East on brink: Oil tankers attacked off Oman
  • 11 minutes Is $60/Bbl WTI still considered a break even for Shale Oil
  • 15 minutes CNN:America's oil boom will break more records this year. OPEC is stuck in retreat
  • 1 min The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."
  • 4 hours Coal Boom in Asia is Real and a Long Trend
  • 1 hour Hydrogen FTW... Some Day
  • 1 hour China's President Xi To Visit North Korea This Week
  • 5 hours OPEC, GEO-POLITICS & OIL SUPPLY & PRICES
  • 3 hours Forbes: Giant Floating Solar Farms Could Extract CO2 From Seawater, Producing Methanol Fuel.
  • 8 hours Fareed Zakaria: Canary in the Coal Mine (U.S. Dollar Hegemony)
  • 8 hours Why Is America (Texas) Burning Millions of Dollars Per Day Of Natural Gas?
  • 15 hours Greenpeace claims one oil rig is "pushing the world closer to a climate catastrophe"
  • 5 hours The Magic and Wonders of US Shale Supply: Keeping energy price shock minimised: US oil supply keeping lid on prices despite global risks: IEA chief
  • 6 hours Hormuz and surrounding waters: Energy Threats to the World: Oil, LNG, shipping markets digest new risks after Strait of Hormuz attack
  • 10 hours As Iran Nuclear Deal Flounders, France Turns To Saudi For Oil
  • 20 hours Britain makes it almost 12 days with NO COAL
  • 55 mins Russia removes special military forces from Venezuela . . . . Maduro gone by September ? . . . Oil starts to flow ? Think so . .
Alt Text

Could China Save The U.S. Coal Industry?

In a somewhat surprising move,…

Alt Text

Hurricane Florence Could Send Coal Prices Soaring

While the actual impact and…

Alt Text

Why Can’t Japan Kick Coal And Nuclear?

A new report shows that…

Dave Forest

Dave Forest

Dave is Managing Geologist of the Pierce Points Daily E-Letter.

More Info

Trending Discussions

Will This Trump Move Trigger A Coal And Nuclear Buying Spree?

You probably haven’t heard about it. But one of the most critical energy developments in years is now gearing up for a major battle in America. 

That’s a slate of new regulations around power pricing across the U.S. which have been proposed by the Trump-era Department of Energy (DOE), in order to give coal and nuclear power generation a boost — opened for public comment this week. 

Here’s the crux: the new DOE rules aim to ensure “reliability and resiliency” of power generation in America. By rewarding electricity producers who are able to generate continuous and steady power supply.

There are a couple of key pieces to the exact wording here. One being that electricity grid operators will be required to provide “full cost recovery” to some power-producing facilities. Specifically, those power plants that “maintain 90-day on-site fuel supplies”.

That basically means nuclear and coal-fired plants. With these solid-fuel driven facilities being the only ones that keep large fuel inventories on-site — unlike alternative generation methods like natural gas, hydro and renewables.

The cost recovery specification is critical here. As it would mean that grids would be required to ensure pricing that pays back coal and nuclear plant builders for all of their costs in putting up new facilities — likely meaning such operations would enjoy premium pricing.  Related: Kurdistan Proposes Immediate Ceasefire With Iraq

If implemented, these rules would thus encourage the building of new nuclear and coal plants. Which proponents of the law say are necessary in order to provide stable baseload power to the grid.

But opponents of the rules disputed that belief in official submissions this week. With lobby groups from natural gas and renewables saying there is no evidence that America’s power system is lacking in reliability.

This is an absolutely critical development for all energy observers. Watch for a final decision coming very quickly — with DOE having set a target of just 60 days for full review. If this measure goes ahead, coal and uranium could get a significant lift in this major market.

Here’s to being reliable.

By Dave Forest

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment
  • Jim Hopf on October 27 2017 said:
    This proposal is more about keeping existing coal and nuclear plants open. There is little chance that it would cause any new ones will be built.

    It's true that the grid reliability arguments are weak. The main (valid) arguments for nuclear subsidies are environmental (treating it differently than renewables in this regard is not justified). As coal is the worst of all sources, environmentally, and all other arguments in its favor (e.g., grid reliability) are weak to non-existent, there are no valid arguments for actually subsidizing it. We should be doing the opposite, i.e., taxing its pollution and CO2 emissions.

    So why are Trump, et al, trying to make these weak grid reliability arguments? It's the only idea they can come up with to justify actually subsidizing coal, and, being who they are, they refuse to make any environmental arguments for nuclear. Having environmental concerns be weighed in the market?? That would set a bad precedent.....

Leave a comment





Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News