4 ms·

Trump could definitely slow the rate of closure of existing plants, but the industry sees the writing on the wall regarding coal. Each plant requires an investm

Trump could definitely slow the rate of closure of existing plants, but the industry sees the writing on the wall regarding coal. Each plant requires an investment that will be repaid over decades. So unless they think coal policy will be favorable in the long run, they won't invest. That plus natural gas is still just cheaper right now.

madaxe_again 10y ago
If they're handing out multi billion dollar incentives to build coal plants, they are economically viable. You don't need paying customers to be profitable, just a friendly government. Here in the uk we subsidise fossil fuels far more heavily than renewables and there are no plans to change that picture - actually, oil and gas subsidies are increasing, to "help maintain profitability for an important British values industry". Never underestimate the power of wealth transfer. Volkswagen, thyssen krupps, Hugo boss, ford - none would exist today without vast piles of state gifts - and that's the tiny readily visible tip of the iceberg. No, oil is here to stay for as long as is convenient. Renewables will continue to be kicked into the long grass because policymakers will be rich and dead by the time it gets truly awful. Oil makes them rich today.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  That's unsustainable. You can't cut taxes and subsidize cronies. The money has to come from somewhere.
  - Atheros 10y ago
    It's certainly unsustainable but that doesn't mean that it cannot be sustained for 20 to 60 years. The money can come from buyers of treasuries. And indeed it has. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2016USp_12s1li011lcn_H0f http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2016... And it's cheaper than ever for the government to do. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GLYubON4v7A/UPTBpQUr8eI/AAAAAAAAE0I/aMPpuwRZzuA/s1600/us-treasury-yields-since-1800-all-time-low.png https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GLYubON4v7A/UPTBpQUr8eI/AAAAAAAAE... As long as we never try to pay it back.

madaxe_again 10y ago

If they're handing out multi billion dollar incentives to build coal plants, they are economically viable. You don't need paying customers to be profitable, just a friendly government. Here in the uk we subsidise fossil fuels far more heavily than renewables and there are no plans to change that picture - actually, oil and gas subsidies are increasing, to "help maintain profitability for an important British values industry". Never underestimate the power of wealth transfer. Volkswagen, thyssen krupps, Hugo boss, ford - none would exist today without vast piles of state gifts - and that's the tiny readily visible tip of the iceberg. No, oil is here to stay for as long as is convenient. Renewables will continue to be kicked into the long grass because policymakers will be rich and dead by the time it gets truly awful. Oil makes them rich today.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
That's unsustainable. You can't cut taxes and subsidize cronies. The money has to come from somewhere.
- Atheros 10y ago
  It's certainly unsustainable but that doesn't mean that it cannot be sustained for 20 to 60 years. The money can come from buyers of treasuries. And indeed it has. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2016USp_12s1li011lcn_H0f http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2016... And it's cheaper than ever for the government to do. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GLYubON4v7A/UPTBpQUr8eI/AAAAAAAAE0I/aMPpuwRZzuA/s1600/us-treasury-yields-since-1800-all-time-low.png https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GLYubON4v7A/UPTBpQUr8eI/AAAAAAAAE... As long as we never try to pay it back.