3 ms·

Yeah, you’d think if 41% were unprofitable this year then next year there’d only be 4000 odd coal-fired plants, and so on and so forth. So obviously profitabil

Yeah, you’d think if 41% were unprofitable this year then next year there’d only be 4000 odd coal-fired plants, and so on and so forth. So obviously profitability isn’t the only thing keeping these plants open or not. Additionally: but this risks locking in high-cost coal power Coal is only high-cost when compared against certain metrics that favour non-coal electricity sources. On the whole electricity is extremely cheap, even from fossil sources, and where the end user may pay enough to care about total usage, the major components of the retail price are not source related, but rather delivery / tax / administrative / bureaucratic.

greglindahl 7y ago
I assume you're counting the cost of pollution and carbon into your price of coal electricity, right?
- revscat 7y ago
  It is insane to me that doing this is not a part of GAAP, and is very much the exception rather then the rule.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  It’s a good point, and I tend to agree. However, why would I do that when everyone else isn’t. And how would I do that when there’s no economic framework for me, as an individual retail customer, to do so? Sure, I can buy 100% renewables, but here in Australia the retailers want to charge me more for that choice. Here in Tasmania the local retailer, Aurora Energy, wants an additional 6.023 cents / kWh for 100% renewable, that’s that’s on top of their peak rate of 32.587 cents / kWh. An additional 18.5%! Why would I do that if I’m already living near my economic ability? Edit to add: And, even if I did choose to pay that premium, it’ll have approximately no effect whatsoever on global climate outcomes. Me paying an additional 18.5% on my bill to feel good won’t suck the carbon out of the air! This is why we neee regulation in this scenario more than we need individual choice.
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    I was asking about the underlying assumptions, not the retail market. Those are two different things. You appear to be only referring only to the latter. Surely we should be able to talk about the first before considering the second?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
      I meant to address that with my last sentence.

greglindahl 7y ago

I assume you're counting the cost of pollution and carbon into your price of coal electricity, right?

revscat 7y ago
It is insane to me that doing this is not a part of GAAP, and is very much the exception rather then the rule.
TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
It’s a good point, and I tend to agree. However, why would I do that when everyone else isn’t. And how would I do that when there’s no economic framework for me, as an individual retail customer, to do so? Sure, I can buy 100% renewables, but here in Australia the retailers want to charge me more for that choice. Here in Tasmania the local retailer, Aurora Energy, wants an additional 6.023 cents / kWh for 100% renewable, that’s that’s on top of their peak rate of 32.587 cents / kWh. An additional 18.5%! Why would I do that if I’m already living near my economic ability? Edit to add: And, even if I did choose to pay that premium, it’ll have approximately no effect whatsoever on global climate outcomes. Me paying an additional 18.5% on my bill to feel good won’t suck the carbon out of the air! This is why we neee regulation in this scenario more than we need individual choice.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  I was asking about the underlying assumptions, not the retail market. Those are two different things. You appear to be only referring only to the latter. Surely we should be able to talk about the first before considering the second?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
    I meant to address that with my last sentence.