Your last 3 references are all future looking vapourware. They keep calling coal "uneconomical". It has been the foundation of affordable electricity for many

Your last 3 references are all future looking vapourware. They keep calling coal "uneconomical". It has been the foundation of affordable electricity for many decades. Wind, solar, and utility scale electricity storage are driving massive electricity bill cost additions. They survive only on massive government subsidies, massively distorting their supposed "low cost". In Ontario, Canada, the government had to offer $0.42/kWh to get people to build solar, at a time when the highest consumer price for electricity on their bill was $0.10/kWh. This happened through a combination of nuclear, natural gas, and hydroelectric being closer to $0.05/kWh (various generators are on different contracted rates). It beggars belief that these "clean energy" organizations who have never run a generator, or a grid wander in and claim that non-dispatchable, heavily subsidized solar and wind generators are "cheaper" that the established technologies. Real world solar and wind generating plants that are cost competitive with traditional generation simply don't exist. As far as coal generators phasing out, yes, there probably won't be many replaced. Natural gas has all the same dispatchable properties as coal, so it can function as a perfect substitute. Nuclear could also take over for baseload. Wind and solar.....no.