4 ms·

The linked article says: The Department of Energy in late 2020 declared a moratorium on endorsing new coal-fired power plants as the Southeast Asian nation see

The linked article says: The Department of Energy in late 2020 declared a moratorium on endorsing new coal-fired power plants as the Southeast Asian nation seeks to shift to a more flexible power supply and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030. You don’t need a moratorium on something that makes no economic sense. This is a decision that takes into account externalities (and that’s great!)

toomuchtodo 5y ago
> You don’t need a moratorium on something that makes no economic sense. Yes, you do. Some will make decisions that are uneconomic because captive rate payers have no choice (this is prevalent with coal in the US MISO and PJM ISO grids) but to pay, and those making them are doing so to support coal even while in its death throes. About 160 cities are locked into the prairie state coal plant in southern Illinois (one of the largest coal plants east of the Mississippi) because of bonds they issued and debt they’ve taken on they can’t afford to accelerate payback on to close the plant early. https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/6/4/22517456/prairie-state-coal-plant-energy-bill-illinois-legislature-green-energy-air-pollution-fossil-fuels https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/6/4/22517456/prai... TLDR You have to kill coal with extreme prejudice, not just hope economic sanity is enough, because the evidence has demonstrated it isn’t.
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  > Some will make decisions that are uneconomic because captive rate payers have no choice If that’s the case then you have bigger problems. Rather than applying bandages on top of a broken system you should figure out how to align incentives.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    People who profit today and won’t be here tomorrow cannot have their prioritizes aligned with mitigating climate change. If I were to want to go with some hyperbole, I’d call them apathetic antagonists. The system is broken because you can’t align the incentives.
    - bradleyjg 5y ago
      A) that’s not true, you can design proper incentive structures and B) I thought the claim was that coal is uneconomic regardless of environmental considerations
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
        Re: B, something can be uneconomic in aggregate but still be profitable to individuals with political or economic weight. In the long run it might sort itself out. But, quoting Keynes out of context: “In the long run we are all dead”
  - afarrell 5y ago
    > If thats the case you have bigger problems. Yes, but we are trying to avoid boiling the ocean. It often makes sense to solve the smaller problem you can change rather than the larger problem which is too hard.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
AnotherGoodName 5y ago
I'll point out that the 2013 peak predates many of these environmental moratoriums to phase out coal. I'm cynical and jaded so i feel that the only reason we're finally getting some traction on the environmental side is that the poor economics of coal made the environmental battle not worth fighting anymore. Effectively the coal lobby is disintegrating at this point.
- onedognight 5y ago
  There’s no reason to be cynical. The people who worked on and supported renewables before they were cheap and the environmentalists who convinced them to do so in the face of intense opposition from entrenched fossil-fueled opposition are the ones who made the economic realities of coal a foregone conclusion at this point. This success is something to be celebrated.
  - idiotsecant 5y ago
    The economic realities of coal have nothing to do with renewables. They have to do with cheap natural gas. That cheap natural gas is a byproduct of fracking the bakkan field. A natural gas plant can be run with an operator and a tech or two for maintainance. A coal plant takes a huge team of people to keep running, not to mention the capex required to keep emissions in range. Coal is expensive because other fossil solutions are cheaper. Renewables without storage are in no way a threat to coal alone - they don't fulfill the same function.
    - socialdemocrat 5y ago
      You cannot ignore that it has been a combination. It his had in no way happened due to gas alone.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      >The economic realities of coal have nothing to do with renewables. Coal isn't load following. It overproduces and doesn't get paid during that time because renewables get feed in priority.
azernik 5y ago
Sure you do. It's very easy to ban things when the ban costs you nothing, and at the same time expressed support for a popular cause.
jjk166 5y ago
> You don’t need a moratorium on something that makes no economic sense Something can be generally economically unfavorable but cheaper in select applications. For example while petroleum is generally way too expensive to be used for grid scale electricity production, it is used for over 60% of Hawaii's electricity production because it is relatively easy to transport by ship over long distances, and thus in that specific case is the most economical option.

toomuchtodo 5y ago

> You don’t need a moratorium on something that makes no economic sense. Yes, you do. Some will make decisions that are uneconomic because captive rate payers have no choice (this is prevalent with coal in the US MISO and PJM ISO grids) but to pay, and those making them are doing so to support coal even while in its death throes. About 160 cities are locked into the prairie state coal plant in southern Illinois (one of the largest coal plants east of the Mississippi) because of bonds they issued and debt they’ve taken on they can’t afford to accelerate payback on to close the plant early. https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/6/4/22517456/prairie-state-coal-plant-energy-bill-illinois-legislature-green-energy-air-pollution-fossil-fuels https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/6/4/22517456/prai... TLDR You have to kill coal with extreme prejudice, not just hope economic sanity is enough, because the evidence has demonstrated it isn’t.

bradleyjg 5y ago
> Some will make decisions that are uneconomic because captive rate payers have no choice If that’s the case then you have bigger problems. Rather than applying bandages on top of a broken system you should figure out how to align incentives.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  People who profit today and won’t be here tomorrow cannot have their prioritizes aligned with mitigating climate change. If I were to want to go with some hyperbole, I’d call them apathetic antagonists. The system is broken because you can’t align the incentives.
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    A) that’s not true, you can design proper incentive structures and B) I thought the claim was that coal is uneconomic regardless of environmental considerations
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      Re: B, something can be uneconomic in aggregate but still be profitable to individuals with political or economic weight. In the long run it might sort itself out. But, quoting Keynes out of context: “In the long run we are all dead”
- afarrell 5y ago
  > If thats the case you have bigger problems. Yes, but we are trying to avoid boiling the ocean. It often makes sense to solve the smaller problem you can change rather than the larger problem which is too hard.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

AnotherGoodName 5y ago

I'll point out that the 2013 peak predates many of these environmental moratoriums to phase out coal. I'm cynical and jaded so i feel that the only reason we're finally getting some traction on the environmental side is that the poor economics of coal made the environmental battle not worth fighting anymore. Effectively the coal lobby is disintegrating at this point.

onedognight 5y ago
There’s no reason to be cynical. The people who worked on and supported renewables before they were cheap and the environmentalists who convinced them to do so in the face of intense opposition from entrenched fossil-fueled opposition are the ones who made the economic realities of coal a foregone conclusion at this point. This success is something to be celebrated.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  The economic realities of coal have nothing to do with renewables. They have to do with cheap natural gas. That cheap natural gas is a byproduct of fracking the bakkan field. A natural gas plant can be run with an operator and a tech or two for maintainance. A coal plant takes a huge team of people to keep running, not to mention the capex required to keep emissions in range. Coal is expensive because other fossil solutions are cheaper. Renewables without storage are in no way a threat to coal alone - they don't fulfill the same function.
  - socialdemocrat 5y ago
    You cannot ignore that it has been a combination. It his had in no way happened due to gas alone.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    >The economic realities of coal have nothing to do with renewables. Coal isn't load following. It overproduces and doesn't get paid during that time because renewables get feed in priority.

azernik 5y ago

Sure you do. It's very easy to ban things when the ban costs you nothing, and at the same time expressed support for a popular cause.

jjk166 5y ago

> You don’t need a moratorium on something that makes no economic sense Something can be generally economically unfavorable but cheaper in select applications. For example while petroleum is generally way too expensive to be used for grid scale electricity production, it is used for over 60% of Hawaii's electricity production because it is relatively easy to transport by ship over long distances, and thus in that specific case is the most economical option.