3 ms·
As a layman I'm always kind of skeptical when I see analyses like this. I assume that power companies (and most companies) are a) greedy and always seeking to
by Rebelgecko 4y ago
As a layman I'm always kind of skeptical when I see analyses like this. I assume that power companies (and most companies) are
a) greedy and always seeking to improve their profits
b) more or less rational in that pursuit
If retiring coal is so profitable, why aren't companies actually doing it? I could see why there might be political pressures in places like West Virginia, but what about Illinois, Wyoming, Alaska, Washington?
(Actually Illinois is interesting in that they're raising utility rates to fund the proposed future shutdown of coal plants... Although that could just be plain old graft)
- ncmncm 4y agoSunk cost fallacy is still hugely influential. And structural inertia blocks obviously profitable change. Certainly the people currently milking the public for $trillions annually pay big money into campaigns to delay transition of that money elsewhere.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoIf you read the article I linked to, you'd find an explanation that perfectly matches your preconcieved biases. It calls it out in bullet points right at the top: > [We] detail how an outdated regulatory framework is one of the only reasons why uncompetitive coal power continues to operate in the US What you appear to be assuming is that there is perfect competition in energy markets and that some upstart with solar could outcompete the incumbents if it was really cheaper and so force them to adjust to market prices. This is not the case. On top of that, there's also externalities. But even without counting those, there's money being wasted.