3 ms·

What is quite obvious is that there is a crisis brought on by a war. Period. Making policy based on a momentary crisis would be much dumber than anybody in Eur

What is quite obvious is that there is a crisis brought on by a war. Period. Making policy based on a momentary crisis would be much dumber than anybody in Europe is. As the momentary crisis abates, emergency measures will be dropped. People who have coal will not burn it if it costs more than building out renewables, except where corruption locks in continued dependence on coal.

perrygeo 4y ago
Just to be totally clear on this, you're claiming that "People who have coal will not burn it if costs more than building out renewables" You do realize that you're commenting on an article showing that people are literally, today, as we speak, doing exactly the opposite. i.e. tearing down decade-long investments in renewables to get at coal.
- cauch 4y ago
  Nope. The article explains that the wind central was, since its construction, planned to have a given life span. It is incorrect to say that they are replacing wind by coal. What they are doing is closing wind that reached its end of life, and profiting from the empty space to expend coal. In fact, this article shows even the opposite of what you say: for years, the wind central was used despite blocking exploiting the coal: the fact that they are expending the coal only when the wind central has to be closed anyway shows that the wind central was more profitable than the coal.
  - perrygeo 4y ago
    "The wind farm was planned to have a given life span and now that it's over, no one is willing to reinvest in it. So it's become a coal mine because coal is more profitable. So that proves why wind is more profitable." I'm literally confused.
    - pencilguin 4y ago
      Maybe look up "capex" and "opex". People mining coal get paid for the coal. People buying power buy it where they can. It must be clear to the coal miners that this might be their last chance to get a profit from their coal.
    - cauch 4y ago
      Why do you say "no one is willing to reinvest in it"? They are investing right now in other sites, so, basically, what is happening is equivalent to "this wind central just profited that it needed a recycle to move in another site". Again, this was the deal from the start: we will build a wind central there, even if it blocks the coal, because wind is more profitable, and when we have to recycle, maybe we will move, why not. That's really a non-event.

perrygeo 4y ago

Just to be totally clear on this, you're claiming that "People who have coal will not burn it if costs more than building out renewables" You do realize that you're commenting on an article showing that people are literally, today, as we speak, doing exactly the opposite. i.e. tearing down decade-long investments in renewables to get at coal.

cauch 4y ago
Nope. The article explains that the wind central was, since its construction, planned to have a given life span. It is incorrect to say that they are replacing wind by coal. What they are doing is closing wind that reached its end of life, and profiting from the empty space to expend coal. In fact, this article shows even the opposite of what you say: for years, the wind central was used despite blocking exploiting the coal: the fact that they are expending the coal only when the wind central has to be closed anyway shows that the wind central was more profitable than the coal.
- perrygeo 4y ago
  "The wind farm was planned to have a given life span and now that it's over, no one is willing to reinvest in it. So it's become a coal mine because coal is more profitable. So that proves why wind is more profitable." I'm literally confused.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    Maybe look up "capex" and "opex". People mining coal get paid for the coal. People buying power buy it where they can. It must be clear to the coal miners that this might be their last chance to get a profit from their coal.
  - cauch 4y ago
    Why do you say "no one is willing to reinvest in it"? They are investing right now in other sites, so, basically, what is happening is equivalent to "this wind central just profited that it needed a recycle to move in another site". Again, this was the deal from the start: we will build a wind central there, even if it blocks the coal, because wind is more profitable, and when we have to recycle, maybe we will move, why not. That's really a non-event.