5 ms·

Michael Bloomberg pumps $500M into bid to close all US coal plants

33 points by DocFeind 3y ago

unnamed76ri 3y ago
Sometimes you just wonder if the rich and powerful think that the middle class was a mistake and that they will do anything to correct it.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Sometimes the emotional, the uneducated, and the unsophisticated cling to irrationality in the face of facts and logic. Normally, this only impacts themselves (religion, for example). But when it impacts all of us collectively, effort must be expended to drive towards the optimal outcome (net zero electrical generation, in this case). Only one coal plant in the US is cheaper to operate than replacement with batteries and renewables (Dry Fork Wyoming) [1]. Funds are being provided for a just transition [2], not throwing coal folks into the streets. Utilities and generators will retrain or offer other jobs to people not taking retirement buyouts. If they still want to keep coal because of their belief systems around identity, work, etc, well, too bad. The climate doesn’t care about your belief system. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601970 (citations) [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inflation-reduction-act-benefits-billions-in-just-transition-funding-for-coal-communities/?sh=8dd0c0c6ebdf https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inf...
  - GenerWork 3y ago
    >Only one coal plant in the US is cheaper to operate than replacing with batteries and renewables If it's cheaper to slap up some renewables and back them up with batteries then to continue to operate the plants, shouldn't power suppliers be making plans to shut the existing plants down right now? If they are, they why does Michael Bloomberg need to spend half a billion dollars to shut these plants down?
    - CodeyWhizzBang 3y ago
      Might it be made difficult to replace them, even if they're cheaper, because of the political influence of the goal/gas lobby groups in America?
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Utilities commissions and state regulators are enabling these plants to continue to run, even when they’re uneconomical. Consumers pay more than they otherwise would for local electricity due to ideology. That is what this earmark is to fight. https://www.eenews.net/articles/states-fight-to-save-coal-plants-as-epa-cracks-down/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/states-fight-to-save-coal-pl... ("States fight to save coal plants as EPA cracks down") https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2023/03/06/coal-is-expensive-west-virginia-wants-more-of-it-00082767 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2023/03/06... ("Coal is expensive. West Virginia wants more of it.") https://coal.sierraclub.org/coal-plant-map https://coal.sierraclub.org/coal-plant-map
  - shrubble 3y ago
    If coal is un-economic, why in your view are the Chinese building out more coal burning plants? See https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-... Why wouldn't they only focus on battery and renewables as you put it?
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Poor policy. Why would we be surprised they make just as poor mistakes as the US does? Perhaps for different reasons, but mistakes regardless. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-new-coal-plants-set-become-costly-second-fiddle-renewables-2023-03-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-new-coal-plan... (March 2023: "Analysis: China's new coal plants set to become a costly second fiddle to renewables")
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Also: https://archive.ph/YhO0s https://archive.ph/YhO0s | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-18/china-s-return-to-coal-looks-set-to-be-short-lived https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-18/china-... ("China’s Return to Coal Looks Set to Be Short-Lived")
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    It is not productive to declare that the people who don't agree with your policy goals are emotional, uneducated, and unsophisticated, clinging to "irrationality." People have different values. They may not be able to articulate those values as well as you or I; they may not want to articulate them, because they don't think they'd be received well. But this is the root of the problem: people with different value systems see the same facts and come to different conclusions. It's entirely possible even for an unemotional, educated, and sophisticated person to see "all the facts and logic" and disagree that your desired outcome is the "optimal" one. This tone just alienates.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Not all values or value systems are equal. If after all attempts at discussion and persuasion fails, based on sound facts and data, what else would you expect to be done? It’s also unproductive to have to fight against failed value systems. You’ll always alienate people who are having their value systems challenged, as you’re challenging a core component of their identity. It’s a mental immune response. That does not make their values valid.
      - Amezarak 3y ago
        Values are axiomatic. How do you propose people compare them? Simply declaring their values Bad and our values Good isn’t helpful. Nobody thinks their own values are bad, and you can’t reason yourself or others into having different values. What you can do is work towards rapprochement and working to find areas of common ground (even if your reasons are different), or at least being careful about tactics so you don’t generate counterreaction.
    - catlover76 3y ago
      > It is not productive to declare that the people who don't agree with your policy goals are emotional, uneducated, and unsophisticated, clinging to "irrationality." I mean, the logical conclusion of what you are posting is to cut off criticizing someone's argument as irrational or emotional as a line of debate, which doesn't really seem that reasonable. But like anyways though, I would argue that, in this case, that's neither here nor there; isn't it the case that, most of the time, the debate surrounding coal boils down to "coal is bad for the environment and killing the planet" versus "yeah but that's mostly all we have for jobs in these rural communities"? Insofar as that's mostly what this is about, I don't think the GP is correct in labeling those arguments irrational. The pro-coal position is very rational for those people in the short-term. Unfortunately for them, their self-interest conflicts with the interests of broader society, and we will have to steamroll them. By and large, they aren't very sympathetic at the end of the day. When I was a litigator, one of the practice groups I worked with was an admin law group at my firm that did nothing but Black Lung claims (i.e. big coal companies hired us to litigate against claimant miners). These people got paid a fair wage by their employers for decades (they made rather good money, esp given that a lot of them were high school dropouts), had extensive smoking histories, and then, when they felt the negative health effects of their work + life styles, they wanted to turn around sue their former employers. Of course, whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum tried to raise the negative effects of coal mines, they dismissively called them "tree huggers", and whenever people like AOC raise the idea of proper healthcare in the country, they deride that as socialism (as if that's a bad thing)--yet they still hypocritically would turn around and try to sue their employers for health care money (which, btw, comes out of a government trust fund under certain circumstances).
Qwertious 3y ago
Good - this is a great way to starve US's domestic coal/gas lobby and prevent them from stalling climate progress.
thunkle 3y ago
I probably live in a bubble, are people pro-coal burning somewhere in the US?
- junofan 3y ago
  Yeah, the idea is rather than pay China for solar and battery REM, burn coal and jump to nuclear. The coal’s going to be burned in Africa anyway, so why enrich our rival (who is also burning coal).
  - MrMan 3y ago
    [dead]
- postpawl 3y ago
  https://texasgop.org/fossilfuelsresolution/ https://texasgop.org/fossilfuelsresolution/
- pcurve 3y ago
  In the end, it's mostly about dollars and dense. Most coal plants are operated by large companies including Georgia Power, Duke Energy, AEP, etc. who have large coffers to fund lobbying effort to influence the public and regulators. They are mostly located in middle America and provide well paying jobs for the locals. Even though no new coal plants are going up, they've made large capital investment building these plants in 70s and 80s, and they want to maximize the returns as long as possible, right up until the lifespan which is around 50 years. So they're doing the minimum necessary to appease and avoid raising the ire of regulatory bodies and general public.
- bradleyishungry 3y ago
  There’s no real replacement plan for the coal mining jobs in the rust belt, so some people are somewhat justifiably against it there. Obviously we should move away from coal, but if that’s not addressed, a poor area is just going to get poorer. There should really be a plan to build alternative energy factories and train people in those areas
esturk 3y ago
I just want to point out this is only aimed at coal power plants. This has nothing to do with other uses of coal which is used for steel making. According to the EIA, a little over 90% of coal is used for power[1]. But there is close to 10% of that used for Steel. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20about%20513%20million,share%20since%20at%20least%201949 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php#:~:....

33 points by DocFeind 3y ago

Sometimes you just wonder if the rich and powerful think that the middle class was a mistake and that they will do anything to correct it.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Sometimes the emotional, the uneducated, and the unsophisticated cling to irrationality in the face of facts and logic. Normally, this only impacts themselves (religion, for example). But when it impacts all of us collectively, effort must be expended to drive towards the optimal outcome (net zero electrical generation, in this case). Only one coal plant in the US is cheaper to operate than replacement with batteries and renewables (Dry Fork Wyoming) [1]. Funds are being provided for a just transition [2], not throwing coal folks into the streets. Utilities and generators will retrain or offer other jobs to people not taking retirement buyouts. If they still want to keep coal because of their belief systems around identity, work, etc, well, too bad. The climate doesn’t care about your belief system. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601970 (citations) [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inflation-reduction-act-benefits-billions-in-just-transition-funding-for-coal-communities/?sh=8dd0c0c6ebdf https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/24/inf...
- GenerWork 3y ago
  >Only one coal plant in the US is cheaper to operate than replacing with batteries and renewables If it's cheaper to slap up some renewables and back them up with batteries then to continue to operate the plants, shouldn't power suppliers be making plans to shut the existing plants down right now? If they are, they why does Michael Bloomberg need to spend half a billion dollars to shut these plants down?
  - CodeyWhizzBang 3y ago
    Might it be made difficult to replace them, even if they're cheaper, because of the political influence of the goal/gas lobby groups in America?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Utilities commissions and state regulators are enabling these plants to continue to run, even when they’re uneconomical. Consumers pay more than they otherwise would for local electricity due to ideology. That is what this earmark is to fight. https://www.eenews.net/articles/states-fight-to-save-coal-plants-as-epa-cracks-down/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/states-fight-to-save-coal-pl... ("States fight to save coal plants as EPA cracks down") https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2023/03/06/coal-is-expensive-west-virginia-wants-more-of-it-00082767 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2023/03/06... ("Coal is expensive. West Virginia wants more of it.") https://coal.sierraclub.org/coal-plant-map https://coal.sierraclub.org/coal-plant-map
- shrubble 3y ago
  If coal is un-economic, why in your view are the Chinese building out more coal burning plants? See https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-six-times-more-new-coal-plants-than-other-countries-report-fin https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-... Why wouldn't they only focus on battery and renewables as you put it?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Poor policy. Why would we be surprised they make just as poor mistakes as the US does? Perhaps for different reasons, but mistakes regardless. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-new-coal-plants-set-become-costly-second-fiddle-renewables-2023-03-22/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-new-coal-plan... (March 2023: "Analysis: China's new coal plants set to become a costly second fiddle to renewables")
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Also: https://archive.ph/YhO0s https://archive.ph/YhO0s | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-18/china-s-return-to-coal-looks-set-to-be-short-lived https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-10-18/china-... ("China’s Return to Coal Looks Set to Be Short-Lived")
- Amezarak 3y ago
  It is not productive to declare that the people who don't agree with your policy goals are emotional, uneducated, and unsophisticated, clinging to "irrationality." People have different values. They may not be able to articulate those values as well as you or I; they may not want to articulate them, because they don't think they'd be received well. But this is the root of the problem: people with different value systems see the same facts and come to different conclusions. It's entirely possible even for an unemotional, educated, and sophisticated person to see "all the facts and logic" and disagree that your desired outcome is the "optimal" one. This tone just alienates.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Not all values or value systems are equal. If after all attempts at discussion and persuasion fails, based on sound facts and data, what else would you expect to be done? It’s also unproductive to have to fight against failed value systems. You’ll always alienate people who are having their value systems challenged, as you’re challenging a core component of their identity. It’s a mental immune response. That does not make their values valid.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      Values are axiomatic. How do you propose people compare them? Simply declaring their values Bad and our values Good isn’t helpful. Nobody thinks their own values are bad, and you can’t reason yourself or others into having different values. What you can do is work towards rapprochement and working to find areas of common ground (even if your reasons are different), or at least being careful about tactics so you don’t generate counterreaction.
  - catlover76 3y ago
    > It is not productive to declare that the people who don't agree with your policy goals are emotional, uneducated, and unsophisticated, clinging to "irrationality." I mean, the logical conclusion of what you are posting is to cut off criticizing someone's argument as irrational or emotional as a line of debate, which doesn't really seem that reasonable. But like anyways though, I would argue that, in this case, that's neither here nor there; isn't it the case that, most of the time, the debate surrounding coal boils down to "coal is bad for the environment and killing the planet" versus "yeah but that's mostly all we have for jobs in these rural communities"? Insofar as that's mostly what this is about, I don't think the GP is correct in labeling those arguments irrational. The pro-coal position is very rational for those people in the short-term. Unfortunately for them, their self-interest conflicts with the interests of broader society, and we will have to steamroll them. By and large, they aren't very sympathetic at the end of the day. When I was a litigator, one of the practice groups I worked with was an admin law group at my firm that did nothing but Black Lung claims (i.e. big coal companies hired us to litigate against claimant miners). These people got paid a fair wage by their employers for decades (they made rather good money, esp given that a lot of them were high school dropouts), had extensive smoking histories, and then, when they felt the negative health effects of their work + life styles, they wanted to turn around sue their former employers. Of course, whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum tried to raise the negative effects of coal mines, they dismissively called them "tree huggers", and whenever people like AOC raise the idea of proper healthcare in the country, they deride that as socialism (as if that's a bad thing)--yet they still hypocritically would turn around and try to sue their employers for health care money (which, btw, comes out of a government trust fund under certain circumstances).

Qwertious 3y ago

Good - this is a great way to starve US's domestic coal/gas lobby and prevent them from stalling climate progress.

thunkle 3y ago

I probably live in a bubble, are people pro-coal burning somewhere in the US?

junofan 3y ago
Yeah, the idea is rather than pay China for solar and battery REM, burn coal and jump to nuclear. The coal’s going to be burned in Africa anyway, so why enrich our rival (who is also burning coal).
- MrMan 3y ago
  [dead]
postpawl 3y ago
https://texasgop.org/fossilfuelsresolution/ https://texasgop.org/fossilfuelsresolution/
pcurve 3y ago
In the end, it's mostly about dollars and dense. Most coal plants are operated by large companies including Georgia Power, Duke Energy, AEP, etc. who have large coffers to fund lobbying effort to influence the public and regulators. They are mostly located in middle America and provide well paying jobs for the locals. Even though no new coal plants are going up, they've made large capital investment building these plants in 70s and 80s, and they want to maximize the returns as long as possible, right up until the lifespan which is around 50 years. So they're doing the minimum necessary to appease and avoid raising the ire of regulatory bodies and general public.
bradleyishungry 3y ago
There’s no real replacement plan for the coal mining jobs in the rust belt, so some people are somewhat justifiably against it there. Obviously we should move away from coal, but if that’s not addressed, a poor area is just going to get poorer. There should really be a plan to build alternative energy factories and train people in those areas

esturk 3y ago

I just want to point out this is only aimed at coal power plants. This has nothing to do with other uses of coal which is used for steel making. According to the EIA, a little over 90% of coal is used for power[1]. But there is close to 10% of that used for Steel. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20about%20513%20million,share%20since%20at%20least%201949 https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php#:~:....