4 ms·

My parents live in a very conservative area of the country that started a coal phaseout 5 years ago or so. Everyone was up in arms when they announced it, but

My parents live in a very conservative area of the country that started a coal phaseout 5 years ago or so. Everyone was up in arms when they announced it, but the utility said "here's our data, these are the scenarios we've run, if we've made a mistake or there is a plausible scenario we've missed, let us know". Coal just isn't competitive anymore, financially.

the_optimist 3y ago
It’s not competitive because policy has been designed to make it expensive. This is underhanded and leads to circular reasoning. Nuclear is similarly expensive. Wind and solar would be even more expensive without extraordinary policy support.
- erellsworth 3y ago
  Except that the US has been subsidizing fossil fuels, including coal, for decades.
- datadrivenangel 3y ago
  Natural gas and wind turbines are cheaper now. Would coal be competitive if there were no emission controls? Maybe, but we like relatively clean air, so we want some of those controls.
- cbrozefsky 3y ago
  You are myopic in a focus on subsidies, and you need to consider both current costs, and how they are externalized from coal plants to the population, and what the cost will be in the future from the pollutants (carbon and others). Policy has only started to make them pay for the cost of their pollution, and as they are being made too, it's become increasingly more expensive to run a coal fired power plant. Last one more than 100mw was built in 2013, and no more big ones are being built. The REAL market price of energy must include the cost of eliminating or mitigating these pollutants. This is also why policy in the US since 2016 has increased the subsidies to renewables: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd... When the real price is considered, not just for global warming, but for public health impacts due to particulate and heavy metal and water pollution, coal is dead. It's only hope is to try and continue to externalize those costs on to all of us by crying about regulation and subsidies. Those subsidies are an investment to avoid paying a radically higher cost in the coming years for public health and climate change disruption. The science and economic are very clear on this. https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2023-lancet-countdown-u-s-brief/ https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2023-lancet-countdown-u-s-...
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The policies that makes it expensive are emissions controls. Without those emissions controls Americans would get sick and cost us a lot more money in medical bills.

the_optimist 3y ago

It’s not competitive because policy has been designed to make it expensive. This is underhanded and leads to circular reasoning. Nuclear is similarly expensive. Wind and solar would be even more expensive without extraordinary policy support.

erellsworth 3y ago
Except that the US has been subsidizing fossil fuels, including coal, for decades.
datadrivenangel 3y ago
Natural gas and wind turbines are cheaper now. Would coal be competitive if there were no emission controls? Maybe, but we like relatively clean air, so we want some of those controls.
cbrozefsky 3y ago
You are myopic in a focus on subsidies, and you need to consider both current costs, and how they are externalized from coal plants to the population, and what the cost will be in the future from the pollutants (carbon and others). Policy has only started to make them pay for the cost of their pollution, and as they are being made too, it's become increasingly more expensive to run a coal fired power plant. Last one more than 100mw was built in 2013, and no more big ones are being built. The REAL market price of energy must include the cost of eliminating or mitigating these pollutants. This is also why policy in the US since 2016 has increased the subsidies to renewables: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd... When the real price is considered, not just for global warming, but for public health impacts due to particulate and heavy metal and water pollution, coal is dead. It's only hope is to try and continue to externalize those costs on to all of us by crying about regulation and subsidies. Those subsidies are an investment to avoid paying a radically higher cost in the coming years for public health and climate change disruption. The science and economic are very clear on this. https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2023-lancet-countdown-u-s-brief/ https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2023-lancet-countdown-u-s-...
bryanlarsen 3y ago
The policies that makes it expensive are emissions controls. Without those emissions controls Americans would get sick and cost us a lot more money in medical bills.