This is not idealized comparison, it's the most immediate choice: continue running as you are, or build something new. In that comparison, coal loses. Coal los

This is not idealized comparison, it's the most immediate choice: continue running as you are, or build something new. In that comparison, coal loses. Coal loses much harder if you're talking about investing in a brand new facility. > That sort of wishy-washy language is classic political sales pitch stuff. There's nothing wishy-washy about concrete numbers with specifics. Saying something like "clean coal" or whatever the heck is going on here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reinvigorating-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry-and-amending-executive-order-14241/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/rein... is political and wishy washy. The only coal supporters are those with the wishywashy politics. No hard-nosed quantitative type that runs numbers and is connected to reality supports coal. That would be comical.