Coal emits more CO2 per kJ of energy produced and also has one of the lowest specefic energy values(kJ/kg) relative to all other forms routinly used energy sources in the US. Capitalism hates coal. You're a socialist. The only reason coal will survive is through the handout of the government.
Oh really? Capitalism likes profitability and low cost, over the CO2 boogeyman. Have you considered cost in your analysis?
Hmm, interesting. Perhaps you can share studies that show costs, profitability, versus benefits including reduction in CO2?
Come on, you're better than that: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...k-Another-Wave-Of-Coal-Plant-Retirements.html From "oilprice.com" no less, lulz....Coal is dirty and we've decided that acid rain and mercury posioning is a bad thing; so yes, they have higher costs to comply--Trump and his pet EPA aren't changing that through executive order. I'll take Moody's word over yours: "That is because, as Moody’s notes, natural gas often determines the marginal price of electricity. The price set in the market – in unregulated markets, that is – is the price that all generators earn. In other words, cheap natural gas is lowering the price of wholesale electricity, which is cutting into the revenues of all power plant operators. "Low natural gas prices have devastated most of the US merchant power sector because gas-fired power plants often serve as the marginal plantnew during times of peak power demand," Moody's said. "Lower natural gas prices have effectively driven down wholesale power prices for all generators, regardless of whether they are using natural gas, coal, nuclear power or renewable resources to generate their electricity." Coal fired plants are getting priced out of the market and the trend hasn't slowed--this article is from the second quarter of 2016 and it's not getting any better. The free hand of the market at work, commodities FTW.
Yes, so why would capitalism use an energy source with low specefic energy values(kJ/kg) along with the pending cost for medical for their employees?
The reason coal is dropping off is because it is being replaced by natural gas which is far more efficient and cheaper for consumers. You can see the trend that Natural gas is replacing coal. Obama didn't kill coal, market forces did.
^^ Of course there is an impact due to the effects of fracking - notably the lower natural gas price. But would you say that the environmental regulations limiting emissions do not also add marginal costs to the production of power? Of course they do! I'm dealing with amateurs here.
Why are ya'll going for Texxx trolling. Coal just isn't economically viable anymore despite what trump says. At the current rate of solar price decrease its going to be the cheaper than natural gas.
And what gets lost sometimes in the narrative is that by dumping the decades long efforts of entities like the EPA (the EPA being created thanks in large part to a Republican president, Richard Nixon) to improve air and water quality, among a host of other things, not only are the negative impacts enormous, but they are a dagger in the back of fast growing industries that are both job creators and a huge plus for our environment. Solar (as you point out) and wind power, for example, will be harmed by the bizarre Trump/GOP effort to turn back the clock. Has everyone forgotten how much worse the quality of the air we breathe used to be? Are people blind, deaf, and dumb to facts? And another thing - by rolling back the gas mileage requirements for the auto industry, what does that accomplish? Nothing, except to harm Americans and the world. Mr. Trump and the GOP Congress are assaulting laws and regulations that have had a salutary effect on our country and abroad simply because they can. They aren't creating jobs, in my opinion. They are hurting job growth in new industries where we should be leading the world, and promoting an agenda that is dishonest to those out of work in states like West Virginia. Those coal industry jobs aren't coming back, in my opinion. They aren't coming back because the competitive energy sources are not only more friendly to the environment, they are cheaper. Unless Trump wants to subsidize the coal industry, his "promises" will amount to nothing but foul hot air. Companies want to use the cheapest energy source. Coal no longer comes close to being the "cheap" energy alternative.
LOL. I bit for 2+ pages here so I'm right there with you. I care less about responding to LilTexx as I do supplying the obvious data for someone that might stumble upon this argument that doesn't know any better and might think his point is valid. I mean if you only watch FoxNews, and only pay attention to politics & the energy sector during campaign season, you might think that Coal is a vital part of our energy sector in need of saving. Im an addict to the truth and facts so sometimes I snap and go on a reply rampage myself.
You know the owners of coal-fired plants in parts of the Midwest are active right now lobbying their state legislators for handouts because they're being put out of business by gas-fired generators. Nukes too. They threaten to shutter the plants which will cost jobs and taxbase, and they say the state needs the fuel diversity. Coal and nuclear plants need 5-10x times as many workers as a modern CCGT does to operate. FirstEnergy threatened to move their corporate offices out of Akron so Ohio promised them several hundred million dollars from utility ratepayers to support these power plants that are not even in the ratebase. Now FE wants to reregulate those plants because they know they can't survive competition. What @fchowd0311 is talking about is already happening in places. States are making uneconomic decisions based on jobs and shoveling ratepayer money to corporations to keep these obsolete assets going when people would be better off with them closing. Illinois just gave Exelon a couple of billion with a B to keep 2 nuclear plants open ostensibly because nuclear doesn't produce carbon, but mostly because those plants produce jobs. New York also gave them a few billion for the same reason. Now they're asking for handouts in other states they have nukes. Capitalism would have those nukes shut down. It'd have FE's coal plants shut down. It'd shut down half of AEP's fleet. Luminant, which has just recently emerged from one of the biggest bankruptcies ever caused by a bad bet on the profitability of coal, is still in financial straits over the performance of their Texas coal plants. And if the other 33 states were deregulated, I'd bet a lot of their coal plants wouldn't survive competition either. Capitalism is killing coal. And, Trump being friendly to natural gas will only make it go faster. Now, there is some regulation in the cost mix for coal. Not CO2 since there is no CPP. But mercury and particulates and things like that. If Trump can reverse those regulations, maybe those 60 year old plants can live to 100. If nukes don't have so many rules to make sure they never have a meltdown or a terrorist attack, maybe they can be competitive too. I'm not sure how far into willfully negligent deregulation Trump is willing to go to make sure those generation sources can find a niche in our economy.
Because they're frustrated that they cannot refute me. Coal isn't economically viable? There's a large number of coal plants running full-out today (providing baseload generation) that would blow your argument to bits.
Lol. I already put you in your place Liltexxx. And you won't respond to JuanValdez when you he took to the shed. Sad.
I must be on texxx's ignore list. But, I do want to expand a little on one point I made. Some states have deregulated wholesale power. In those states, coal is on the bubble. Some plants are profitable and they get in the supply stack, and they do so as baseload because that's the most efficient way for them to run. Others are not profitable and they bid in only to mitigate losses until prices go up or they finally shutter. That coal plants are running isn't really an endorsement of their profitability. Those companies simply have enough balance sheet to sustain losses for a few years. Some of them are profitable, some aren't. A better indicator might be all the planned shutterings. They've been doing so for awhile and will continue to do so even without CPP. Unless they get handouts. But, a lot of the country has not deregulated wholesale power. They have vertically-integrated utilities that ratebase their power plants. In other words, they calculated the costs and then allocated them to their ratepayers (with a little rate of return on top for the investor when they are investor owned). This system has nothing to do with capitalism. Price is not a function of supply and demand. It's a formula based on long-term costs. There is no marketplace. There is no competition. There's no mechanism to say whether the cost of the plant is efficient or not. It's almost a null statement to say what capitalism would mean for coal because so many plants are totally shielded from capitalism. It only makes sense insofar that we see coal struggles in competitive markets today, and that regulated markets themselves -- with their coal, gas, and everything else -- is anathema to capitalism.