← Back to context

Comment by dmix

9 hours ago

Comparing idealized costs of one form of energy replacing another doesn't make it a non-economical form of energy.

> Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S.

That sort of wishy-washy language is classic political sales pitch stuff. And I say that in favour of transitioning to solar/wind where it makes sense.

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/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.

Coal generators are reaching the end of their life, and to be frank, the US doesn't have the ability to build more if they tried (labor and skill shortages, primarily, but capital is also going to be hard to come by considering stranded asset risk). There is a 5-10 year backlog of gas turbines by the three companies in the world that build them. Coal retirements will continue, and hopefully, low carbon energy sources (being the least expensive option) will backfill them. Could the US face power shortages due to refusing to build new power generation out of ideology? Certainly. But are 50-60 year old coal plants going to run forever? Unlikely, based on mechanical limitations, supply chain constraints, etc.

Solar, wind, and batteries will continue to decline in cost; whether the US chooses to adopt them is a choice. Make good choices, as I tell my children.

Trump’s major coal sales flop in Wyoming and Montana - https://wyofile.com/trumps-major-coal-sales-flop-in-wyoming-... - October 8th, 2025

Gas-Turbine Crunch Threatens Demand Bonanza in Asia - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-10-07/gas-tu... | https://archive.today/z4Ixw - October 7th, 2025

AI-Driven Demand for Gas Turbines Risks a New Energy Crunch - https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-bottlenecks-gas-turb... | https://archive.today/b8bhn - October 1st, 2025

Most of the planned coal capacity retirements are in the Midwest or Mid-Atlantic regions - https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65744 - July 14th, 2025

Nowhere to go but down for U.S. coal capacity, generation - https://ieefa.org/resources/nowhere-go-down-us-coal-capacity... - October 24th, 2024 ("More than 8,100 MW of currently operating coal capacity will be at least 60 years old by 2030, but plant owners have not yet announced retirement dates. It is highly unlikely any of those units will still be operational by 2040, given the increase in maintenance costs and the decline in performance that go hand in hand with aging coal plants. Another 20,000MW of coal-fired capacity will be at least 50 years old by 2030, putting them at or near their expected operational lifespans.")

US Coal Plant Map Retirement Tracker - https://www.sierraclub.org/coal/coal-plant-map

(think in systems)