Current Events > Significant portion of the world's coal plants are operating at a loss

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/coal-plants-profit-loss-fossil-fuels-climate-change-global-warming-carbon-tracker-a8659556.html

High fuel costs mean nearly half of the worlds coal power stations are already running at a loss, raising doubts about the viability of this fossil fuel.

Climate experts have already warned the majority of coal power needs to be retired in just over a decade to avert catastrophic global warming, but many nations continue to lean heavily on this high-polluting substance.

In the first study of its kind, financial think tank Carbon Tracker analysed the profitability of 6,685 coal plants worldwide, representing 95 per cent of all existing capacity.

They found that as prices reach record highs, 42 per cent of coal capacity is already unprofitable.

This figure is expected to rocket upwards in the coming years due to taxes on CO2 emissions and stricter air-pollution laws.

By 2030 the proportion of unprofitable coal will be likely to exceed 70 per cent while the cost of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar is slashed.

The report comes ahead of a major UN climate summit taking place in Poland, a nation that has already proved a controversial choice due to its reliance on coal for 80 per cent of its electricity.

Many countries, including the UK, have already set hard targets to eliminate coal entirely from their energy mix within the next few years.

Elsewhere concerns about economic growth and jobs have both contributed to a dependence on coal, but the new report suggests such worries are misplaced.

Matt Gray, head of power and utilities at Carbon Tracker, said their analysis provides a blueprint for policymakers, investors and civil society.

Lobbying and cronyism, thats the only thing that can save coal, and we are seeing that from Donald Trump and others throughout the world, he told The Independent.

The US president has repeatedly emphasised his enthusiasm for beautiful, clean coal, but the analysis suggests his country would save $78bn (61bn) by shutting plants in line with the Paris climate agreement.

In China, by far the worlds biggest coal burner, this figure is $389bn (304bn).

Currently, consumers and taxpayers are picking up the bill for coal and keeping the industry profitable thanks to government subsidies.

While a phase-out would save these people billions, it would be a massive financial hit for coal-owners profits.

Earlier this week, the UN warned that nations needed to drastically increase their commitments to cutting carbon emissions, increasing them up to fivefold if some of the worst effects of climate change are to be avoided.

Carbon Tracker recommended that governments that have not already done so must implement plans to phase out coal rapidly, beginning with the least economic plants.

Sebastian Ljungwaldh, Carbon Tracker energy analyst and co-author of the study, said it was clear that a coal phaseout should be seen as an economic inevitability rather than a clean and green nicety.

---

Only in America
---

Solar and wind are already much cheaper even without subsidies. Thanks to the market.

It's game over for coal. That is why for example India cancelled plans for a bunch of coal plants and is just installing new solar.
---

Hillary: If you work in the coal industry we're gonna lay you off! Right, Tim? *Camera shows door swinging back and forth indicating Tim Kaine has left the building*
---

The people who don't want to train or try other careers deserve to lose the job. I believe bill Burr said it. These tiny towns that only exist because of coal factories deserve to die.
---

But coal country isn't willing to accept this and will just vote in people who lie to them

"Coal will make a big comeback any year now"
---

Maybe they should be scrubbing that coal harder to make it more clean and beautiful.
---

Something, something, bailout.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Solar and wind are already much cheaper even without subsidies. Thanks to the market.

It's game over for coal. That is why for example India cancelled plans for a bunch of coal plants and is just installing new solar.

We are going to look back in 100 years and think we were fucking insane for burning this shit because of how useful it is.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Solar and wind are already much cheaper even without subsidies. Thanks to the market.

It's game over for coal. That is why for example India cancelled plans for a bunch of coal plants and is just installing new solar.

We are going to look back in 100 years and think we were fucking insane for burning this shit because of how useful it is.

No we're not. We're going to remember that it was the bootloader for a cleaner and more sustainable society. It's cheap and easy to burn. Hence why it was adopted by everyone. You can't fault a young species for not knowing more than their science at the time enabled them to know.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Solar and wind are already much cheaper even without subsidies. Thanks to the market.

It's game over for coal. That is why for example India cancelled plans for a bunch of coal plants and is just installing new solar.

We are going to look back in 100 years and think we were fucking insane for burning this shit because of how useful it is.

No we're not. We're going to remember that it was the bootloader for a cleaner and more sustainable society. It's cheap and easy to burn. Hence why it was adopted by everyone. You can't fault a young species for not knowing more than their science at the time enabled them to know.

We had more than enough science to understand we shouldn't be doing this since the 50s. Nuclear has always been a superior power source ever since it was invented.

Obviously you can't just convert everything on a dime, but 60 years later there is no reason why anyone should think burning coal is still a good idea, even if it were profitable, which it isn't, and fucks the environment to boot.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Solar and wind are already much cheaper even without subsidies. Thanks to the market.

It's game over for coal. That is why for example India cancelled plans for a bunch of coal plants and is just installing new solar.

We are going to look back in 100 years and think we were fucking insane for burning this shit because of how useful it is.

No we're not. We're going to remember that it was the bootloader for a cleaner and more sustainable society. It's cheap and easy to burn. Hence why it was adopted by everyone. You can't fault a young species for not knowing more than their science at the time enabled them to know.

We had more than enough science to understand we shouldn't be doing this since the 50s. Nuclear has always been a superior power source ever since it was invented.

Obviously you can't just convert everything on a dime, but 60 years later there is no reason why anyone should think burning coal is still a good idea, even if it were profitable, which it isn't, and fucks the environment to boot.

And since the 50s is not that much time, believe it or not. A blip on the timeline of how long we've been around. Not to mention that large-scale changes take time, and solar/wind adoption is progressing faster than expected to begin with.

(Fuck the baby boomers though, they could've done a lot of shit faster. But ultimately I'm pretty optimistic and happy nonetheless)
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Solar and wind are already much cheaper even without subsidies. Thanks to the market.

It's game over for coal. That is why for example India cancelled plans for a bunch of coal plants and is just installing new solar.

We are going to look back in 100 years and think we were fucking insane for burning this shit because of how useful it is.

No we're not. We're going to remember that it was the bootloader for a cleaner and more sustainable society. It's cheap and easy to burn. Hence why it was adopted by everyone. You can't fault a young species for not knowing more than their science at the time enabled them to know.

We had more than enough science to understand we shouldn't be doing this since the 50s. Nuclear has always been a superior power source ever since it was invented.

Obviously you can't just convert everything on a dime, but 60 years later there is no reason why anyone should think burning coal is still a good idea, even if it were profitable, which it isn't, and fucks the environment to boot.

And since the 50s is not that much time, believe it or not. A blip on the timeline of how long we've been around. Not to mention that large-scale changes take time, and solar/wind adoption is progressing faster than expected to begin with.

(Fuck the baby boomers though, they could've done a lot of shit faster. But ultimately I'm pretty optimistic and happy nonetheless)

There is about a 70-year difference between the first coal power plant to the first nuclear power plant, and a 60 year difference from the first nuclear power plant to today.

60 year is a blip, but in the scheme of energy, it's almost half the fucking lifespan.
---