• krashmo
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    That’s not even close to true. Coal is becoming less competitive as time goes on but that is a recent development. There are still coal plants all over the place.

      • krashmo
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago
        edit-2
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        That’s great news for the future, and it aligns with what I said about coal being in decline. What is not true is your assertion that the bulk of coal plants in the US have already been decommissioned. Your own chart confirms that a large percentage of coal plants are still in operation.

        • silence7OPM
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago
          edit-2
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Most of them are already shut down, and a whole batch more have committments to close within a few years. We’re at something like 70% either closed or committed to shutdown at this point.

      • krashmo
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Half, which you just admitted is a projection of what will happen in the future and not something that’s already happened, is not most. Saying most coal plants have already been taken out of service is demonstrably untrue. I’m not sure what is confusing about that statement. If anything, presenting a future projection as if it has already come to pass is the confusing bit in this conversation.

        • spidermanchild
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          6 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          I didn’t “admit” anything, I just wanted to provide context that broadly substantiates the fact that coal is in a free fall and already produced less than half of the electric energy it did at its peak in 2011. You can try to be pedantic about the count of plant closures being the one true metric, but what matters is production, which in fact is already more than halved as of over a year ago as we know. Plants make money from capacity markets even if they don’t run, which allows them to limp along a bit before actually closing entirely, so that doesn’t really tell the story. So yes, the “bulk” of coal production is already gone as of over a year ago. When you use such strong language like “that’s not even close to true” that implies the opposite is true, which it obviously isn’t. You’re welcome to add context and clarify, add sources etc, but your statement struck me as misleading and you didn’t back it up at all.

          • krashmo
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            6 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            The original statement I responded to was that the bulk of coal plants are already shut down. At face value that should mean that very few coal plants are still in operation. That is far from accurate as we’ve established multiple times now. Call that correction pedantic if you want to but I don’t think the difference between either a dozen or over a hundred coal plants remaining in operation is insignificant. Personally I find the fact that you’re still dancing around the definitions of “bulk” and “most” instead of just correcting the description to “some” or even “many” to be the epitome of pedantry but to each his own.