
Nearly half of global coal plants will be unprofitable this year - john_alan
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-coal/nearly-half-of-global-coal-plants-will-be-unprofitable-this-year-carbon-tracker-idUSKBN21P3HM
======
Danieru
Japan is building new plants. You'll see that news a bunch. What you do not
see is the why.

Japan has companies which are building new coal plants in order to replace
existing plants. Old coal plants have lower efficiency. Old coal plants
produce more pollution.

A none trivial reason why so many old coal plants are unprofitable is because
other newer fossil fuel plants can out compete them.

Sure renewables play a part, but the single biggest reason those old plants
cannot make money at current energy prices is simple competition. New plants
are buying the same coal but getting more electricity per ton while using
larger and more automated plants. Meaning more revenue per ton with lower
overhead.

Coal as a whole will decrease, but along the way new plants need to be built.
Yet the media treats all coal plants as a single monolith. "How could a
country be building new plants when existing old plants are unprofitable". The
media would do well to educate and inform instead.

~~~
olau
Do you have a source for that information?

Old coal plants will presumably be able to operate on the marginal cost of the
coal plus maintenance, where as new plants have a big initial capital spending
they need to fund.

Now, it is clear that some plants are so old that they're going beyond their
planned lifetime and need investments. But that does not seem to be what you
are hinting at?

~~~
PopeDotNinja
I'm not sure if this completely answers your question, but the Illinois
EnergyProf channel on YouTube and some interesting content on modern coal
power generation:

\- "How Things Work: A Coal (and Gas) Power Plant" \--
[https://youtu.be/TDsmJ3aheCk](https://youtu.be/TDsmJ3aheCk)

\- "Cleaning Coal (I.e., Dropping Acid)" \--
[https://youtu.be/dijpXxU1QB0](https://youtu.be/dijpXxU1QB0)

\- "Burning Coal through the Decades" \--
[https://youtu.be/vT0cfNGxNeo](https://youtu.be/vT0cfNGxNeo)

------
csomar
> It looked at 6,696 operational plants and 1,046 in the pipeline and found
> that 46% will be unprofitable this year, up from 41% in 2019

I thought this is due to Covid-19 but apparently it's a chronic trend.

> That will rise to 52% by 2030 as renewables and cheaper gas outcompete coal,
> the think tank said.

A very slow one too.

~~~
greglindahl
A lot of coal plants in developed countries are closing. The least efficient
ones are most likely to close. That should tend to make the % unprofitable
fall, but it's rising instead.

~~~
bluGill
Close or mothballed? There is a difference.

I met someone some years back who's job was to keep a coal power plant
operational. The boiler was from the 1880s, and the generator installed in the
1920s. They don't use the generator as regular mains power costs 5 times less
due to the efficiency of modern technology. However the utility gives them a
large enough discount on power to keep it running that he had a job and can
repair it as needed. Once every 5 years or so the utility calls him to turn it
on and 12 hours later it is providing power to half the town.

I believe anicdotes like that are somewhat common as the utilities want to be
sure there is always power when someone wants it.

~~~
greglindahl
Most peaker plants are natural gas these days. Coal plants tend to take a lot
longer to start. Regardless of that, from a climate change point of view, a
plant that runs for a small amount of time once per 5 years is not that
significant.

~~~
bluGill
True, but base load plants are needed in reserve as well.

------
simonw
The World Resources Institute publish a fascinating dataset of global power
plants here: [https://www.wri.org/publication/global-power-plant-
database](https://www.wri.org/publication/global-power-plant-database)

I run a Datasette instance using this data with a map visualization here:
[https://global-power-plants.datasettes.com/global-power-
plan...](https://global-power-plants.datasettes.com/global-power-
plants/global-power-plants)

Here's a map of all 2,390 coal plants (click "Load all" to see all of them on
the same map) [https://global-power-plants.datasettes.com/global-power-
plan...](https://global-power-plants.datasettes.com/global-power-
plants/global-power-plants?primary_fuel=Coal)

------
tick_tock_tick
If this comes true which is a BIG if since the calculations include "carbon
pricing and pollution policies" which are not happening anytime soon in China.

It will be almost completely due to the cheap price of natural gas not
renewables as the article implies.

~~~
brianwawok
Every coal plant closed is a coal plant closed.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

China can make no changes and we can still make the world a better place.
Start with your neighborhood first.

~~~
tick_tock_tick
I didn't say anything about good/bad just that the article is implying
something very different than reality.

------
woodandsteel
From what I understand there is an ongoing battle in the Chinese government
between those who understand the country desperately needs to get off of
fossil fuels as soon as possible, and those who want to stay on coal forever.
So at the same time that China has been building an enormous number of coal
plants, it is also building renewable power plants and pushing hard on ev's.

~~~
IIAOPSW
>there is an ongoing battle ... between those who understand the country
desperately needs to get off of fossil fuels as soon as possible, and those
who want to stay on coal forever.

Sounds like a certain other major country.

~~~
eunos
Coal still employs a huge amount of people. Besides, coal Barrons are very
rich and influential as well.

~~~
greglindahl
Solar is pretty labor-intensive to install, while coal is extremely
mechanized.

------
jseip
Thank you natural gas!

~~~
jethro_tell
Yeah, I love lighting my water on fire and fracking earthquakes.

Switching America's oil subsidies to solar and wind would be much better than
pretending that fracking shale is a net plus.

~~~
newswriter99
>Yeah, I love lighting my water on fire and fracking earthquakes

Natural gas from fracking does not cause burning tap water.

[https://www.cred.org/is-fracking-connected-to-burning-tap-
wa...](https://www.cred.org/is-fracking-connected-to-burning-tap-water/)

Fracking-related earthquakes are either minimal or bebeficial

[https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-
issues/faq/does...](https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-
issues/faq/does-hydraulic-fracturing-cause-earthquakes)

0/10 "green energy" shill. Fracking gave us dirt cheap natgas, which is damn
cleaner than coal AND why your electricity prices havent gone up in the last
decade. Educate yourself.

~~~
kstrauser
> Natural gas from fracking does not cause burning tap water.

I'll take a step back from "burning", because that seems hard to prove, but it
most certainly does contaminate ground water:
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-
cont...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-
drinking-water/)

> Fracking-related earthquakes are either minimal or bebeficial

That's the most insane claim I've read on the Internet this week. You should
be ashamed for saying that.

Beneficial earthquakes. Now I think I've heard everything.

I know it's against Hacker News rules to assume bad intent in posts, but I
cannot believe that you're saying these things in good faith. It's just not
possible.

~~~
samatman
It's possible. I have no clue if fracking does so, and the link doesn't
support this, but hear me out:

If you can choose between, say, five Richter 3 earthquakes, or one Richter 7,
you definitely want the five small ones.

 _IF_ fracking induced small earthquakes and _IF_ those small earthquakes
relieved pressure such that a big one didn't happen, then those small
earthquakes would be beneficial.

This is comparable to deliberately lighting small brushfires to use up fuel
and prevent destructive wildfires.

It would be a _remarkable coincidence_ if fracking only caused such beneficent
and salubrious earthquakes, and never triggered worse ones. But were it so, it
would be good.

~~~
kstrauser
The Richter scale is log(10), so a 7 quake is 10,000 times stronger than a 3.
A lot of Bay Area residents had thought the same you mentioned over the years
(it's not a crazy idea! I mean, it seems at least plausible on paper!) but
that's generally accepted as untrue now; see
[https://www.sfgate.com/earthquakes/article/do-minor-
quakes-p...](https://www.sfgate.com/earthquakes/article/do-minor-quakes-
prevent-large-earthquakes-13541155.php) for example.

------
XCSme
Is this good or bad news? I assume good for the environment, right? Or
creating the alternative sources would generate more CO2?

~~~
FreeFull
Burning coal is generally known for being really bad for air quality. The ash
is somewhat radioactive, and if there's any sulphur in the coal it'll cause
acid rain. The exhaust from burning the coal nowadays ends up going through
treatment to clean it up (remove sulphur and particulates), which is an added
expense. In comparison, natural gas tends to be rather pure, so when burned it
produces just carbon dioxide and water.

~~~
Ambele
Yes, greenhouse gasses and lung effects aside, the sulphur mixes with carbon
dioxide and other airborne oxides to becomes sulpher dioxide. This makes rain
water acidic and causes the erosion on the Statue of Liberty.

------
relativitypro
Energy markets are highly subsidized, in China too.

To have this discussion, one needs to include information about the entire
energy market. If you heavily subsidize low-no carbon footprint sources, you
devalue the others.

Additionally you need to separate base load sources from load following
sources. Load following coal plants might be more prevalent by number (ie 95%)
and in direct competition with natural gas. The smaller the total energy
output the more competition you have from solar and wind, which are highly
subsidized and reduce margins.

Reuter’s would do better to give this proper context.

------
drcross
Can anyone comment on the state of grid scale battery storage? Surely it's the
holy grail to eliminate coal. As we approach 100usd per kWh it must be
becoming a viable alternative.

------
stevespang
But at such low prices unfortunately OIL and natural gas will be burning even
more in Chinese factories and other uncaring nations who place profits over
health everyday.

------
olliej
time for yet more subsidies to unprofitable businesses.

------
gentleman11
Coal is one of the cheapest energy sources we have (before taking climate
damage into account). Is the energy sector in general not very profitable
lately?

~~~
jbarciauskas
It's an industry with highly inelastic supply and a huge drop in demand.

------
toohotatopic
Why should energy costs fall below their current levels? There are billions of
people who only consume a fraction of the energy that citizens of
industrialized countries consume. If anything, energy prices will rise and
coal will remain profitable. Energy will be needed to build all those roads
and cars. And then there is the scarcity of sand. How can sand for concrete be
artificially created but with more energy?

~~~
pfdietz
You might as well ask why should computer prices fall. Energy costs fall
because of advances in technology. Wind and PV have now brought the very rapid
cost reductions of the tech sector to the energy sector. PV costs fell by
nearly an order of magnitude in the last decade.

~~~
toohotatopic
Computer prices are only falling when you compare processors with the same
speed and monitors with the same resolution. Overall, prices might as well
increase if you look at the prices of the last flagship phones or at least
remain stable if you look at main memory.

It comes down to the [1] Jevons paradox.

>In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that
technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to
the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued
that, contrary to common intuition, technological progress could not be relied
upon to reduce fuel consumption.

PV and Wind fell because they were above the market costs of energy. Once they
are below, they will stop falling further. Prices will only go further down if
energy supply outpaces demand. Why should that ever happen? Have you seen
people stop buying SUVs? Once energy gets cheaper, SUVs will become even
bigger.

Being well-off essentially means being able to waste energy. To signal status,
people will burn all available non-essential energy, however much there is to
burn.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

~~~
pfdietz
> PV and Wind fell because they were above the market costs of energy. Once
> they are below, they will stop falling further

As PV and wind fall in cost, they will end up dictating the market price. So,
you are technically correct, but otherwise wrong: the current market price is
no floor for the cost of PV and wind, any more than (at any point) the cost
per unit of computation or storage was the floor on the cost of computers.

I expect PV to drive the levelized cost of power below $0.01/kWh, possibly
much below (recent utility scale bids in some places have the power not far
above this, and extrapolating the experience curve for PV has costs falling
another factor of 4 or so by the time PV becomes a globally dominant energy
source.) At these costs, resistive heat from PV is cheaper than any fossil
fuel heat source, per unit of thermal energy. And thermal energy is very cheap
to store, compared to batteries.

~~~
toohotatopic
>the cost per unit of computation or storage was the floor on the cost of
computers.

What do you mean? That the energy bill for computers is bigger than the
material bill?

What else but the price of the hardware has determined the price of computers?

>I expect PV to drive the levelized cost of power below $0.01/kWh

For some time, this is possible. But if there is a sea of energy, people will
find a way to use it. Then, demand rises and prices will rise again.

Sooner or later, material science, genetics and everything else will simulate
everything. Progress will depend on the amount of energy that is spent on
those calculations. The cloud will take any energy that it can get. Bitcoin
was just the start.

Humans take roughly 2kWh worth of food per day. We are willing to pay about
$20 for it. It might as well be that energy prices rise to $10/kWh. Not
because PV itself is expensive, but because somebody owns the land where the
PV modules are standing.

~~~
pfdietz
What I meant was clear (and not what you wrote there.)

Jevon does not say that prices cannot fall. So if you're trying to use it to
say prices will not fall, you're doing it all wrong.

~~~
toohotatopic
>What I meant was clear

Unfortunately not to me.

------
H8crilA
That's still so much better than tech companies, even tech companies 6 months
ago /s

Never forget how absolutely huge coal is. Those Joules are not going to be
replaced with renewables any time soon. It's literally impossible because
renewables need Joules themselves to be built, not just money. Money does not
synthesize power generating objects; materials and energy and machinery and
the approval to do so (capital) all together do:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption)

~~~
Androider
When did you last look at the current state of renewables? Even two years ago,
the picture was completely different, but renewables are absolutely catching
up. The change is fast and accelerating.

17% of energy production in the US is now renewables. 26% in China. 46% in
Germany.

The economic case for deploying renewables continues to improve, and will soon
hit a tipping point where operation of legacy generation systems will be more
expensive than deploying and operating newer ones. Even in the US, who will
want to be in the coal business then? The companies all know this, and are all
pivoting from being coal|gas|x-companies to being energy-companies.

~~~
H8crilA
The only thing that matters is world's total usage, because co2 does not
respect borders.

Could you point me to updated world energy usage data then?

------
roenxi
If this does happen it would represent a win for everyone, but a substantial
intellectual victory for the people who delayed action against climate change
in the '00s and '10s. If we're all going to switch to renewables in the '20s
for economic reasons then it would have been madness to force their adoption
10 years earlier to deal with a threat that materialises in 2050+.

~~~
_bxg1
a) The economic snowball we're finally starting to see for renewables is
largely driven by governments finally being forced by the undeniable reality
to take real regulation steps.

b) The economic cost of waiting 10 years to address an exponential process is
going to _far_ outweigh the cost there would've been to give an extra "oomph"
to action, I'm sure.

~~~
roenxi
> largely driven by governments ... tak[ing] real regulation steps

Which ones? I'm only aware of serious efforts in Germany and they basically
torpedoed their own electricity use (their per-capita trends aren't good).
There aren't that many governments who could stomach doing that to their
people.

~~~
_bxg1
I think a lot of it has been driven indirectly by vehicle regulation. The past
few years have seen several major countries establish end-dates for gasoline
powered vehicles. This has spurred development of battery technology - very
important for wind and solar - and also sent a market signal about the future
role that fossil fuels play in global society. Even if a country hasn't
explicitly banned fossil fuels yet for electricity generation, the writing is
on the wall and it's only a matter of time. Investors and corporations are
seeing that renewables are an inevitable future, and adjusting their
strategies accordingly.

