Hacker News Reader

Comment by driscoll42 | Hacker News Reader

I used to work for a drywall manufacturer who still owned their own mines despite efforts to divest from them by some. They always viewed it as a structural advantage to still own them and not be wholly dependent on the coal plants (which effectively have conveyor belts going from the coal plants to the wallboard plants). I imagine as time goes on it'll become even more of an advantage for them to still own those mines as their competitors are forced to buy at highly inflated prices (or even from them) as coal shuts down.

View on HN

Or AI’s thirst for power will bring coal back.

Why would heightened electricity demand increase the use of the most expensive energy source?

Potentially due to a shortage of electricity from cheaper searches. There is also political pressure to keep certain coal fired power plants open.

https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-valley-authority-coal-p...

Coal is expensive, but it's still cheaper than nuke and peaker thermal. If you want power fast and your state and federal government aren't worried about a few pesky environmental regulations you might see coal come back. Part of coals attraction is that it takes a lot of people to run a coal plant, and people need jobs. Those people vote and politicians like votes.

Then you would plunk down a gas turbine like everyone else. It's so much cheaper than coal to operate and uses mostly the same high capex / long-lead machinery. I could see the jobs program angle, but these are shitty jobs. It's not like working in an air conditioned mcdonald's. Workers die in mines a lot and when they don't they live shorter, less comfortable lives with disease.

I'm fine with arguing against coal for environmental reasons, but that won't convince anyone who isn't already convinced. It's always worth pointing out that gas turbines put out a lot less pollutants than coal.

Gas turbines require infrastructure the may not exist in the area yet, and significant capital outlays.

Like coal mining jobs or the like, if you’re stuck in Appalachia with 5 kids and it’s the only thing keeping you afloat, you’ll get pretty worked up if someone tells you ‘just don’t do that, duh’.

Even if it’s probably correct in a macro sense.

Modern coal mining isn't that bad of a gig, especially surface mining (which a lot of coal is). I would certainly rather make a decent middle class wage hauling coal and support my family than work in an 'Air conditioned mcdonalds' and barely subsist in poverty.

You can make all the technical and environmental point you want. They are valid and they are largely irrelevant, at least for the purpose of achieving your stated outcome.

People want to be able to live a life with some amount of dignity and we've been so diligently eroding their ability to do so for the last 50 years that it's becoming an existential issue.

Jobs matter. If you want social progress, environmental progress, any kind of progress people need to be able to build a life where their children are better off than they were. Full stop.

Isn't the entire coal industry like 50,000 jobs? I've never seen such a small industry so specially treated.

Solar is cheap and abundant during daytime. It has zero power at night. Coal/gas/nukes are more expensive, but runs 24/7. Batteries are getting cheaper, but are still not that cheap.

AI/Data centers need power 24/7.

Yes so use the cheaper methane gas turbine combined cycle power plant. Coal can't compete with higher efficiency, cheaper fuel options.

In areas where there are gas transmission lines, sure. Large portions of the country don’t have that infrastructure built out yet, but do have rail lines which provide coal.

It’s also a timing/capital issue.

It will change eventually, but in the meantime people need their kWh.

Rail lines also provides logistics for methane, which produces many more usable joules per kg of fuel.

I’ve never seem any analysis of feasibility for LNG (probably what you’re referring too) vs pipeline NG for things like power plants. Do we even have sufficient liquifaction facilities for that type of volume? When I hear of that kind of thing, it’s almost always liquifying for export to places like Europe.

Batteries exist and are already deployed, with solar-plus-battery being cheaper than coal.

Coal, the most expensive energy source?

That's funny, is marginally more expensive than natural gas because natural gas is a byproduct of oil extraction.

Coal is vastly cheaper as a 24x365 source of power than anything but hydro and natural gas.

Batteries make that less true today than in the past. Solar/wind + batteries are becoming cost-competitive with coal for energy on most days (24x7).

24x7 every day of the year is much harder, though. Solar/wind + batteries are nowhere near cost competitive for reliability, though. You'd have to build a ridiculous (read: very uneconomical) multiple of typical battery capacity to make it through the long, cloudy, low-wind periods in the winter.

On the bright side, enhanced geothermal is starting to look like it may be economically competitive in the near future. If it pans out, it could repurpose a lot of the technology and labor force from the oil and gas industry to instead produce clean power. And who knows—maybe the current nuclear push will pan out and we'll have another option for reliable base load.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com