| ▲ | prasadjoglekar 2 hours ago | |
> There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today. A quick look at the PJM interconnect data would disagree with you. About a quarter of the live power is coal. https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx That serves 65+ Million people in the north east and is keeping them from dying of cold this past week, including today (Temp outside in the mid-hudson valley is 15F / -9C), and overnight will be 8F / -13C). Just for context - electricity somehow powers everything in most homes. Your oil or propane furnace needs a power hookup to ignite. | ||
| ▲ | 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |
| [deleted] | ||
| ▲ | ipdashc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
PJM probably isn't a great example, it's been famously slow to approve new generation, hasn't it? And the rates aren't exactly super cheap. We shouldn't get rid of coal without having something to replace it (ideally nuclear/solar/wind, but realistically probably gas), but I think the point was just that nobody would build a new coal plant today or keep them running for longer than they need to. They're inefficient and fairly expensive. | ||
| ▲ | breakyerself an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Coal is the most expensive form of energy. We need the energy those coal plants are producing, but we don't need the energy to come from coal and the sooner we replace those coal plants the sooner the people getting that energy can get a break on energy costs. Assuming data centers don't offset the reductions via creating excessive demand. | ||
| ▲ | tclancy an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
As much as it is fun to imagine you believing the false dilemma you've presented, I don't think the OP was suggesting not providing another option. | ||