Coal as an Energy Source

[Funkworks]

The only alternative to coke is a process that uses Natural Gas and not chemicals. Now that is just switching fossil fuels. We could use hydrogen at a much, much higher cost and China makes more steel and could care less.

Well switching from one kind of FF to another can reduce emissions in some cases but I don't have the numbers for coal production with me (I assume nat gas is a bit cleaner, but don't know about total GHG emissions for 1 ton of steel). I've seen countless people saying China this and China that and if China does this and that, we also should to remain competitive, etc. Countless. The argument comes over and over and over.

What I'm not seeing is ideas as to how to bring China to reduce their emissions. They do manufacture much of our stuff after all. If we (many countries) export manufacturing to China, then of course their emissions will keep increasing.

Also, there's the issue of comparing a 330M pop country with a 1.4B pop country. Are we comparing total emissions or per capita emissions. Are we looking to make emissions equal per person, equal per country, different per person, different per country, and how different.

As far as I can tell, those who advocate to reduce emissions aren't pointing to one country in particular, what they want is for the total number to be less and they act wherever they can.

China also leads in solar and batteries. A higher population means they make more of everything, so comparing ratios make the most sense to me.

 

[cwbullet]

Most of the coal used is by China and the 3rd world countries. Unless we are willing to fund the transition of those countries and do without the comforts we are accustomed to, we will never be able to eliminate the remained CO2 production. That is my point. Currently, the biggest squawkers are the biggest offenders.

 

[techrat]

I remember reading that large coal-burning power plants release more radiation into the environment than similar-sized nuclear power plants. And yet everyone complains about a nuclear plant in their backyard. Go figure.

 

[cwbullet]

I remember reading that large coal-burning power plants release more radiation into the environment than similar-sized nuclear power plants. And yet everyone complains about a nuclear plant in their backyard. Go figure.

This is true minus a meltdown or similar accident.

 

[jderimig]

Most of the coal used is by China and the 3rd world countries. Unless we are willing to fund the transition of those countries and do without the comforts we are accustomed to, we will never be able to eliminate the remained CO2 production. That is my point. Currently, the biggest squawkers are the biggest offenders.

COP 27 as in all the recent climate conferences evidences the alliance between elite rich-country activists and corrupt developing-country interests, all to keep the poor poor.

Now, you might ask, why would anyone want to keep the poor poor? The world continues to have at least a billion or more people who live in grinding poverty, without basic things like safe water, sanitation, home heat, or electricity. A plurality of those people live on the continent of Africa, with a population of about 1.4 billion, some 500 million of whom live in “extreme poverty” according to the definition and data of the UN itself. Surely, every moral person would want to find a way for those poor people to exit poverty and move up to at least what we consider a middle class lifestyle.

But of course, that is not the case. In the wealthy countries, the elites find themselves hypnotized by the pagan climate cult, with the fundamental belief that use of hydrocarbon fuels is the ultimate mortal sin. These people might mouth platitudes about wanting to help the poor to exit poverty, but at the same time they have no practical idea where their own prosperity comes from, or that it completely depends on abundant energy from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, they are only too willing to use their influence to prevent the poor from using fossil fuels, in the absence of any functional alternative, thus leaving the poor to languish in poverty.

Rich countries should be building coal plants in Africa and improving the lives of a billion people or so. Then we can transition them to green energy.

 

[Tyeeking]

It is very concerning that these days we in the U.S. are constantly tying our hands behind our backs and the Chinese are not.

But for some it’s worth it just to appear to be more virtuous.

 

[OzHybrid]

I think you'll find that big business doesn't care one way or the other regarding the use of coal. It's simply the economics that drives their decisions. They are legally obliged to make the best economic decisions for their shareholders. Unless of course there was a motion somewhere approved by the shareholders to mandate something else. As a rule of thumb, shareholders prefer the money.
I've moved to solar and battery storage at home, simply because it makes economic sense for me to do so. Payback is about 6 years. That's a 17% ROI. YMMV. As a bonus people think I'm an environmentalist trying to save the world. I'm not. Or am I?

 

[Tyeeking]

I think you'll find that big business doesn't care one way or the other regarding the use of coal. It's simply the economics that drives their decisions. They are legally obliged to make the best economic decisions for their shareholders. Unless of course there was a motion somewhere approved by the shareholders to mandate something else. As a rule of thumb, shareholders prefer the money.
I've moved to solar and battery storage at home, simply because it makes economic sense for me to do so. Payback is about 6 years. That's a 17% ROI. YMMV. As a bonus people think I'm an environmentalist trying to save the world. I'm not. Or am I?

If it economically works for you then you are a pragmatist. Sound economics is almost always the best motivator.

 

[aerostadt]

I don't mind if solar and wind are economical and works for people. However, I look around now and I see that solar and wind are not prevailing. If it becomes economical in the future, that is fine. I do not like seeing our country, the U.S., losing our national energy and manufacturing security. These autocratic countries that want to replace the U.S. as leader of the free world will not have a liberal agenda, something that liberal advocates don't seem to appreciate. For example, minorities and minority viewpoints are not received well in those countries.

 

[cwbullet]

I see them destroying farm land and cutting down trees to put in more solar farms. I can see that as being environmentally savvy.

 

[OzHybrid]

I see them destroying farm land and cutting down trees to put in more solar farms. I can see that as being environmentally savvy.

Solar and wind power are not THE solution. There are multiple solutions, some yet to be discovered. You need to look at your environment and choose your best solution. For some, coal may be the best solution. I'd suggest, that's not many.
If it was holistically planned, there would be agriculture underneath the solar panels( I've got a house under mine. ). But one group seldom takes into account other group requirements.
Once the price of food goes up, it will make better economic sense to destroy the solar farms and plant food. That group finds it economically better to farm large swathes of farmland ( usually owned by big business again)

Have you seen the damage an open cut coal mine does. The damage fracking does to water tables and water supplies. The fracking bore owners transferring the ownership and management of end of life bore holes to shell companies so they have no liability, the methane leaking into the atmosphere from them.. There are advantages and disadvantages to all things. Welcome to the free market economy..... Commercial in confidence decisions being made behind all our backs. Including all our governments.

That's why I am at the point of being able to disconnect. I was playing with aquaponics last year. Time to get that going. Then I'll know what I'm eating.

 

[cwbullet]

Have you seen the damage an open cut coal mine does. The damage fracking does to water tables and water supplies. The fracking bore owners transferring the ownership and management of end of life bore holes to shell companies so they have no liability, the methane leaking into the atmosphere from them.. There are advantages and disadvantages to all things. Welcome to the free market economy..... Commercial in confidence decisions being made behind all our backs. Including all our governments.

I have, and much of the damage is overblown with modern mining and fracking. My grandfather on both sides were deep miners; many of my friends and cousins are now surface miners. It can be done responsibly.

I am not saying coal use would be reduced, but people say we must get to zero. That is crazy.

 

[Alan15578]

We should just start a grass root effort to return to whale oil.

 

[OzHybrid]

I have, and much of the damage is overblown with modern mining and fracking. My grandfather on both sides were deep miners; many of my friends and cousins are now surface miners. It can be done responsibly.

I am not saying coal use would be reduced, but people say we must get to zero. That is crazy.

Coal will always have a use. But technology changes and the political landscape changes. There were many jobs for pit ponies up to the mid-20th century.
I have no axe to grind with anyone who does these jobs. Without them, we wouldn't have gotten this far. But let's be honest, the fracking industry only has itself to blame for the reputation they have. Is that reputation justified today? I'd need a LOT of current evidence to say it wasn't still justified. But because we live in a free enterprise model, all that is commercial in confidence.
Does burning fossil fuel contribute to global warming? Probably. Should we continue to burn it to make electricity at a what ? 33% conversion efficiency in the US. That electricity is generally not stored so it's a use it or lose it--ish. You can burn less coal, create less steam, not run the turbine quite as hard, but it's not a switch on/off process. There are ramp up/down demand losses. So probably not your best choice. But it is an available choice.

So what is your best choice for power generation? It depends. Personally for me, it's solar/ batteries with wind integration. As a government choice, probably the latest generation of Thorium reactors as small generators in a distributed network to give you local generation and eliminate the centralised distribution model forced by generation having to be close to mines. This also gives you the security of production should something unfortunate happen politically. That's a political minefield and not going to happen in a couple of weeks though. And a government is a camel.(Camel-horse designed by a committee)
Sometimes all the choices you have are bad and you just have to make the least baddest choice. ( I hope my English teacher forgives me for that)
For anyone else- no idea, unless you're in Sydney where I'd recommend looking at the choice I've made and see if the numbers stack up for you too.
Ok- I'm out.

I love you'ze all. xx Especially you Chuck..
Norm

 

[teepot]

Before you start chopping up Nevada. We might not have the population that other states have, but. That Lake Erie sized piece you want already belongs to someone. Either privately or more probably the BLM, Bureau of Land Management. as in the Government. It would displace an awful lot of wild life. If there is a Desert Tortoise on that land. The project is a non-starter. Anything built in what was once desert has to do a survey of the land looking for tortoise's. They have to be able to move them to a safe area in accordance with state law. There are flowers that are no where else in the country. Another non-starter. There are other things that have to be considered before a project can get approved. It is a long process. There is a new solar farm going in between here and Vegas. Took about 5 years before they could start. Other solar projects have been floated. All shot down. There is a large part of North Las Vegas with a 15' high fence around it. It is 100's of acres. It was where tortoise's where found. No one can do anything with that land, forever. We have state laws on what you are supposed to do if you see one. I would bet there are other places that have similar laws. I heard Musk say the same thing. If you put 100 square miles of solar panels in Nevada it would power the country. And IIRC it was 1 square mile of batteries too. A pipe dream. Where is the water going to come from for a project of that size. If a company wants to build something the EPA gets involved. The builders have to not make dust. Once the crust of the desert is broken it's like letting talcum powder loose. It's a health hazard type of pollution. The Oregon trail is still visible in parts of the western deserts because the desert doesn't heal. Not enough water. If I were to drive across a piece of desert that had no tracks on it. Those tracks would be there for decades or longer. To keep the dust down water trucks spray water continuously over the work areas. Think about that. Thousands of trucks dumping millions of gallons of water everywhere. The dust that gets airborne moves east. That dust can go a long way. It can become someone else's problem. Think how much ash floated east after Mt St Helens. So, it's easy to say, let's put this there. No one lives there. Don't get me wrong. I think solar is a good idea. Just not in the size that Musk and others have touted. There is plenty of buildings that could have panels on them. Warehouses around here are as common as rocks. Our price per square foot is drastically lower than California. Huge warehouses in Vegas. All that empty roof space. All the unused roof space across the country. Would be more than 100 square miles. Even if the sun doesn't shine all the time .Even a drop in the bucket could help. Only problem. Who pays for it. We looked into solar last year. Even though our electricity bill is $600 a month, every month. It's called level pay. The panels would have cost us $23000 in the second year. It was like a 30 year mortgage. No thank you. Someone else might have been cheaper, but I haven't found them.

 

[OzHybrid]

Before you start chopping up Nevada. We might not have the population that other states have, but. That Lake Erie sized piece you want already belongs to someone. Either privately or more probably the BLM, Bureau of Land Management. as in the Government. It would displace an awful lot of wild life. If there is a Desert Tortoise on that land. The project is a non-starter. Anything built in what was once desert has to do a survey of the land looking for tortoise's. They have to be able to move them to a safe area in accordance with state law. There are flowers that are no where else in the country. Another non-starter. There are other things that have to be considered before a project can get approved. It is a long process. There is a new solar farm going in between here and Vegas. Took about 5 years before they could start. Other solar projects have been floated. All shot down. There is a large part of North Las Vegas with a 15' high fence around it. It is 100's of acres. It was where tortoise's where found. No one can do anything with that land, forever. We have state laws on what you are supposed to do if you see one. I would bet there are other places that have similar laws. I heard Musk say the same thing. If you put 100 square miles of solar panels in Nevada it would power the country. And IIRC it was 1 square mile of batteries too. A pipe dream. Where is the water going to come from for a project of that size. If a company wants to build something the EPA gets involved. The builders have to not make dust. Once the crust of the desert is broken it's like letting talcum powder loose. It's a health hazard type of pollution. The Oregon trail is still visible in parts of the western deserts because the desert doesn't heal. Not enough water. If I were to drive across a piece of desert that had no tracks on it. Those tracks would be there for decades or longer. To keep the dust down water trucks spray water continuously over the work areas. Think about that. Thousands of trucks dumping millions of gallons of water everywhere. The dust that gets airborne moves east. That dust can go a long way. It can become someone else's problem. Think how much ash floated east after Mt St Helens. So, it's easy to say, let's put this there. No one lives there. Don't get me wrong. I think solar is a good idea. Just not in the size that Musk and others have touted. There is plenty of buildings that could have panels on them. Warehouses around here are as common as rocks. Our price per square foot is drastically lower than California. Huge warehouses in Vegas. All that empty roof space. All the unused roof space across the country. Would be more than 100 square miles. Even if the sun doesn't shine all the time .Even a drop in the bucket could help. Only problem. Who pays for it. We looked into solar last year. Even though our electricity bill is $600 a month, every month. It's called level pay. The panels would have cost us $23000 in the second year. It was like a 30 year mortgage. No thank you. Someone else might have been cheaper, but I haven't found them.

I'll PM you. Don't want to take this too far off topic.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

In CA you are no longer to use branches from a willow tree for making smores at a campfire.

Where did you hear that?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Back to coal. It has a bad rap. There are ways to burn liquefied coal and capture carbon will chilled ammonia that reduce the carbon emissions and pollutants by over 90%. Environmental groups don't like to hear that but "clean coal" is not just an adverting gimmick. .

Are there any real world examples of that recess being used commercially? Is it price competitive.

There are lots of theoretical and experimental techniques for carbon capture, but I’ve never heard of one working in the real world on a competitive basis.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Dates are based on projections, but if they aren't taken seriously, nothing happens. What I like to see is gradual transitions where people have time to adapt.

I think it's important to distinguish thermal coal (used to run power plants), and steelmaking coal. I'm pretty sure they're regulated differently.

FWIW, here's the wiki on steelmaking, including srategies to reduce carbon use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steelmaking
From what I've seen, the use of thermal coal for power plants gets more attention than steelmaking coal. Alternatives to thermal coal are solar, wind, nukes, etc. Alternatives to steelmaking coal are various chemical processes.

I think coal for steel making will be with us for a long time, but thermal coal is dying out, mostly because it isn’t cost efficient anymore.

 

[cwbullet]

Are there any real world examples of that recess being used commercially? Is it price competitive.

There are lots of theoretical and experimental techniques for carbon capture, but I’ve never heard of one working in the real world on a competitive basis.

Yes. The State of WV started using this process to power some state vehicles. It might convert them all. Currently, the estimate considerable savings over EV and less pollution than gasoline. If the beta project works out, they will expand it to all GOV vehicles in WV.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Before you start chopping up Nevada. We might not have the population that other states have, but. That Lake Erie sized piece you want already belongs to someone. Either privately or more probably the BLM, Bureau of Land Management. as in the Government. It would displace an awful lot of wild life. If there is a Desert Tortoise on that land. The project is a non-starter. Anything built in what was once desert has to do a survey of the land looking for tortoise's. They have to be able to move them to a safe area in accordance with state law. There are flowers that are no where else in the country. Another non-starter. There are other things that have to be considered before a project can get approved. It is a long process. There is a new solar farm going in between here and Vegas. Took about 5 years before they could start. Other solar projects have been floated. All shot down. There is a large part of North Las Vegas with a 15' high fence around it. It is 100's of acres. It was where tortoise's where found. No one can do anything with that land, forever. We have state laws on what you are supposed to do if you see one. I would bet there are other places that have similar laws. I heard Musk say the same thing. If you put 100 square miles of solar panels in Nevada it would power the country. And IIRC it was 1 square mile of batteries too. A pipe dream. Where is the water going to come from for a project of that size. If a company wants to build something the EPA gets involved. The builders have to not make dust. Once the crust of the desert is broken it's like letting talcum powder loose. It's a health hazard type of pollution. The Oregon trail is still visible in parts of the western deserts because the desert doesn't heal. Not enough water. If I were to drive across a piece of desert that had no tracks on it. Those tracks would be there for decades or longer. To keep the dust down water trucks spray water continuously over the work areas. Think about that. Thousands of trucks dumping millions of gallons of water everywhere. The dust that gets airborne moves east. That dust can go a long way. It can become someone else's problem. Think how much ash floated east after Mt St Helens. So, it's easy to say, let's put this there. No one lives there. Don't get me wrong. I think solar is a good idea. Just not in the size that Musk and others have touted. There is plenty of buildings that could have panels on them. Warehouses around here are as common as rocks. Our price per square foot is drastically lower than California. Huge warehouses in Vegas. All that empty roof space. All the unused roof space across the country. Would be more than 100 square miles. Even if the sun doesn't shine all the time .Even a drop in the bucket could help. Only problem. Who pays for it. We looked into solar last year. Even though our electricity bill is $600 a month, every month. It's called level pay. The panels would have cost us $23000 in the second year. It was like a 30 year mortgage. No thank you. Someone else might have been cheaper, but I haven't found them.

I think the idea of “100 square miles in Nevada” or similar quotes are about pointing out that the area involved is probably less that some people think. But in reality, those aren’t the kinds of projects that will ever be done.

Realistic projects are more like what you describe — roofs of buildings, parking lots, smaller scale solar farms. There is a LOT of real estate of that sort available before we start papering over entire states with solar panels.

Personally, I’d like to see all parking lots have at least some solar panel covering, because I like to park in the shade. Most of the City buildings and schools around here have solar covering the parking, and it’s a lot more comfortable than leaving your car to roast in the sun.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Yes. The State of WV started using this process to power some state vehicles. It might convert them all. Currently, the estimate considerable savings over EV and less pollution than gasoline. If the beta project works out, they will expand it to all GOV vehicles in WV.

Is that the same thing you were talking about when you said “There are ways to burn liquefied coal and capture carbon will chilled ammonia that reduce the carbon emissions and pollutants by over 90%.” I thought you were talking about burning coal in a power plant, not gasifying it for vehicles.

EDIT: I’ve been trying to find more info on this and I do not see anything about a pilot or beta project for government vehicles. I did find info about a permit being issued in 2019 relating to a business called Domestic Synthetic Fuels to build a coal liquefaction plant in West Virginia, but nothing more on it since then. And the claims being made were not that the process would reduce carbon emissions by over 90%. They claim the synthetic fuels will have less sulfur than petroleum fuels, but don’t mention carbon. I don’t think there is any savings in carbon emissions.

 

[rharshberger]

I don't mind if solar and wind are economical and works for people. However, I look around now and I see that solar and wind are not prevailing. If it becomes economical in the future, that is fine. I do not like seeing our country, the U.S., losing our national energy and manufacturing security. These autocratic countries that want to replace the U.S. as leader of the free world will not have a liberal agenda, something that liberal advocates don't seem to appreciate. For example, minorities and minority viewpoints are not received well in those countries.

Too many people though try and push their viewpoint on others, we for example have looked a going solar for our home, and even with predicted utility cost increases, we don't gain any benefit...the utility company on the other hand does. The cost to make upgrades and changes to the home plus the cost of the solar installation (even with "incentives") are a poor investment for us, not to say that the guy across the street has the same situation.

 

[aerostadt]

Years ago we looked at investing in a wind mill at our church and decided that it wasn't worth it. The capital cost to purchase the windmill far exceeded the small amount that electricity taxed our budget.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Coal had a huge and important role in building our nation’s industrial capacity for over a century. Same for much of the world. But I think coal’s time is mostly coming to an end.

Mostly it’s dying out because it is more expensive than other energy sources. Some of that is due to the fact that the reserves that are remaining are more expensive to reach. And part of it is due to the fact that coal is dirty, and the pollution controls are expensive. And that’s not taking into consideration the CO2 pollution.

It’s bad news for people and communities that have been supported by coal mining, but realistically, that’s not very many people anymore. The industry has already declined, shedding jobs. And many of the remaining jobs have gone to automation now. You don’t need as many workers to extract the same ton as you used to. There are far more jobs now in solar and wind than in coal. If you want a job for the future, that’s where to look.

 

[OzHybrid]

Years ago we looked at investing in a wind mill at our church and decided that it wasn't worth it. The capital cost to purchase the windmill far exceeded the small amount that electricity taxed our budget.

The cost and cost benefit of any project depends on how you do your math. Here you probably based the cost benefit on current electricity usage. If you add 10kWh/day to your usage to include charging a single electric vehicle, how do the numbers look? Add that again for a second vehicle. How about once everything is converted to electricity.
I don't have a car yet as the infrastructure here in Oz isn't currently in place and usually is about 20 years behind due to the land mass being the same as the US but paid for by 7% of the population number in the US.

Is coal dead? I don't think so. Not yet. But there is more regulation on the burning of fossil fuels, investment groups are choosing here in Oz to not invest in new coal-fired generation plants. I expect it's the same for you there. That will reduce investment in the industry generally. Without new investment, it will probably reduce to essential production only for steel ( until the new arc and hydrogen process kicks in, which will take time and investment and a lot of electricity) and some other essential things.
So getting the right answer to an investment decision, depends on asking the right question. Not necessarily where are we now, but what's in the future?
Centralising electricity production in the Nevada desert for the whole country is a good idea on paper, but a bad idea from an electricity security point of view. Solar flare, EMP weapon, accident, firmware "upgrade".....Plus it puts the control of power back in the hands of big businesses, who are legally MANDATED to maximise profit for their shareholders.......But their literature is so warm and cuddly.......They seem so nice......
.
Norm

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Too many people though try and push their viewpoint on others, we for example have looked a going solar for our home, and even with predicted utility cost increases, we don't gain any benefit...the utility company on the other hand does. The cost to make upgrades and changes to the home plus the cost of the solar installation (even with "incentives") are a poor investment for us, not to say that the guy across the street has the same situation.

Ours has been a great investment. Last year our electric bill was $105 for the whole year. It will pay for itself in about 6 years from the date of installation — about 2 years to go. I think that comes out to about a 12% annual ROI, which is definitely better than most investments I’ve made in my life.

 

[OzHybrid]

Ours has been a great investment. Last year our electric bill was $105 for the whole year. It will pay for itself in about 6 years from the date of installation — about 2 years to go. I think that comes out to about a 12% annual ROI, which is definitely better than most investments I’ve made in my life.

Mine hes been great too. I can only assume that some of the wild quotes people are getting are for top of the range equipment. Or really big specifications.

 

[cwbullet]

Is that the same thing you were talking about when you said “There are ways to burn liquefied coal and capture carbon will chilled ammonia that reduce the carbon emissions and pollutants by over 90%.” I thought you were talking about burning coal in a power plant, not gasifying it for vehicles.

EDIT: I’ve been trying to find more info on this and I do not see anything about a pilot or beta project for government vehicles. I did find info about a permit being issued in 2019 relating to a business called Domestic Synthetic Fuels to build a coal liquefaction plant in West Virginia, but nothing more on it since then. And the claims being made were not that the process would reduce carbon emissions by over 90%. They claim the synthetic fuels will have less sulfur than petroleum fuels, but don’t mention carbon. I don’t think there is any savings in carbon emissions.

Most of the information on those plants are still in the testing phase. 2019 was when they started. You wan't find much on the net. I have a cousin that is an engineer that has been working on this project. In the current climate, they are meeting a lot of resistance from the federal government and EPA.

That is very unfortunate because it is much cleaner than coal.

At one time, all state vehicles in WV had to run on compressed natural gas. That is not liquified but it is natural gas. Most of the liquified coal is used in power plants but they are testing several state and university vehicles as a feasibility study through the Engineering department.

 

[cwbullet]

Coal had a huge and important role in building our nation’s industrial capacity for over a century. Same for much of the world. But I think coal’s time is mostly coming to an end.

Mostly it’s dying out because it is more expensive than other energy sources. Some of that is due to the fact that the reserves that are remaining are more expensive to reach. And part of it is due to the fact that coal is dirty, and the pollution controls are expensive. And that’s not taking into consideration the CO2 pollution.

It’s bad news for people and communities that have been supported by coal mining, but realistically, that’s not very many people anymore. The industry has already declined, shedding jobs. And many of the remaining jobs have gone to automation now. You don’t need as many workers to extract the same ton as you used to. There are far more jobs now in solar and wind than in coal. If you want a job for the future, that’s where to look.

That is only because we are mandating winners and losers. I suspect it is not cheaper to use wind and solar if you remove all subsidies.

After reading nearly a dozen articles claiming solar and wind are cheaper, they almost always start the second paragraph with:

"With Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and federal financing on the table, the coal-to-clean transition is more cost-effective than ever before; it can also be accomplished by building clean energy close to retiring coal plants."