Climate Change, page-556

@madamswer

"To supply communities with reliable sources of power, and ideally in the most cost effective way? Wouldn't you agree?"
Sure, and coal is both reliable and cost effective. It has to be, otherwise why would developing countries still be building coal-fired power stations if coal is not reliable and cost effective?"

Well, yes, but those developing countries have much of the infrastructure, if not all the infrastructure, already in place. So of course in certain circumstances (yes, I agree) it makes economical sense to continue with coal. But its like going from VHS tapes to Netflix. At some point in time, it was cheaper to go to a video store, than to set up all the software and infrastructure to create Netflix. We wouldn't (I hope not anyway) prefer to set up developing countries with the technologies for VHS tapes when we know that we are 20+ years further down the track. I know its not the best analogy, but try to see the underlying point.

"You can stand on your head and try to suggest otherwise, but Coal obviously has significant utility value; because if it didn't, no one would still be turning to it for their energy needs today."

Again, I agree, but you must also accept that the burning of coal has a negative effect on our environment. This is established fact. Even the coal companies are aware of this.

"Government and private enterprises in underdeveloped and developing nations are paying for it"

Exactly, and that would be the same for a renewable energy source as well.

"The cost of building a coal power plant is in the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars."

"It must be worth it if it coal power stations are still being built. (We can continue this circular debate ad infinitum, but nothing that is said or referenced can alter the reality that demand for coal power generation continues and will be with us for many more years to come, decades even"

Again, many countries have the infrastructure to support coal powered power plants. I am talking about a transition in developed countries (VHS to Netflix) and bringing developing nations the technology for renewables already (Netflix - skip the VHS).

"I accept that there are still kinks. But if you think the solution is to abandon any innovation then I think that's the wrong way of looking at it."

"Who said anything about abandoning innovation?
You tend to gaslight a lot."

Apologies, but it seems your very anti renewables, if that's not the case, again, I apologise. From the way I was reading your comment, it seemed you were poo pooing the idea of wind turbines in general. I was merely pointing out that GE (and other companies) discovered an issue with their wind turbines and decided to act on the issue. Nothing wrong with that.

"If renewable energy was indeed as cost effective as the "models" of its advocates say it is, how come power bills have not fallen dramatically? In fact, they haven't fallen at all; they've done the exact opposite."

The price of electricity in Australia has also skyrocketed? I have solar panels on my roof, and my electricity bill is lower. I understand this is anecdotal. And what about the people that had to pay for coal when it was $400USD a tonne? Electricity has almost doubled in price in the last 10 years.

Yes, there is a need for coking coal - that's another topic.

"So you are saying countries that build coal fired power generation today do so not due to the inherent utility of coal as a reliable and cost-effective energy course, but because of government type, geographical location, etc. etc (whatever those "etcs" might be)?
Surely you aren't intentionally that obtuse?

As for the reason energy poverty exists today, that is a function of different points of economic evolution across countries. Do you expect every country to magically be at the same position in terms of economic development?"

I'm saying they certainly play a part.

"As for the reason energy poverty exists today, that is a function of different points of economic evolution across countries. Do you expect every country to magically be at the same position in terms of economic development?"

Of course not, but it seems you're trying to make the point that coal is the only answer to lift these countries out of poverty, and if that was the case, why has it not happened yet? If it is as cheap, and reliable, and such an obvious choice, why are these countries still in poverty?


'"Now do countries that have had multi-decade access to coal power and tell me what their living standards are today? What form of energy powered economic development in the OECD over the past 100 years?"

I agree with you, fossil fuels have led to massive increases in living standards for the last 200 years. We now have a better option. I know what I'd rather do (which I have done with solar panels on the roof) I'd rather have a "endless" supply, not be subject to rising energy costs, not have to constantly purchase coal, not have to constantly update and maintain old coal power stations. Not have to continually mine for coal.