Labor backs coal beyond 2050

Originally posted by madamswer: ↑

"Do you really think they will keep those coal fired power stations running if they can produce very low emission energy at a much cheaper price ?"

The capital of those coal power stations is sunk, while the capital investment in low emissions energy still needs to be made.

So on a fully costed basis(i.e. including the capital charge which is zero for the sunk capital coal plants but which still has to be incurred for the low emissions capacity that has is to be built), I've not seen any research that says that coal power is more expensive.

So, yeah, I guess those coal plants will remain open (not only my view, but the view of the IEA. And, seemingly, als the view of certain elements within the Australian Labor Party, too, judging by some of the far less-hostile sentiment towards coal - including, incidentally, from none other than the leader of the Labor Party himself.)

.

Expand

Seems you're leaving out a few important factors.

Not sure where you're getting your info on the price of coal fired generation vs renewables ?

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6449/108

https://greencollar.com.au/renewable-energy-now-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-australia/

https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost

Renewables continue to get cheaper than coal going forward. So, just on a pure numbers basis, the gap between coal and renewables is widening.

You are referring to power stations that are already built and somewhat depreciated already. Not newly built or yet to be built ones.

I note you didn't factor in the reducing cost of renewables going forward. How convenient for your argument .

Then there's the cost of maintaining those power stations in later life. As we are seeing in the west, older power stations require much more maintenance. That's why their lifespans are being shortened as the cost of operation is killing them. We have recently seen the life of Yallourn power station in Victoria shortened and now we have AGL making noises about shortening the life of Loy Yang already despite that being over 20 years away. Liddell was extended even though the owners wanted to shut it down. No doubt the taxpayer had to help out there.

On top of that, cfps they don't get to run at the 85-90-95% capacity that their financial modelling was based on. Like power stations in the west, they now have to compete with renewables which reduces their uptime considerably and undermines their financials considerably . Anecdotally it seems China's power stations and under utilised by quite a bit these days.

You have also omitted the cost of CCS. Given that it is very likely that there will be a carbon tax on exports from countries that don't act on emission reduction, China will either have to shut down coal or build CCS to offset their emissions. Given that no one can make CCS work the only option would be to shut coal generation down.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/european-votes-in-favour-of-carbon-border-tax-could-hit-australian-exports/

Then there's the technology argument. As the transport fleet electrifies around the world and as domestic stationary storage expands just as domestic solar has, a widely distributed energy storage facility is growing that will be simply massive and thus displacing the need to have large baseload power stations , Thus making them redundant well before their time .

So, keep investing in that coal if you like. I'd rather go with the view of these guys.