So, is it fair to say that there was no subsidy (in the traditional sense of the government providing direct financial incentives) that Obama removed?
You point to low coal royalties and provide a reference I suppose offering that as a quasi subsidy. The majority of those leases are Powder River Basin coal and only affect a few individual companies that operate there. The leasing is done via a bidding process. Its been my experience that buyers and sellers tend to finalize deals when the parties agree on the value of the item on offer. The fact that a private landowner in KY, WV, PA, AL, etc received far more doesn’t seem to me to be relevant.
Coal is not just coal… PRB is sub bituminous coal. Bituminous and anthracite bring higher prices generally due to higher heating value (BTU/lb). PRB is “steam” coal; some of those higher royalties are likely in metallurgical (coke making) grade coal which command far higher prices. And why would we assume that a property owner in one location would necessarily be willing to accept the same payment as someone in another location? There were quite a few posts a few pages back talking about building lot/acreage and building costs $/ft2). Seemed like a lot of variability to me. Was the guy selling at the low end getting screwed? Well maybe but it could be he just sold for what the best buyer was willing to pay.
I don’t care to go deep on Obama era coal regs but I will say that industry efforts to reduce emissions (you mention flue gas desulfurization) were underway decades before Obama took office. You can google it or use AI to verify but probably more than 70% of plants had scrubbers in place before he was elected. He did implement MATS and the Clean Power Plan which effectively chilled investment (e.g. new builds or continued upgrades) by putting some requirements on plants that were essentially unachievable with best available technology. Clearly, this was all part of a push to move generation away from coal. And yeah, low gas prices associated with the shale boom played a major role as well.
I heat with gas. We have a glut of it here in the northeast now. As I understand it, pipeline networks designed to deliver gas to this area aren’t as effective at sending it out of here to where it is most valuable. I suspect that things will level out one day and our utility bills will reflect more commodity pricing than the current hub price.
I’m an all of the above guy who spent a career in mining. I have no problem with nuclear but as a mining engineer who has traveled a fair amount across the US, I can tell you I’ve been to exactly one uranium mine (and it was by no means large scale). Just saying that you might want to google what percentage of US uranium usage is sourced here.
Again, I’m an all of the above guy but I do believe wind and solar get a pass that fossil fuels don’t get (permitting, bonding, etc). Might interest you to watch a film produced by none other than Michael Moore.
Pretty easy just to wave away manufacturing cost, disposal, wildlife interaction, social concerns (noise, visual dislike) as non issues when you believe the benefit outweighs the cost and the cost doesn’t directly affect you (NIMBY). The documentary provides some insight from an unlikely source.
It flies under the radar most of the time but here in the PJM grid, we still rely on a few coal workhorses to kick in when the temperatures rise or fall dramatically. They keep the lights on and some folks realize it. Most only see the headline “Eco group sues to prevent extension of closure deadline of XYZ plant.” FERC and the grid operators are tasked with keeping the lights in. Those groups are not.