[macintux]

And yet, people in my home state are passionate about coal, as is the current clown-in-chief.

I do not believe that economics will win in 10-20 years if the U.S. government continues its current path, at least not to the "100% clean energy" level.

[toomuchtodo]

No new coal plants will be built in the US, it is only how long the existing ones will run for. The longer they run, the more expensive it costs to maintain them, continually tilting the economics against them. As more coal generators go offline, coal demand declines, and as that happens, mines will go offline as the demand drops below thresholds that will support the economics of continued operations. This is a form of "death spiral."

"This too shall pass." Existing coal will retire eventually. Let them be passionate if they wish, as comfort, but the outcome will not change. This administration has an expiration date.

https://www.sierraclub.org/coal/coal-plant-map

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67427

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/591b44aa8dd144719e059...

https://www.wsaz.com/2026/02/13/7-mines-idle-resulting-loss-...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-trump-has-overseen-more...

> In response, the Trump administration has recently invoked legislation designed for wartime emergencies to force a number of uneconomic coal plants to remain open.

> Despite Trump’s efforts, clean energy made up 96% of the new electricity generation capacity added to the US grid in 2025. None of the new capacity came from coal power.