Table - German power

[FBaggins]

49. It's so cute that you think EITHER has anything to do with market forces.

Neither option has an impact on coal in a totally free market. Both require central (i.e. government) direction in order to impact coal generation. It really doesn't matter whether the policy direction uses the market to enforce what it wants, or just passes a law saying that a certain percentage much come from a given area, or uses regulation/fees to make coal more expensive. It's all the same thing. Someone other than the guy who would profit from selling the cheapest/dirtiest power has to have the authority to force/encourage it to happen.

This really isn't complicated at all. Whoever it is that's planning to meet electrical demand for a given grid knows that demand will never fall below some level. I don't care whether you call that "base load" or "purple penguins"... the reality is the same. Whatever portion of that baseload is carried by nuclear/hydro will not be carried by coal/gas (obviously some bio/geo fits in there as well - with similar benefit). Solar/Wind can replace much of the fuel burned to meet the variable part of demand, but can't do much to replace the capacity. If governmental decisions mean (as was the case in that natgas example we spoke of some months ago) that a particular peaking plant can only sell their wares a smal percentage of the time and can't get compensated enough to compensate them for the small period of time they're needed... they'll shut down. But it's sill to call that "market forces". It's the government's decision... just as much as the collapse of many renewables companies after subsidies are withdrawn has little to do with the "market" even the the government used the market to kill them.