>>21348063>>21348068Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't most of the coal plants replaced with (admittedly just-in-time supplied) natgas plants? Some were consumed by the climate craze sure but consider that natgas plants have a vastly cheaper capex, much smaller surface footprint, and they are supplied by much cheaper and clean-burning methane. In the time that coal production has decreased by 60% natgas production has almost doubled in the United States. Canadian coal production has decreased by about 30% within a decade while their natgas production has increased by about 30%. Clearly "green" energy has captured some of coal's market share but much has been captured by natural gas.
I do think there will be more nuclear in NA in the future but I just don't see a world where those stupendous natgas resources remain untapped. The North American natural gas market so remarkably attractive that the US has been able to reinvigorate its domestic industrial base with ease. European manufacturers especially in the chemical sector are moving to America posthaste, in search of greener, gassier pastures. Data centers are being powered by natgas. The LNG market is rapidly growing worldwide, led by the USA, and that will further capture seaborne coal's market share. Sure, there is a lot of opposition to certain energy infrastructure projects from NIMBYs but "renewable" energy is also troubled by the same problem, with hundreds of installation projects being barred by opposition (or just the iron law of profitability, or rather the lack thereof in a post-ZIRP world). And best of all, ESG has most likely peaked with Larry Fink mentioning the word less and less in Blackrock's communications. You can just feel the pendulum swinging.
