Coal Better for Environment than LNG? Coal Stocks are CHEAP, Investors Ignoring This Energy Resource

Coal has a horrible reputation as a dirty energy source that contributes to greenhouse gases.
However, a new study was just released that discovered LNG is 33% worse for the environment than coal. This is after many countries have transition away from coal to natural gas.
For investors, this is a very interesting scenario, as coal stocks are CHEAP.
On top of all of that, coal power plants are still being built around the world that there will be huge demand for coal for the next several decades.

[@freeheeler09]

One of my graduate studies was in soil remediation. It was eye opening just how much damage mining, transporting and burning coal is, not to mention the environmental and health impacts from coal ash. My main research was into the impacts of large coal mines to soii and groundwater. After coal mines opened up, streams were polluted to the point that it was unsafe to use the water for agriculture. Then, every pound of coal contains close to half the periodic table. The resulting sulphur dioxide, lead, mercury and other pollution is spread by wide to pollute air and water for hundreds of miles. Then you add coal and gas’s
contributions to the increasingly rapid warming of our planet. Global warming is already adding ten or more thousand dollars to inflation for Californians, Floridians, Texans, etc. through losses to fires and storms, higher insurance, loan, electricity, fire and storm proofing of housing, lost business, higher food costs, etc. Americans can’t buy a home without a mortgage. It is hard to sell a home or get a, mortgage on homes in fire or flood zones. So millions of people in my generation are seeing their lifetime investments in their homes become worthless, and people in your generation see the dream of home ownership become even less economically feasible.
As to your argument about energy transportation, look up distributed energy production. 90% of people in the world live where solar is economically feasible. And, affordable batteries are finally hitting the market. It is actually far, far cheaper to install and then run solar and batteries than it is to continue to run a dirty coal plant! And with coal plants you need governments (taxpayers) to subsidize expensive transmission lines.
Then there is the whole cellphone effect. Many developing countries still have better cell coverage than the US! This is because they skipped the whole expensive and infrastructure intensive landline thing and went straight to installing cell towers. They didn’t have to build phone lines through busy neighborhoods or rip out walls to run phone lines into houses.
Developing countries can move straight to clean energy generation. Homeowners can put increasingly efficient panels on their homes. Look at Cuba which is now in a terminal energy crisis. They used to get cheap oil from Russia, but Putin invaded Ukraine and collapsed the Russian economy. The only Cubans with electricity right now are those few that have solar panels.

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

Thanks for the detailed response - there's no doubt that there are better souces than coal for energy generation, but the reality is that much of the world still relies on the dirty fossil fuel.

[@macmcleod1188]

Wonderful response.
Not to mention call represents thousands of years of plant growth so New plant growth isn't going to mitigate it's negative effects much.
The best place for coal is in the ground. Solar is already driving coal producers out of business anyway.
And with all the automation, coal is not going to produce significant employment much longer either.

[@robertlackey7212]

I have been studying "cities of the future" and one of the conclusions i have reached is that methane accounts for 1/3 of global warming and the fastest growing and largst source is leaks (the leaks are getting worse , people today are not afraid of installing a leaky gas system).
So I have concluded that dramaticlly reducing methane leaks is the most "bang for the buck" thing you can do to combat global warming.

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

That's really interesting - I've never heard of this. Sounds like a really big opportunity for a startup company to figure out how to limit these leaks.

[@imakevideos5377]

Saying a is better than b without even mentioning c is stupid. While imported lng is worse locally sourced lng is better, but that isn't really a good thing either. A few recent studies have come out saying that wind and solar plus batteries, pumped hydro ECT are now not only cheaper but cheaper to connect to the grid

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

You can't transport solar/wind/hydro... so for the consumers who are importing energy sources, coal/LNG/oil are the only choices. Of course development of local renewable power generation is ideal, but for many nations that's a long way off.

[@Herebuss]

@@CodyShirkExplorer You can transport renewable energy as either hydrogen or ammonia.

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

@@Herebuss But then you get back to the environmental impact of the transportation process.

[@insertphrasehere15]

if you compare 'local coal' to imported LNG then you can reach this conclusion.
Nearly all of the coal plants that were a significant distance from their coal source have already been shut down, as have most of those burning 'dirty' low quality coal.
So yeah, the remaining plants are mostly in areas where the coal mine is next door, and where the coal is higher quality and clean(er) burning.
Natural gas on the other hand has seen such a boom due to the need of peaker and baseload in-between renewables that it is used in lots of places far from where it is produced. Especially in the aftermath of Russia's invasion of ukraine, where liquified LNG has replaced pipeline gas, LNG has become a lot more polluting than it used to be.
This DOES result in a situation where coal can look better on paper in a 1 to 1 comparison.
Ultimately though, solar+batteries is a better long-term bet almost everywhere rather than installing new coal OR LNG infrastructure. Solar and batteries continue to decrease in price, and coal and LNG continue to increase in price as the real environmental costs of those industries are being laid bare and governments and regulators are forcing them to pay up or close up shop. Costly carbon credits and polluting taxes, or else being forced to scrub their exhaust are eating into already small margins and making these industries unprofitable.
It's currently profitable to run an existing LNG or coal plant, but building a new one is less profitable than solar or batteries in most locales.

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

Yes, all true. Solar is definitely the best long term solution.

[@AlexxxDE]

You can't just say "A study" , which study backs up your words. Next if you knew what the word "stoichiometry" means, you'd know that coal could ever be cleaner than LNG.

[@joekraska]

Renewable energy prices are dropping too fast for banks to even have the slightest interest in loaning money to new coal plants. Coal is just silly at this point: a bad economic investment. People have gotten so used to the doctrinal discussions on these topics that they haven't kept their eye on the ball on the economics.

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

Here's the study: scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934

[@freeheeler09]

Coal and LNG are economically infeasible energy sources. Yes, mining for the component for solar panels, electric motors and batteries does a lot of environmental harm. But much less than compared to the global warming and air and water pollution from burning gas and coal. And, batteries are mostly recyclable, as are solar panels and electric motors.
Solar, batteries and wind are still dropping so rapidly in price that it is cheaper to replace an existing coal or gas plant with new wind, solar and batteries. Add the costs from global warming and pollution and gas and coal become infinitely expensive!

[@kbadgett123]

It's cheap for a reason.

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

Yes... and one of the biggest reasons is because institutions have completely exited the coal market because of ESG requirements.

[@frankmynard6325]

Why bother studying. Florida is in such a hot spot for solar!

[@CodyShirkExplorer]

Florida only generates about 8% of its electricity from solar, which is almost the same as coal.
seia.org/solar-state-by-state/