Studies on Navajo coal plant’s future poles apartRebutting those bleaker predictions is a report commissioned by Peabody Energy, the sole supplier of coal to NGS. The report, produced by Navigant Consulting, contends that continuing operations at the plant would be economically viable through 2040 and is hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper than finding an alternative source of power into the future. . .
A nearly polar opposite perspective comes from two other studies, one commissioned by the environmental nonprofit Sierra Club and another conducted by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an organization that promotes sustainable energy. They contend Navigant's analysis had nearly $2 billion in errors and that the coal-fired power plant would actually need up to $2.4 billion in subsidies to continue operating until 2030.
Go to the underlined link above to continue reading
Meanwhile Bloomberg had this to say yesterday
States’ Appetite for Coal Shrinks, Except in Nebraska
By Yvette Romero
Prospects seem bleak for U.S. coal miners despite President Trump’s pledge to put them back to work. Coal’s share of U.S. power generation has been steadily eroding in the wake of clean-air regulations and the presence of cheap and plentiful natural gas. Nebraska, which opened two new coal-fired power plants in 2009 and 2011, is the only state that increased usage from 2006 to 2016. However, wind energy capabilities in Nebraska have increased, and it now generates more power from wind than all but three states, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
Source: U.S. Energy Information AdministrationMethodology: Bloomberg ranked the 50 states and the District of Columbia on the decrease in their reliance on coal to generate electricity. Usage is in megawatt hours (MWh), which is one million watts of power delivered in one hour. Rhode Island, Vermont and District of Columbia did not use coal from 2006 to 2016.