Coal is readily available, easy to transport, easy to store, and we have technology in place to dampen most of the pollutants from burning it. Nuclear got stuck and never moved on, even the new plants are still of that old idea of massive containment buildings, large cooling towers, and budget overruns. Where is all the cool reactor tech we read about?
Hydro is likely going in reverse as many rivers were returned to original condition for environmental reasons. I don't know of any large hydro under way other than expansion of current installations.
Solar and wind, larger foot print for the same power, and to top it off storage for when needed is not simple. I am still not keen on bunkers of lithium batteries so hopefully other solutions for storing the power to when its needed come along.
Every dollar of electricity generated from coal costs several dollars worth of health problems, its a net negative for a nation before you even consider climate change. Basically anything else is a better and cheaper option.
The only current problem with wind and solar in the US is the lack of it. There will need to be changes as it gets to a higher percentage of the grid but we already have various solutions for that, the main reason for not rolling out the solutions is the lack of problem to solve.
> we have technology in place to dampen most of the pollutants from burning it
Could you please go into a little bit more detail here? Which pollutants are you referring to? By "technology in place" do you mean "deployed in the field and being used", or something more speculative?
(not disagreeing with you, i am ignorant and curious!)
And that is with cheap natural gas prices - more coal is used when gas prices go up. Many plants are able to burn either ones, and will switch fuel sources based on the markets.
