New England's Last Coal Plant Has Stopped Operating, According to Its Owners
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
nhpr.orgResearchstory
calmmixed
Debate
60/100
Energy TransitionCoal Phase-OutRenewable Energy
Key topics
Energy Transition
Coal Phase-Out
Renewable Energy
New England's last coal plant has stopped operating, marking a significant milestone in the region's energy transition, but discussion highlights the complexity of achieving a low-carbon energy mix.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
30s
Peak period
57
0-6h
Avg / period
9.8
Comment distribution88 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 88 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 14, 2025 at 9:10 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 14, 2025 at 9:11 PM EDT
30s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
57 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 17, 2025 at 11:53 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45586962Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 3:32:02 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Peak coal was in 2007, and has been falling rapidly since. We are currently generating about 1/3 the electricity from coal in 2023 vs 2007[0].
[0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
Nuclear would be (and used to be) massively cheaper, before regulations went wild against it.
I'm deliberately saying 'went wild', because the earlier nuclear power generation that was built to saner standards also has turned out to be incredibly safe already.
(Basically, anyone who avoided insane Soviet bullshit had safe nuclear power, as measured in eg fatalities per Joule of electricity generated.)
A large area was evacuated and "human costs" were great. But as I recall, no deaths from radiation.
I saw a study claiming 440 excess deaths from the Los Angeles fires. I'll make an assumption that permanently moving old and health impaired people from the Fukushima exclusion zone had a similar increase in mortality. And then a bit of looking leads me to this.
"The evacuation itself also was not without severe consequences. The accident was in the winter, and the evacuation of 840 patients or elderly people in nursing homes and health-care facilities apparently resulted in 60 immediate deaths due to hypothermia, dehydration, trauma and deterioration of serious medical conditions (Tanigawa et al 2012) and upwards of 100 deaths in subsequent month"
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/33/3/49...
Like the Grapes of Wrath where the family starts out for California and the grandparents both die on the way.
Edit: Changed "linked to" to "attributed to", because this is the estimated count of people who would not have died of disease if coal power plants were not running.
People say LNT overestimates deaths, but what they don't realize is that even if you take LNT at face value the cost of deaths from a nuclear accident isn't really that high. A regulatory regime where reactor operators that have accidents are charged the inferred cost of the expected deaths could work.
Murphy's law is real...
So if you'd scale up, and keep that level of safety, it would be fine. Even less safety would be fine. After all, we accept much less safety in eg natural gas or even solar power. (Solar power is extremely safe once running, but if you look at casualties over the lifecycle, you get a few people falling off roofs when installing residential solar power. It's a very small number, but nuclear is so safe, that the roof-fall incidents of solar are a big number by comparison.)
The fact that old designs like the AP1000 are crazy expensive to build has a lot more to do with the fact that the US sucks at building mega projects than anything else.
LLMs!
Getting a design approved means a specific design is approved. So, the power plant must be built as designed, no changes. And apparently ensuring you built exactly what the design specifies is really expensive.
What's needed to reduce this cost is having some way to get a whole cloud of closely related designs approved, so that reasonable deviations from the design are also approved. This is equivalent to saying only the most critical part of the design would need to be built as designed, everything else would be allowed some slop. With something like this, one might (for example) be able to build the confinement building with less tight control on the configuration of the reinforcing steel.
I'm don't know how one would get such a cloud of designs approved. Maybe this is a problem that could be solved by massive computation? Run billions of mutant designs through a simulation gauntlet to see how sensitive it is to various perturbations? Or maybe add more defense in depth, like devices that scrub radioactive elements from steam (such things exist) so the tolerable chance of meltdown can be allowed to increase while keeping expected damage in check?
This ”before regulations” time period seems to be made up on feelings about a rosy picture of the past rather than actual data.
> This ”before regulations” time period seems to be made up on feelings about a rosy picture of the past rather than actual data.
No, we have data about costs in those earlier times, and we know what regulations came in when.
DOE report: Cost to finish cleaning up Hanford site could exceed $589 billion
https://www.ans.org/news/2025-04-17/article-6942/doe-report-...
Sellafield cleanup cost rises to £136bn amid tensions with Treasury
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/23/sellafield-...
Nuclear is a whole can of worms because of its PR problems.
You have to physically handle every piece of coal. Extract, load ship, unload.
Natural gas is shooting out of the ground in North Dakota.
You can compare to wind and solar also.
The economics aren't favorable.
Yes you can!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_pipeline
A slurry is transported in one variety of these. The trick is to induce a swirl in the flow, so even though particles are constantly falling out of suspension, they stay suspended. It's mathematically analogous to how putting a twist in magnetic field lines in a tokamak (or stellarator) prevents ExB effects from driving the plasma into the wall, as they would in just a plain toroidal magnetic field.
Lots of water is needed and drying the coal before burning it adds cost.
Acre-feet as a unit just made me realize how many options you get for volume with multiple base units (a foot-mile-inch is ~12m³ in case anyone was wondering). The non-metric system continues to impress (not in a good way)!
Even for underground mines, check out the massive longwall mining machines they use- it's kind of astonishing. They pretty much take all the coal.
I think this is lost in the political talk about protecting mining jobs- the main original competition is more efficient mining operations.
Anyway, it really says something that natural gas and solar are cheaper than coal given this context.
It's a bit dated (completed in 1978) and cost approximately $100 million. At one point it was the heaviest land vehicle, clocking in at 13,500 tons. It's since been succeded, but this bucket-wheel excavator needed only five people to operate. Those five people could mine 240,000 tons of coal[8] or 240,000 cubic metres of overburden (rock/soil on top of the coal) per day. That's 2400 coal wagons!
After totally tapping out all of the coal at the Tagebau Hambach mine, in 2001, it took a crew of 70 together to move it 14 miles to the next mine. This move cost 15 million German Marks.
(Just watch the linked documentary.)
Coal beats everything else by a mile. We also get mercury pollution for free, so no more eating fish.
Most of the comments here are speculative.
The TLDR is that coal plants have trouble ramping their production up/down quickly, unlike natural gas which can do so in minutes. So, if you have a grid that is being thrashed by variable production (renewables), this results in variable pricing and demand for baseload. Coal cannot economically compete in that market (and neither can nuclear, which has the same problem).
Why not put massive, grid scale batteries “behind the meter” at a nuclear or coal plant to enable continual production but only sell power when prices are high and store power when prices are low?
But there are other storage ideas that do much better for that. For example, burning an e-fuel like hydrogen, or ultra low capex thermal storage.
Even better, if you have a functioning wholesale electricity market, you can put those batteries on the grid and benefit everybody.
An analogy here is natural gas pipelines with intermediate storage caverns, which allow the pipelines to operate more steadily even if demand various greatly over the year.
Nuclear can load follow to some extent (my previous comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36254716
But regulations and economics don't encourage it. Also note that NuScale appears to be designed to be dispatchable
Solar makes up 4% of New England electricity. Not much sun there. Needs nuclear to succeed
https://www.mainepublic.org/climate/2025-01-03/central-maine... (“Central Maine Power aims to finish controversial western Maine power corridor in 2025”)
https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2023-11-30/documents-re... (NextEra, which owns the Seabrook nuclear power plant in N.H., stands to lose tens of millions of dollars every year if the NECEC comes online and attempted to use political donations to scuttle the Quebec Hydro transmission line)
https://www.iberdrola.com/about-us/what-we-do/smart-grids/ne... (“The new transmission line between Quebec and Maine will provide 1,200 megawatts (MW) of renewable hydroelectric power to the New England power grid in Lewiston, Maine, sufficient to meet the demand of 1.2 million homes. Once built, NECEC will be New England's largest renewable energy source, saving customers $190 million per year.”)
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/government-industry-affairs/new...
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/northeast-...
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-NE-ISNE/live/fif...
(Quebec, interestingly, has ~40GW of hydro generation capacity)
Canada's population growth has stalled. Here's what it means for the economy - https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canadas-population-growth-... - September 30th, 2025
Canada's population growth almost flat in 2nd quarter as number of non-permanent residents declines - https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-q2-population-1.7642... - September 24th, 2025
There is an interesting podcast about Quebec hydropower, it's quite an accomplishment, not without controversy.
https://outsideinradio.org/powerline
I don't know if this podcast presents a balanced view, but it sounds convincing to me.
Before anyone jumps the gun and says this is likely economics, RTFA at least a few paragraphs:
Granite Shore Power, the company that owns the coal plant in Bow, New Hampshire, said they ceased commercial operations September 12th, about a year and a half since they announced they would retire their facility by 2028 as part of a settlement agreement with environmental groups.
With HQ there as well, it’s actually quite a large coal-free chunk of grid.
What will be interesting is the extent to which offshore wind and imports from HQ will be able to materialize according to plan. OSW is having a hatchet being taken to it in the US currently, and imports from HQ into NY and NE have been way down recently while big new lines are also built.
Not exactly in the ISO forecasts, but very much supported by state policy has been the rapid expansion of behind the meter solar in New England. Really taken the edge off of summer days in particular, although also susceptible to smoke from Canadian wildfires.
Not the most exciting markets day-to-day, but interesting long-term things happening.
Nearly 2M households in New England heat their homes with oil (usually boiler, sometimes furnace). For those unfamiliar, a tanker truck comes by your house every couple of months and pumps diesel fuel into a tank down cellar, which literally gets burned like a flamethrower to boil water to heat your home. It's dirty but keeps your home toasty warm when it's -20 outside.
Maine in particular has very little natural gas infrastructure. Electric is impractical as New England winters are cold as balls and the houses are usually old and not that well insulated.
https://www.nhpr.org/new-england-news/2024-07-24/new-england...
https://portal.ct.gov/deep/energy/new-england-heat-pump-acce...
Looking for a self sustaining cogeneration unit that can produce heat and power if needed, if anyone has recommendations, for when I need to recommend it. Heat pump whenever possible, but backups when needed.
They have the same situation a bit further north in Quebec, same vintage of houses, possibly colder winters. Yet they manage with electricity somehow?
Cost of electricity in Montreal: 8c/kWh
Boston: 47c/kWh
New York: 58c/kWh
Source: https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/compa...
We have a heat pump, btw.
Huh, how un-insulated are those houses really? I grew up in an area with climate slightly colder than New England, and our house was heated with an oil boiler (not literally boiling, it was just warm water circulating in the radiators, not steam). Consumption was about 1000L per year, and the tank was big enough that one fillup per year was enough.
Since replaced with a heat pump, FWIW.
> There are more than 100 municipal waste combustion facilities in operation across the United States. Five of these are located in Massachusetts.
https://www.mass.gov/guides/municipal-waste-combustors
Yay for natural gas!
> In Maine, a paper mill burns coal to power their own operations.
I guess burning coal is cheaper than buying power from the grid and installing solar would be a huge outlay? But this sentence just sounds crazy to me in 2025.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massachusetts-coa...
Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45545277