Spain’s Energy Paradox: Coal at 300€ and Electricity at 500€ with Mines Closed
With Spanish coal mines and power plants closed, coal costs 300€ per ton and electricity hits 500€ per MWh, revealing the true cost of the energy transition.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Coal at 300€ and MWh at 500€: the mines no one reopens
Coal is priced at 300 euros per ton, and the megawatt-hour has reached 500. Together, these figures raise an uncomfortable question: if imported minerals cost around 400 euros at source—without transport—and national coal would be much cheaper, why did Spain close its mines and blow up its thermal plants? The official answer cites climate and costs. The market’s answer is different. Spain’s energy paradox has few precedents in Europe and explains much of the anger surrounding this issue.
From 30% to 3%: how Spanish coal was shut down
The starting point is stark: Spain could comfortably cover 30% of its electricity with coal at 50 euros per MWh, and there would be enough mineral for 500 years. Today, coal generation has fallen to 3%, trinc the closure of mines and the dismantling of power plants. The result, it is argued, is that the MWh rose from 50 to 500 euros with energy consumption lower than in 2004. Less demand and a higher bill.
The key lies in who pays. It is claimed that national coal, if extracted, would cost between 50 and 80 euros per ton, while imported coal is bought at 400 euros at source. The math does not fit the narrative that national mineral was expensive and unviable. Against this thesis, another school of thought responds that plants closed because they could not enter the pool due to high costs, not a political order. Meanwhile, climate legislation has closed the door to extracting uranium, gas, oil, or coal in the country. The slogan summarizing the stance is an ultimatum: coal or ruin.
Renewable subsidies: 7 billion euros annually
The cost of sustaining the system also enters the equation. More than 7 billion euros annually in subsidies for renewables, according to figures used by critics of the model, while electricity demand remains below that of two decades ago. The bill rises with less consumption. And the country, it is added, spends subsidizing a model that stopped working when gas prices soared.
Against this stands the opposing argument: the future is photovoltaic and wind. Electricity below 30 euros per MWh in five years, with 70% renewables and 20% nuclear, claim optimists of the new mix. Those who defend it ask that the forecast be rescued within five years. For now, gas and price hikes dominate, and the debate is deadlocked.
Nuclear: the MWh at 14.4 euros that does not convince either
The alternative many cite is nuclear. A cost of 14.4 euros per MWh is cited, broken down into 7.0 for investment, 3.0 for operation and maintenance, 2.0 for fuel, and 2.0 for recurrent investments. In the world, about 440 reactors operate with 390 GWe of power and 55 more under construction in 19 countries. On paper, unbeatable. With nuances, all numbers change.
The counterargument is no small matter: if the state finances the plant, the price ceases to be cheap. And Spain, it is pointed out, has no uranium reserves for more than a decade of consumption of its scarce park. The discussion is further entangled in whether “there are many” equates to “they are profitable”: if so, the world has 6,612 active coal thermal plants, fifteen times more than reactors. India and its new ultra-supercritical coal technologies, capable of extending the useful life of plants, are also mentioned.
The French mirror: eight reactors stopped and return to coal
France, Europe’s great nuclear power, appears as uncomfortable proof. Of its 61.4 GWh of installed nuclear capacity, less than 30 GWh remained operational after corrosion problems were detected, with eight reactors stopped for maintenance. To survive the winter, the country turned to coal. The case is read as a symptom: installed capacity does not guarantee stable supply.
To the story is added decommissioning. The La Robla plant, it is recalled, was dynamited by Naturgy on May 6, when the company already knew what was coming. The costs of waste management and closure are considered decisive for the real profitability of nuclear power, not counting imported uranium. Some read this as a symptom of the model; others, as a specific maintenance problem.
From acid rain to CO2: the origin of the anti-coal narrative
Coal was not always attacked for climate reasons. Before, it was acid rain. The British godfather of the shift: Margaret Thatcher warned the Royal Society, in September 1988, of the annual increase of 3 billion tons of CO2 and warned of the consequences of accelerated warming. That speech is read today as the ideological starting gun of the anti-coal program of the eighties and nineties.
With the ton at 300 euros, the MWh brushing 500, and thermal plants turned to rubble, the question is no longer whether coal was expensive. It is why the country was left without any domestic source to turn on. Was there a better calculation, or just a better-told story?
Coal is priced at 300 euros per ton, and the megawatt-hour has reached 500. Together, these figures raise an uncomfortable question: if imported minerals cost around 400 euros at source—without transport—and national coal would be much cheaper, why did Spain close its mines and blow up its thermal plants? The official answer cites climate and costs. The market’s answer is different. Spain’s energy paradox has few precedents in Europe and explains much of the anger surrounding this issue.
From 30% to 3%: how Spanish coal was shut down
The starting point is stark: Spain could comfortably cover 30% of its electricity with coal at 50 euros per MWh, and there would be enough mineral for 500 years. Today, coal generation has fallen to 3%, trinc the closure of mines and the dismantling of power plants. The result, it is argued, is that the MWh rose from 50 to 500 euros with energy consumption lower than in 2004. Less demand and a higher bill.
The key lies in who pays. It is claimed that national coal, if extracted, would cost between 50 and 80 euros per ton, while imported coal is bought at 400 euros at source. The math does not fit the narrative that national mineral was expensive and unviable. Against this thesis, another school of thought responds that plants closed because they could not enter the pool due to high costs, not a political order. Meanwhile, climate legislation has closed the door to extracting uranium, gas, oil, or coal in the country. The slogan summarizing the stance is an ultimatum: coal or ruin.
Renewable subsidies: 7 billion euros annually
The cost of sustaining the system also enters the equation. More than 7 billion euros annually in subsidies for renewables, according to figures used by critics of the model, while electricity demand remains below that of two decades ago. The bill rises with less consumption. And the country, it is added, spends subsidizing a model that stopped working when gas prices soared.
Against this stands the opposing argument: the future is photovoltaic and wind. Electricity below 30 euros per MWh in five years, with 70% renewables and 20% nuclear, claim optimists of the new mix. Those who defend it ask that the forecast be rescued within five years. For now, gas and price hikes dominate, and the debate is deadlocked.
Nuclear: the MWh at 14.4 euros that does not convince either
The alternative many cite is nuclear. A cost of 14.4 euros per MWh is cited, broken down into 7.0 for investment, 3.0 for operation and maintenance, 2.0 for fuel, and 2.0 for recurrent investments. In the world, about 440 reactors operate with 390 GWe of power and 55 more under construction in 19 countries. On paper, unbeatable. With nuances, all numbers change.
The counterargument is no small matter: if the state finances the plant, the price ceases to be cheap. And Spain, it is pointed out, has no uranium reserves for more than a decade of consumption of its scarce park. The discussion is further entangled in whether “there are many” equates to “they are profitable”: if so, the world has 6,612 active coal thermal plants, fifteen times more than reactors. India and its new ultra-supercritical coal technologies, capable of extending the useful life of plants, are also mentioned.
The French mirror: eight reactors stopped and return to coal
France, Europe’s great nuclear power, appears as uncomfortable proof. Of its 61.4 GWh of installed nuclear capacity, less than 30 GWh remained operational after corrosion problems were detected, with eight reactors stopped for maintenance. To survive the winter, the country turned to coal. The case is read as a symptom: installed capacity does not guarantee stable supply.
To the story is added decommissioning. The La Robla plant, it is recalled, was dynamited by Naturgy on May 6, when the company already knew what was coming. The costs of waste management and closure are considered decisive for the real profitability of nuclear power, not counting imported uranium. Some read this as a symptom of the model; others, as a specific maintenance problem.
From acid rain to CO2: the origin of the anti-coal narrative
Coal was not always attacked for climate reasons. Before, it was acid rain. The British godfather of the shift: Margaret Thatcher warned the Royal Society, in September 1988, of the annual increase of 3 billion tons of CO2 and warned of the consequences of accelerated warming. That speech is read today as the ideological starting gun of the anti-coal program of the eighties and nineties.
With the ton at 300 euros, the MWh brushing 500, and thermal plants turned to rubble, the question is no longer whether coal was expensive. It is why the country was left without any domestic source to turn on. Was there a better calculation, or just a better-told story?
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (265 replies).
More summaries
-
Italy Approves Nuclear Law After Nearly 40 Years
Italy finally has a legal framework for nuclear energy production after almost 40 years, but without plants or a clear timeline. Initial reactor estimates range from 2046 to 2089.
-
La Robla Power Plant Demolished: Spain's Energy Dilemma and 750,000 Euro Tax Loss
The demolition of La Robla power plant costs Spain 750,000 euros in local taxes, while Germany burns coal and China expands capacity. Who pays the price?
-
Spain's energy paradox: closing mines while importing coal from Morocco
Spain closes coal mines and plants while importing cheaper Moroccan coal-fired electricity to avoid CO2 costs. Analysis of costs, paradoxes and geopolitics.
-
Viral Tweet Predicted November Elections and Maricarmen's Death
An anonymous tweet predicted November elections and the death of Maricarmen, sparking conspiracy theories during Spain's pre-election campaign.
-
Spain's Constitutional Court rejects Ombudsman's appeal over grandchildren law vote
Spain's Constitutional Court rules 10 to 2 that the Ombudsman's appeal was premature, keeping the suspension of voting rights for 163,020 citizens naturalized under the grandchildren law.
-
AI bubble fears hit stock markets as Nvidia takes the heat
A viral post points to Nvidia as a symptom of an AI bubble. What the warning says, why it draws comparisons with the dotcom frenzy, and what to check before buying.