A huge problem with the current market is that it's not very free, entrance is too difficult for new players, and the entrenched players have excessive political power through regulatory capture. There are far too many players with massive amounts of assets that would be stranded and devalued, if they were allowed to be exposed to competition.
But even if there were a more free market, the speed of capital on these sorts of scales is very slow. So even though it may be more economically efficient to abandon a bunch of bad coal plants and do massive deployments of new technology, the amount of capital necessary makes it difficult to make the transition at the economically most cost effective pace.
Look at all the coal plants that burn coal, despite losing money at it.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...
Countries are already enacting deadlines for banning combustion vehicle sales [1], it is straightforward to enact fossil combustion electrical generation bans in similar fashion. The communicates to the market to no longer fund or implement combustion generation facilities, and investment will flow away from existing facilities towards renewables and energy storage (whether that's batteries, green hydrogen and/or ammonia, pumped hydro storage, etc). Most new generation is already renewables (due to cost, see Lazard's LCOE [2]) [3] [4] [5], what I discuss in this comment rapidly pulls forward fossil generation retirement (from 2030-2050 to something more reasonable, such as no latter than 2030).
In short, outlaw fossil combustion, and investment will flow into clean alternatives. The planet doesn't care about your fiat and economic system.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
[2] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
[3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
[4] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416
[5] https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-...