‘President Trump bringing back coal is the epitome of making American energy independent and dominant again.’
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (March 18, 2025) – In a post on Truth Social Monday evening, President Trump said he is authorizing his administration to “immediately begin producing energy with beautiful, clean coal.” This would be a reversal of Biden administration policies, which instituted new rules and regulations with the goal of phasing out coal power entirely in the United States.
The Biden-era rules mandated coal plants cut or capture 90 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions by 2032, a standard too expensive or impractical to meet. Biden also committed the United States to the so-called “Powering Past Coal Alliance,” which had the goal of banning all coal-fired power plants, and banned new coal mining leases on federal land.
The following statements from climate and energy experts at The Heartland Institute may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at media@heartland.org and (cell) 312/731-9364.
“Coal and natural gas are by far the most abundant and affordable energy sources. Utilizing anything else foolishly places our economy at a disadvantage to other nations and needlessly raises energy costs for American households. Coal and natural gas do not require the large-scale killing of birds and bats and dolphins and whales like solar and wind power, and they do not require clear-cutting forests and destroying ecosystems en masse. Coal and natural gas don’t require the mining of rare earth metals and the rampant toxic waste that comes with solar panels and wind turbines. President Trump is doing the right thing for America.”
James Taylor
President
The Heartland Institute
jtaylor@heartland.org
“Coal was the dominant source of electricity generation for most of the 20th century for a reason. Engineers knew it could generate electricity reliably, and economists and the public knew it was relatively cheap. Coal’s decline has, not coincidentally, been accompanied by ever-rising energy prices and ever more unreliable electric power. It was always foolish to pray to the gods of wind and solar in the hopes they would keep our refrigerators, lights, and climate control systems working.”
“President Trump bringing back coal is the epitome of making American energy independent and dominant again. Our bank balances will also be better off because of this move.”
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.Director
Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
hsburnett@heartland.org
“Coal power plants have long provided reliable, affordable energy, fueling economic growth and industrial development. Unlike wind and solar, coal plants generate consistent baseload power, ensuring grid stability without dependence on weather conditions. Modern clean-coal technologies significantly reduce emissions, making them more environmentally viable. Additionally, coal remains abundant and domestically available, reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.”
“The push for intermittent renewables has led to rising electricity costs and grid instability, issues coal can help resolve. As energy demand surges, abandoning coal is impractical. Instead, investing in cleaner coal technology can ensure energy security, economic growth, and a balanced energy mix that doesn’t sacrifice reliability for political agendas.”
Anthony Watts
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
awatts@heartland.org
The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit organization founded in 1984 and headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000.
Photo: Miami Fort Generating Station – a coal fired power plant on the Ohio river near Cincinnati OH. Stacks are venting steam/water vapor, not smoke. Photo by Anthony Watts.
Years of anti-coal propaganda will be tough to undo.
I think the real problem is the uncertainty of what happens in 2028. Red tape permission now might not be too useful if there’s another regime change, and the greenies are vindictive enough to cancel permits while building.
So now we are supposed to be pro coal and look away? Why is it always presented as a binary choice?
Look away from what?
“We”? Our governments, yes. None of their business.
Owners? Their money, their choice.
Consumers? Your money, your choice. Be as prissy as you want.
It is not being presented as a binary choice. New (or re-opened) coal power plants are an addition to existing power generating systems. Are you opposed to allowing every viable source of power being used, wherever they make economic sense?
“So now we are supposed to be pro coal”
I have always been pro-coal.
It is cheap, reliable and is FAR less polluting over its life-time, for energy produced, than wind or solar.
How many times do i have to spell it out? It is not a binary choice. Of all the available energy sources coal is the dirtiest. That’s it! Am i a proponent of solar and wind? Not really. Small scale, maybe. Not a player.
But you are a binary man, as many here on the platform. You call yourself ‘pro coal’ as do the editors. Fly the flag, feck every opponent. So, if i point out the context i am now supposed to be anti coal? That’s like a stupid trigger event. I am well aware of the advantages of coal but anybody who is not fully onboard w ‘team coal’ is seen as an enemy. And, ironically suffers from the same affliction as those on ‘team Green’. It is so obvious..
Well, the last major coal-fired power plant constructed in the USA was the 932 MW Sandy Creek Energy Station in Texas, which was connected to the grid in 2013. None were initiated during Trump’s first term. Who is going to pay for these hundreds of new plants?
“Who is going to pay for these hundreds of new plants?”
The same people who would have invested in the farcical dead end of wind and solar, of course.
Now wind and solar subsidies are gone, they need something with a guaranteed return.
Nick,
The funding will come from people replacing the folk who were previously paying for windmills and solar panels.
Geoff S
Why? Because Mr Trump says he likes coal? People will put up money only if they see that it would be profitable. They haven’t, for a long time.
The only reason for lack of profit is bogus regulations.
Not to mention huge subsidies for wind and solar.
Coal has always been profitable, and has provided for the HUGE expansion of every modern society. Every modern society exists because of COAL and the myriad of things that have been made using COAL.
Wind and solar are more like parasites… taking, taking, but only providing erratically.. when it suits them.
NOTHING has been built using wind and solar.. EVAH !!
Exactly, the Vestas plant in Colorado isn’t powered by it’s own over blown wind products.
Either gas or coal power the facility.
Take away the massive subsidies (tax payer monies) and which solar and wind project is profitable?
But the reality is the environmental departments of most states issue the air and water permits for electric plants. And new plants will take years to permit and build, and they won’t be built before they get a permit. Can you say slow walk to get them out beyond 4 years?
The best strategy is to keep the existing plants from shutting down, or to even restart retired plants. That is being addressed by EPA’s revisitation of the regulations applying to fossil fuel plants, coal and natural gas.
I see that Nick is still going out of his way to pretend that government mandates and bans play no part in these decisions.
The downside is political. Until the Green Blob is defanged, they will try to block any dispatchable power source, coal or nuclear. Technical merits have nothing to do with it.
Citizens who want reliable energy.
Not just citizens…there are a lot of companies that know they need cheap, strong, reliable electricity and that wind and solar cannot provide it.
The surge in AI, EV charging companies, the resurgent manufacturing industry..
All are totally reliant on the cheap, solid base load that COAL provides.
“Who is going to pay for these hundreds of new plants?”
My guess is some of this will be done by Artificial Intelligence companies who want to build power plants co-located with their AI infrastructure.
Trump favors locating the power plant next to the power user, and some of the AI billionaires do, too.
In the case of coal, the sensible thing to do is locate the power plant next to the coal. It’s surely much easier and more efficient to transport the electricity than it is to transport the coal.
Yeah, and they could locate the Artificial Intelligence infrastructure next to the coal, too. Nothing stopping them.
AI customers are demanding, and will pay for, absolute reliability. That means a direct connection to the power plant. If that happens to be next to a coal mine, great. Otherwise, it is no big deal to them to ship coal to the power plant and keep a multi-month stockpile of it onsite.
Who is going to pay are the mega database owners pursuing AI and Bit coin mining. The electrical demand is predicted to soar over the next five years. Hundreds of new power plants are needed (99GW have been requested in Texas, alone, which is the output of 110 average size NG plants). Wind, solar, battery, and nukes can’t be built quickly enough. That leaves coal and NG. NG is cheaper at the moment, PROVIDED there is a gas pipeline available with the excess capacity to feed the power plant. In many places, cheap access to coal will tilt the economics to building coal power plants.
Small modular nuclear reactors are another option for data centers that are being considered.
Warms my heart to see Anthony’s signature on this great press release. What a journey it has been for him.
Too much propaganda for my liking. Binary rubbish..
I used to watch the Heartland shows but like with so many, a ‘fossilized’ one sided view (pun intended) totally predictable..
What “propaganda?!”
That coal is excellent baseload power? It is – better than gas, since unlike gas you can stockpile it.
That it provides reliable, 24/7 generation? It does, like any thermal plant.
That we have lots of it? We do – the US is the “Saudi Arabia of coal.”
What propaganda?
Not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do.
China, India and a host of south east asian countries use coal extensivel. Are they wrong?
Well, the top dogs of WUWT are putting out the coal flag. ‘Clean’ coal? Mmmm..Compared to natural gas it is..well..dirty, filters and all. It is NOT on par. Saying it is doesnt make it so.
This whole love affair with coal strikes me as overcompensating for the hate of coal under Biden and previous admins. Now the pendulum swings too far to the other side ( again).
Coal is needed for making steel and other stuff. You can use it in powerplants but id rather see natural gas and better still, nuclear energy used.
We need all three – coal, NG, and nuclear. They all provide grid stability, and help keep costs down, in different ways.
The definition of clean?
Ok, apply the zero threshold standard and you will go to court for polluting. You emit CO2 and methane minute by minute.
Carbon is not dirt.
Personally, I prefer natural gas over coal, but the solution is to use what works best in each location. The goal is to produce economical electricity without trashing the environment.
Until realistic regulations replace the bureaucracy burden in place, nuclear is not a near term solution.
You know what? I almost fully agree..
With modern pollution control equipment, there is nothing wrong with using coal. It is idiotic to refuse to use it just because gas is “cleaner.” As long as gas is less expensive (assuming it is), I’m sure gas will continue to be widely used and there’s nothing wrong with that either.
But coal is better for baseload because it can be stockpiled and gas cannot. Better not to have the grid completely dependent on something subject to supply disruption like a pipeline failure (or freeze).
^ this. +100.
I believe gas is more expensive. Coal is better for baseline power, gas is better for variable output that is needed regardless of solar and wind.
Also, I believe US has much more coal than gas.
Gas was just burned off of oil producing wells, so it was practically free.
I agree. There is nothing in my posts that contradicts what you said.
But let me give you an example:
The country i was born in, Holland used coal until the early 70s. I still remember it. They found huge natural gas reserves in the north in the 1950s and over time phased out coal almost completely. The big steel mill of course ran on coal/ cokes. But over time that plant got so dirty it would now be wise to shut it down. It caused a lot of pollution and health issues. The reason i would caution the ‘burn baby burn’ crowd is that deregulation sounds like standards might be lowered.’ Clean coal’ is of course a bit of a misnomer but it needs to be properly regulated. I wouldnt trust Trump w any of that. But one could start by shutting down decades old dirty coal plants. I fear that under Trump they will stay open.
I object against blind pro vs anti Trump etc. Pro vs anti coal etc. It is stupid..
Ballynally,
What you and I favour for electricity production is like the Gilbert and Sullivan lyrics about the flowers that bloom in the Spring, tra la la.
I consider that the electricity supply industry made a bad error by getting involved in popularity stakes. Fine for those that agree, but those who disagree are fish in a barrell for rich NGOs like Greenpeace who have nothing to contribute but ignorance.
Please understand that there are ample specialists able to optimise supply and demand of electricity at national levels.
Now, about your inflamed appendix, would you like to hear a public debate about the best way to treat it? Will your surgeon bow to public pressure or decide from his/her specialist experience? Geoff S
There are pros and cons to every technology. No question natural gas is cleaner, also cheaper and faster to build. But you can’t economically store NG on site so if a pipeline goes down for any reason all the downstream plants are offline in a matter of minutes. Coal plants can keep weeks or months of fuel on site, largely isolating them from supply disruptions.
I don’t think this presidential declaration will result in any significant new coal construction, as there is too much risk the next administration will reverse course, but just keeping the current plants operating longer is a benefit.
The US needs a rational, coherent energy policy that will remain stable long enough for the industry to make major investment decisions.
I agree..
With filters, coal is not dirty. Hasn’t been for decades.
Natural gas is mainly the byproduct of oil production. I was once just burned off but now is captured and sold.
He didn’t do it with his first administration, or indeed much of anything to counter the anti-carbon caterwaulers except quitting Paris, but who knows, maybe he will this time. Not holding my breath.
Well, The Top Dogs concerned with Energy in Trump’s administration, the Secretary of Energy, and the EPA Administrator, the Interior Secretary, all are describing Human-caused Climate Change as a “religion”, so that looks like progress to me.
And with Trump’s latest promotion of coal, I think any pretense of reducing CO2 is gone from Trump’s administration.
There do seem to be about 20 Republican Congresscritters who want subsidies for EV’s, windmills, and solar to continue, but I don’t think they are going to get their wish. I don’t know if they favor the subsidies for economic reasons, or because they actually think we need EV’s windmills and solar, but I don’t think Trump is going to look favorably on any subsidies. I think even Elon says the subsidies should be stopped.
10% for the big guy rule.
The politicians are bought-bet on it.
Probably.
His first term was crippled by Democrats. Remember Russia Collusion and the Steele Dossier? And not one, but two impeachments to satisfy a campaign promise by Pelosi prior to the 2016 election?
And the Democrats are trying to cripple Trump’s current term, too.
They are not having as much success this time around.
Democrats are such low-lifes! They have no redeeming qualities. All they want to do is tear things down.
Let’s hope the 2026 midterm election puts the radical Democrats out of the picture. Republicans needs a few more votes in Congress.
Trump might just switch back to being a Democrat to confound them.
Yeah,right. How silly!
KING COAL. BURN BABY BURN – DRILL BABY DRILL
President Donald Trump hosted a meeting with top oil and gas industry executives at the White House. This was his first significant engagement with oil and gas leaders since taking office in January 2025.
The discussion focused on advancing his “energy dominance” agenda, which includes boosting domestic energy production, streamlining the permitting process for energy projects, and enhancing the nation’s electricity grid to support emerging demands, such as those from artificial intelligence.
Key attendees included Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, alongside executives from major companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips, as well as influential figures like Harold Hamm of Continental Resources.
Demented Biden did not meet with any FF execs during his failed term. Wow who knew?
Net-Zero and the fairytale of a ‘de-carbonized world’ is on life-support. Shortly the green energy and climate apocalypse will be remembered as one of the greatest mass delusions in history.
Let’s hope the oil industry’s infatuation with subsidized CCS is put to rest promptly. It would be a shame for that absurd concept for “climate” mitigation to survive even another year.
There’s no need to capture CO2. It’s not doing anything wrong. 🙂
No way to prevent leaks.
The failed trinity >>- WIND/SUN + HYDROGEN + CCS.
I think folks may be dismissing part of DJT’s persuasion play here. Just a thought.
Suppose his aggressive push for clean coal power has people responding, “Wait, let’s push natural gas CCGT and nuclear instead because those are reliable too, and actually cleaner in respect to air quality.”
There. Natural gas CCGT and nuclear were always a better policy direction than wind + solar + batteries anyway.
I have no objection whatsoever to coal fired power plants with proper scrubbers, etc. No objection to the mining either, with proper restoration.
The big deal here is that DJT is aggressively breaking the mesmerized mind-lock about CO2 emissions, as I see it.
I have no objection to coal-fired power plants, either. There is one sitting about 20 miles from my home right now, humming away, producing electricity. Obama was trying to make them convert to natural gas, but then Trump got elected and that nonsense stopped.
An Artificial Intelligence company of some kind moved into the area recently to take advantage of the electricity produced by this coal-fired power plant.
There was acoal plant about 15 mi from me. They shut it down and our power now comes from an entity in Arkansas 100% “renewable” and living on subsidies. I’m sure there’s another gas burner somewhere close-I hope-but my elec. bill jumped 20% virtually overnite.
The DJT disruptions have upset the status quo and shaken people out of complacency.
People are stating to have conversations and with those new and better ideas can’t help but emerge, especially given the censorship and silencing tactics are being eliminated.
The public over the past 50+ years has been trained to expect a single, simple answer to everything regardless of how complex. Critical thinking has been suppressed on a grand scale (started in the 1960s). The point being, you are right, the answer is “all of the above.” Even wind and solar have niche applications, just not grid scale. For example, put solar panels atop the light poles in parking lots. I have solar powered battery based sidewalk lights.
“Even wind and solar have niche applications, just not grid scale.” Agreed. For solar, this is especially so when you can avoid the cost of running a wired circuit.
There’s no way a panel atop a light pole will be able to gather enough energy to keep a decent sized light (even an LED one) lit all night. The cost of wiring a parking lot is minimal as well.
There are a number of places where solar panels make sense. I don’t believe this is one of them.
The largest scale that “works” economically is a PV panel farm that matches local Air Conditioning load on sunny afternoons, and even that has a loooong payout.
These supporting statements (quotations of Taylor, Burnett & Watts) are admirably concise, but it also needs to be emphasized precisely why natural-gas based power generation based on pipeline natural-gas (or liquids) cannot totally replace coal-fired generation:
“… coal plants generate consistent baseload power, ensuring grid stability without dependence on weather conditions. Modern clean-coal technologies significantly reduce emissions, making them more environmentally viable. Additionally, coal remains abundant and domestically available …”
Bitter experience, e.g. the Texas power crisis of 2021, shows that only a solid fuel, stored on-site at the power plant, can assure stable grid power during a prolonged severe weather event. In that event, only nuclear & coal-fired power generation remained steady and so could hold off (barely) a catastrophic failure.
Part of the problem is the gas lines were forced to be heated with electricity contrary to what was designed and preferred.
I believe the problem was with the pressurization stations. They were originally powered by gas from the pipeline itself. Obama made them switch to electric powered pumps.
When the electricity went out, so did the pumps, followed immediately by the gas supply.
“Compressor stations” would be more standard terminology.
I wonder what it would take for coal plants currently being operated as “peaker plants”, i.e. only used on an emergency basis to instead be operated full-time. We have one of those here in NH, in Bow.
Aside from spinning up the climate cult even more, I’m not persuaded this will result in building any new coal plants, but it might avoid shutting some existing plants down. Most of the US coal fleet is 40+ years old and are getting to the point where refurbs will be needed to keep them reliably operational. Of course, simply not shutting down what is currently working is a significant benefit — witness the results of Germany closing their perfectly functional nuclear plants. And it appears even California has seen the light and relented on closing the Diablo Canyon reactors. Originally scheduled to shut down in 2024 and 2025 they are both running today and “planned” closure set for 2030.
The problem with rule by executive order is the next president can cancel them and major investments need to be recovered over more than just the current presidential term. It will take a favorable energy policy fixed in legislation to secure significant new investments.
Coal plant economics favor placement of the plant near coal mines, preferably strip mines, power line infrastructure being less costly than shipping of coal over an amortization period. Natural gas pipelines are low cost fuel transportation so the power plant can be more often placed to reduce power transmission costs. So there is more to it than “King Coal” philosophy.
And then there’s nuclear….
Existing coal mines are serviced by railroads, and existing railroads go to more places in much of the country than adequately sized gas pipelines. A couple of decades ago it was common to see very long trains consisting of dozens of coal cars.
Indeed.
“I’m not persuaded this will result in building any new coal plants, but it might avoid shutting some existing plants down.”
The Energy Secretary was emphasizing the preservation of current coal plants in an interview yesterday. That will be their first move: Not shutting down working coal plants. That’s a good start! 🙂
“Most of the US coal fleet is 40+ years old and are getting to the point where refurbs will be needed to keep them reliably operational. Of course, simply not shutting down what is currently working is a significant benefit — witness the results of Germany closing their perfectly functional nuclear plants”.
i might point out that 40 year old coal plants are extremely dirty and pollutant. Refurbishment no longer cuts it as witnessed in Holland. And Germany closed their modern nuclear plants which are about as far removed from the old coal plants you refer to. So no, it’s not like for like.
Speaking of clean coal, isn’t there a large deposit of ultra clean coal in Utah?
There are 3 such known deposits in the world. One is in Africa and logistically/politically not practical to mine.
One is in Burma(?) and was owned by the Lippo Group. (Foreign contributors to Bill Clintons campaign.)
The last one is in Utah. Bill Clinton declared it to be a National wildlife refuge or some such which put it off limits for mining. (I’m sure the Lippo Group’s contributions had nothing to do with it.)
Indonesia. That’s where the clean coal was located.
Yeah, the Clintons were neck deep in corruption. The current Republican Congress ought to investigate Bill and Hillary and where their campaign contributions came from.
Remember Johnny Chung, one of Clinton’s bagmen?
There was all sorts of corruption going on during Bill Clinton’s presidency. China’s rockets kept exploding after launch, so generous Bill sent American experts over to China to show them how to do it. I suspect the Chicoms were very generous to Bill Clinton after this. Now they can hit the U.S. with nuclear-tipped rockets that Bill Clinton helped them to build. Nice going, Bill. You are a real defender of the United States.
Congress should look into it. I would say these actions border on treason.
Very nice.
My wife worked on a clean coal project in the Combustion Engineering Group at Northrop-Grumman (formerly TRW). They applied their expertise with the pintle injector developed for the Lunar Module Descent Engine to mix a slurry of finely ground coal with air in an industrial boiler burner, and achieved spectacular results in clean combustion. The demo had been built for a prospective Chinese power plant customer, and promised a great advance in air quality in China. The customer looked at all of the data, then said “We’ll buy it without that injector thing. It’s too expensive.”
As far as I know, the technology is still available to the U.S.
Globally there are about 2400 coal plants either operating, under construction or being planned, and fossil fuels provide at least 82% of all primary energy generation. So it would seem more than just obvious that all the incentives, subsidies, mandates , and laws trying to force the adoption of renewables, they still can’t come close to challenging coal, natural gas and oil for pricing and reliability. And even with all the scare tactics about carbon emissions being an “existential threat”, its more than just evident that people, industries, businesses and even governments scoff at them and are returning to what has proven to work, not environmentalists’ pipe dreams of wind and solar.