The Great American Paradox
When Americans walk into a store, they instinctively know how to make a choice. They weigh quality, price, reliability, and long-term value. Whether it’s a car, a home appliance, or a pair of boots, the decision isn’t ideological—it’s practical. People want something that works, lasts, and doesn’t cost a fortune to maintain.
Energy, though invisible and abstract, should be treated the same way. Every kilowatt-hour that lights a lamp or powers a furnace comes from a decision about trade-offs—cost, reliability, safety, and sustainability. Yet somewhere along the way, that simple consumer logic was replaced by political fashion and media spin. Americans who would never buy a fragile car or a house built on sand have been persuaded to accept an energy system that depends on the weather.
If America approached its national energy policy the way a family buys a truck—asking, “Will this get the job done, in every season, under every condition?”—the answer would still be coal. It’s not sentimental nostalgia; it’s arithmetic and common sense. Coal delivers what every smart buyer demands: power when you need it, at a price you can afford, for as long as you need it.
So let’s walk through that decision step by step—as if the buyer were America herself, standing on the lot, comparing what works to what merely looks good.
Step One: Define the Job to Be Done
When Americans make a purchase, they start with purpose. What’s the job? For energy, the job is not to signal virtue—it’s to power a nation. That means energy that’s available, affordable, and abundant, every hour of every day, no matter the weather.
Coal still meets that standard better than anything else. It provides true baseload power—steady, dependable, and always there when needed. In a market filled with fragile experiments, coal is the heavy-duty pickup that starts every morning and hauls every load without complaint.
Step Two: Compare the Options
A rational buyer lines up choices and measures performance, price, and durability.
In plain terms, wind and solar are flashy but fickle. Natural gas is solid but volatile. Nuclear is strong but slow and expensive. Coal remains the workhorse—steady power, stable cost, built in America.
Step Three: Examine the True Cost
Consumers don’t stop at sticker price. They look at what it really costs to own something.
Wind and solar prices ignore hidden costs—batteries, backup plants, and massive transmission lines. A “cheap” solar kilowatt disappears the moment the sun sets. Someone still has to keep the grid running, usually a coal or gas plant on standby.
Coal doesn’t play that game. It’s simple: mine, burn, generate. It doesn’t rely on weather forecasts, lithium mines, or taxpayer subsidies. Its price reflects its reality—and its reliability.
Step Four: Assess Risk
No one buys a car that only works when it’s sunny. Yet that’s the gamble of an energy system built on wind and solar. When the Texas grid froze in 2021, turbines stopped, gas lines froze, and the remaining coal plants carried what load they could.
Every extreme weather event tells the same story: when everything else fails, coal keeps the lights on. Reliability isn’t a luxury—it’s survival.
Step Five: Consider Security of Supply
Energy independence isn’t a slogan; it’s insurance against manipulation and crisis.
Solar panels depend on Chinese polysilicon. Wind turbines need Chinese rare earths. Batteries rely on African cobalt and South American lithium. These are fragile, often unethical supply chains.
Coal is American. We mine it, ship it, and burn it right here. We have centuries of reserves and the expertise to use them. No embargo, no foreign dictator, no supply-chain shock can take that away.
That’s not just energy security—it’s national security.
Step Six: Factor in Reliability and Lifespan
Wind and solar installations wear out quickly—20 years, give or take, before replacement. Coal plants can last twice as long, often producing “free” power once construction debt is paid off.
Closing them early makes as much sense as junking a paid-off truck to lease a new one that can’t climb a hill. It’s waste disguised as progress.
Step Seven: Evaluate the Moral Premium
Every consumer has values. We pay more for quality, for local goods, for work that supports American families. The same logic applies to energy.
Coal mining jobs are among the best-paying in the working class. Each one supports several others—rail, manufacturing, maintenance, retail. The taxes fund schools and hospitals. When you buy a kilowatt from coal, you’re buying from your neighbor.
That’s a moral premium worth paying.
Step Eight: Check the Warranty—Resilience
The best products come with a warranty—a promise they’ll stand up under stress.
A wind farm is software-driven, hackable, and fragile. Solar panels shatter in hurricanes and go dark in snow. Coal plants can restart manually and operate through almost anything.
In an unstable world, resilience isn’t a feature. It’s the whole point.
Step Nine: Consider the Trend—Don’t Be Fooled by Fashion
Every generation has its fads. The green energy craze is one of them. It’s driven by subsidies, not economics. Take away the tax credits and mandates, and the market collapses overnight.
Coal, despite decades of political and regulatory assault, still competes on its own merit. That’s not fashion—that’s proof.
The Final Analogy
Imagine America as a family standing in a dealership lot.
The salesman points to a shiny electric sports car—quiet, green, and “government-approved.” It looks good but can’t handle a snowstorm or haul a load of firewood. Next to it sits a natural gas SUV—fine in fair weather but unreliable when prices spike or the lines freeze.
And then there’s the old-school diesel truck—coal. It’s rugged, paid off, and built to last a lifetime. It starts every morning, no matter the weather, and carries the whole family safely home.
A practical buyer doesn’t choose fashion over function, or image over survival. America shouldn’t either.
Coal isn’t nostalgia—it’s common sense. It’s the engine that built this country and the only one strong enough to keep it running.
When judged by the same standards every American uses to make a purchase—cost, reliability, security, longevity, and value—coal remains the only logical choice.
Because a nation that forgets how to power itself won’t stay powerful for long.
Terry L. Headley, MBA, MA, for the American Coal Council.
The Hedley Company is an energy communications and research firm that helps clients tell the truth about power—clearly, credibly, and fast. We specialize in coal, natural gas, and grid reliability, producing message frameworks, data-driven reports, investor and policy decks, and earned-media programs that move opinion and outcomes. Founded by T. L. Headley—former communications director for the West Virginia Coal Association and the American Coal Council—the firm blends newsroom discipline with industry know-how, using county-level data, RTO dynamics, and policy analysis to inform decisions. From crisis response to long-form research, The Hedley Company turns facts into strategy and strategy into wins. Based in Ona, West Virginia.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Every UK kilowatt-hour that lights a lamp or powers a cooker comes from a decision… made by Loony Labour and mad Ed.
Define the Job to Be Done
Make the UK a green superpower (net zero chance…) and wholly decarbonise/deindustrialise
Compare the Options
Continue with or expunge fossil fuels, North Sea etc
Examine the True Cost
N/A
Assess Risk
N/A
Consider Security of Supply
More solar and batteries
Factor in Reliability and Lifespan
We’ll look at that at a later stage, say 15 years
Evaluate the Moral Premium
It’s a huge virtue signal, one the world will be queuing up to follow – as predicted “The truth is our action makes other countries act,” – Ed Miliband.
The Final Analogy
Labour has promised to make the UK a “clean energy superpower” by doubling its onshore windfarms, tripling its solar power and quadrupling its offshore wind capacity by the end of the decade to create a virtually carbon-free electricity system.
The government claims that reducing the use of gas-fired power plants to just 5% of the UK’s electricity needs by the end of the decade could cut energy bills. The Guardian
It won’t cut bills, quite the reverse. Everybody knows it. What is the green energy equivalent of “gaslighting“?
“What is the green energy equivalent of “gaslighting“?”
Sunlight by day, Darkness at night, because gaslights give CO2 back to the plants (:-))
Seems 90% of co2 increase of the last 4 decades is result of the massive gaslighting from our globalists green friends.
“What is the green energy equivalent of “gaslighting“?”
“Hadlighting”?
Yeah, but solar and wind are free, aren’t they, Nick. Nick?….
Free.
Ignoring all the other factors, parameters, costs, etc., yes solar electro magnetic energy is free for the earth. Wind, also, is free. Both are renewable in that the fuel does not deplete or require a replacement or a refresh. Point is, those are energy sources, not energy systems. Wrap an energy system around them and the difference is horrifying.
The reality is, those “free fuels” can not be regulated in the sense of a control system. You can not turn up the wind or the sun when you need more power output. You cannot turn them down when you need less.
Coal, oil gas, nuclear, and hydro electric have fuel regulators. That is the most significant difference (of many, many important differences). In an energy producing system, if you cannot control the input flow, you cannot control the system. EE 101.
Not only are wind and solar NOT free, but very expensive when you try to implement them into a grid…acting more like a parasite…
.. but they are also the most environmentally destructive and polluting forms of energy there is…
.. from the toxic acids and chemicals used in their manufacturing, creating huge toxic sludge lakes
.. to the wholesale degradation of habitats and environments during installation
.. to the destruction of natural fauna, flora and avian life during use
.. to the masses of land fill needed at disposal, leaching toxic chemicals into groundwater etc.
Oh dear, what a poor, blinkered sales pitch just to sell coal, but clearly demonstrating a lack of common sense & knowledge!
“Coal isn’t nostalgia—it’s common sense. It’s the engine that built this country”
No, that was initially – Horses, Timber, & manpower (slaves).
Coal became the largest source of energy in the 1880s (100 years after the American War of Independence), when it overtook wood, and remained the largest source until the early 1950s, when coal was exceeded by petroleum.
“It’s simple: mine, burn, generate.”
Yes, & stupid.
Coal is a cornucopia of chemicals, all useful to the world, but Terry just wants to burn it (polluting the atmosphere ) just to get the heat energy & waste more coal.
Coal should not be wasted; gasification and pyrolysis of coal release those chemicals & don’t pollute the atmosphere, that way you get the best of both worlds – heat for generation plus chemical feedstock.
CO2 is not a problem.
Small-scale solar & wind may have niche positions in remote areas, but are useless for powering economies; for that, you need Baseline Nuclear plus Dispatchable Gas.
“Coal should not be wasted”
It’s difficult to waste something that’s extremely abundant.
That is a false premise. One can waste the extremely abundant, but the results are not seen immediately. Regardless of how abundant a resource is, one should always be efficient. If nothing else, it allows for continued used for longer time periods. It also improves cost efficiency if done intelligently.
Well, we certainly don’t want to waste any resource- but, we should use it abundantly as long as its abundant- no need to pretend its in short supply- that just drives up the cost. There’s enough coal for centuries. By the time it runs short- there will be new energy sources- whether nuclear or zero point energy or who knows what.
Stone tools used to be “extremely abundant” & still are, but we decided metal tools were a much more efficient use of resources.
No. No. No. We ran out of stones!
I had a weird episode. In 1978 my wife and I took a 12 day raft trip down the Grand Canyon. 200 miles of mile deep defile through solid rock. I decided to take as a souvenir a couple one pound water worn cobbles of the Vishnu basement formation. One of the guides saw me putting them in my bag and he asked me – “What if everyone took a rock from down here?”. Looking around at the scene, which was literally miles of rocks, I really had nothing to say.
The Canyon would get bigger. Nature seems to have removed a lot of rock from the area over the years – why not help things along?
The volume of the GC is 4.17 trillion cubic meters – 4170 cubic kilometers.
Apparently, there have been about a million folks down the canyon on boats. If everyone took a one pound rock, about a million pounds. Or about 250 M^3. The area of the canyon bottom you can pick up rocks is about is about 10 million M^2. So, a one pound rock every 10X10 foot area of water worn cobbles. And this rhetorical scenario would be spread out in time all the way back to 1869 when John Wesley Powell and party made the first descent. As far as I know, I’m the only one to have taken a rock out, though I’d think any geologist would, I bet Powell did.
I tried finding the average yearly erosion volume for the canyon surface, a kind of tricky query, I haven’t found an answer yet.
I searched on eBay for Vishnu Basement rock samples. A lot of weird stuff, but no rocks, I should have taken more out.
Total nonsense. There is plenty of coal. The biggest issue with coal burning plants was SO2, but scrubbers solved that issue. We need all 3 – coal gas and nuclear.
There also is technology that makes NOX and Hg emissions low enough that the environmental impacts are acceptable to all but the “it has to be zero” crowd
Actually, it was particulate carbon, the major contributor to smog (smoke and fog). Not saying SO2 was not an issue, but there is a lot about SO2 in the atmosphere that is slowly being discovered. So much we still do not know.
Burning coal hasn’t polluted the atmosphere since the 70’s.
Coal should be used for it’s most economic uses. Holding it because it might have more valuable uses in the far future is stupid.
“Burning coal hasn’t polluted the atmosphere since the 70’s.”
So you haven’t been to India, Philippines, China, or Vietnam.
“Coal should be used for it’s most economic uses. ”
Agreed;
Getting both chemicals & heat from the same lump of coal seems very economical to me
Agreed. The chemicals in the combustion byproducts can be recovered economically.
” Baseline Nuclear “
Great idea. Now execute. Follow the 10/100/1000 rule.
Within a year, get 10 newly built and connected to the grid, 100 more under construction, and 1000 financed, permitted, and sited.
Until then: “Dance with the One That Brought You” Shania Twain (1993)
Holland’s Energy Dilemma. From the people who brought you Richard Black, Roger Harrabin and Justin Rowlatt etc
Netherlands’ renewables drive putting pressure on its power grid
“When we all use electricity at the same time, our power grid gets overloaded,” she says. “This can cause malfunctions. So, use as little electricity as possible between four and nine.”
…
As for electricity production, the Netherlands has replaced gas from its large North Sea reserves with wind and solar.
…
This is all good in environmental terms, but it’s putting the Dutch national electricity grid under enormous stress, and in recent years there have been a number of power cuts.
…
the problem is that the grid “was designed in the days when we had just a few very large, mainly gas-fired power plants”. – BBC
They will simply never admit that the problem is renewables themselves.
How is not using natural gas good in environmental terms? Good lord, it’s clean.
It also has a significantly smaller environmental footprint just considering land area used.
And hen a well runs dry you can cap it and reuse the equipment..
Unlike wind and solar that end up taking up huge areas of landfill, leaching toxins for centuries.
Now that China has cut off rare earth minerals to the western world, has no one thought that after solarizing and windifying the electrical grid, China could easily cut off the supply of replacement solar panels and windmill components.
Brings to mind the communist quote that possibly was never actually said: “We will sell the rope to the capitalists with which to hang them.”
Now that China has cut off rare earth minerals to the western world…
The UK government deliberately spiked a Chinese espionage – in Parliament itself – trial to curry favour…
Downing Street Insists It Didn’t Ask for Labour Manifesto Phrase to Go Into Spy Case Evidence – Guido Fawkes
The Manifesto phrase changed China’s status from a national security threat to… an economic opportunity.
I’m more sympathetic to coal than most, and I’m inclined to agree with most of Mr. Headley’s claims. But his post suffers from the deficiency I usually associate with the other side of the argument: all qualitative claims, no quantitative facts.
He should re-write the post with supporting calculations.
NEW MINE-MOUTH COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 2 c/kWh = 9 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
.
Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.
.
Other costs:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Year 1 Cost
O&M = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b
Coal = $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b
Bank/Owner = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b
Total = 1.130 b
Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b
Total revenue equals total cost at about 8 c/kWh
Banks and Owners get 0.74/1.136 = 65% of the project revenues
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
The only real issue with coal, when burnt in a modern facility with current state pollution controls, is the handling of the fly ash, which contains heavy metals and other chemicals. When disposed of in a state of the art manner, there is little to distinguish coal from other (so called) fossil fuels, but the apparent issue, at least in the minds of many politicians and activists, is CO2.
I happen to fall into the camp of those who feel the CO2 is not the actual issue. There were many who were convinced it was, but their concerns may have been overblown and overtaken by a political movement. For these people, the issue seems to be control over the means of production, a truly (some would say) fascist/communist response to what may be a natural cycle, in order to ‘save’ the planet from humanity. If followed through on, in means the iron rice bowl for us.
to “save’ the planet from humanity = eliminate humanity from the planet (except a few notables).
Coal ash is used in cement and concrete.. tonnes of which goes into wind turbine foundations.
Coal ash actually has a myriad of uses, especially in construction materials such as cement products and gyprock, used a lot road-bases…
Step 5
Solar panels depend on Chinese polysilicon AND coal. In a submerged arc furnace, metallurgical-grade silicon is produced by reducing quartz (SiO2) with carbon (coal) at 2000° C (and how is the electricity for the arc furnace produced? Yep, you guessed right). The reaction’s end-products are silicon and CO, which is then oxidised to CO2. How ironic.
I agree with the premise of this essay, but the claim that people purchase based on logic doesn’t hold true. I have seen how people consume. A large number purchase consumer goods on the basis of celebrity recommendation and/or virtue signalling. It’s how we got to where we are — it explains political preferences for sure.
There are known phenomena of “impulse buying” and “name brand recognition.”
Rational decision making in major, capital expenditures, must hold. However, in consumer purchases, rationality seems to be rare – Kevin Kilty is right. Folks buy cars based on how many cup-holders they have, not for minimum unscheduled maintenance. Being “way cool” completely overrides rationality.
______________________________________
Good one!
” a fragile car or a house built on sand ”
Both bad examples. EVs are fragile and houses on North Carolina’s Outer Banks regularly float off into the Atlantic.
Nice article. Yes it’s true coal should be in the mix however we shouldn’t rely heavily on any one source of power. Rather we should have a good mix of coal, gas and nuclear. Stop wasting our time money and resources on wind and solar they don’t work. Coal, gas and nuclear do.
Hydro also has a good case in selected regions where it can be properly implemented wrt rainfall and terrain.
You are right but there is opposition to hydro also and I wonder how many appropriate sites are left.
Coal is just Nature’s way of trapping solar energy for our benefit.
They start with purpose of the product type.
Workboots are rugged, should have steel toes.
I buy light hiking boots to support ankles on uneven surfaces, whereas other people would buy lighter shoes.
And pay attention to new things – now you can buy a two-story clothes driver that you hang delicate garments in the top half of rather than tumbling them. For a price of course. (Or a stacked combination of compact washer and drying good for apartments.)
The first paragraph clearly demonstrates type 1 of Milton Friedman’s “4 ways you can spend money” in that when spending your own money on yourself, you look at price and quality. The 4th way you can spend money is spending other people’s (Taxpayers) money on somebody else (“The Planet”) and you don’t care about either price or quality, you just want to spend it. Type 4 is all government spending sadly.