Audrey Streb
DCNF Energy Reporter
The Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking to restore coal plants across America “for up to $100 million in federal funding.”
The DOE announced Friday that it issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity to restore coal plants across the U.S. to “design, implement, test, and validate three strategic opportunities for refurbishment and retrofit of existing American coal power plants to make them operate more efficiently, reliably, and affordably.” President Donald Trump has sought to bolster the American coal industry through an April 8 executive order, though the Biden administration cracked down on coal through stringent regulations in a move that several energy policy experts and one grid official warned could weaken America’s power grid.
“For years, the Biden and Obama administrations relentlessly targeted America’s coal industry and workers, resulting in the closure of reliable power plants and higher electricity costs,” said DOE Secretary Chris Wright on Friday. “Thankfully, President Trump has ended the war on American coal and is restoring common sense energy policies that put Americans first. These projects will help keep America’s coal plants operating and ensure the United States has the reliable and affordable power it needs to keep the lights on and power our future.” (RELATED: Trump Admin Moves To Demolish Biden-Era Coal Crackdown)
— U.S. Department of Energy (@ENERGY) October 31, 2025
The DOE has issued several emergency orders to keep coal plants humming as it has also sounded alarms over America’s grid. DOE’s July grid reliability report projected that blackouts could increase by a factor of 100 across America if the U.S. continues to phase out reliable power sources without adequate replacements.
While Trump has sought to boost coal and other reliable energy sources like nuclear, the Biden administration favored intermittent green energy sources like wind and solar in the name of combating climate change.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Changing the accounting rules that encourage closing written down coal plants in favor of wind and solar should be changed.
Make Coal Great Again. Start by ramping up plants currently operating only in emergencies to full-time. Easy peasy. Then re-start any plants not being used.
That ain’t enough.
Windfarms has to be tackled the same way as coal plants were.
Otherwise they’ll simply shut down those coal plants once in power again.
Yes, I meant to say something about that. Put Ruinables on standby instead of coal. And watch the need for backup batteries vanish.
Grid priority, globally, has always been backwards. Wind – PV are never worth having or keeping except in a few isolated niches such as remote islands, etc.
Diametrically opposed to what’s happening in the UK…Population Control prevails…
Rwally? The population is out of control via migration legal and illegal.
Those aren’t the populations they are trying to control.
Now, now David Attenburghee is a national treasure….
National Treasure: The life of Sir David Attenborough – Sky News
And so very wise…
Sir David Attenborough has warned that human beings have become a “plague on the Earth”. – Independent
Their time is passing thanks to the unbelievably Keystone cop government.
Seems to be a nest there
” If I were to be reincarnated I would wish to be returned as a killer virus to lower human population levels ”
Prince”Covid 19″ Phillip
They tried to do him in, funnily enough… at the Diamond Jubilee. They came close.
Aha…so someone with no brains at all wants to reincarnate in something that has even less brain than him…hmm and I thought reincarnation was all about of “better yourself and get therefor rewarded in the next life”
I think he should have rather chosen ho become a toilet bowl…gues why…
Well, in terms of status and wealth he reached the maximum level.
No incarnation could make things better for him if these were his goals.
And if reincarnation gives him free will, then bettering oneself is just one out of many options(maybe he was rewarded too well for his own good).
But I actually appreciate his honesty just as with Fabian Societies leader Bernhard Shaw who openly admired Hitler and Stalin – because they get things done.
All the former big guns be it Rockefellers,Carnagies etc(and obviously the Royal ) were huge fans of Eugenics,
and then they transformed alongside the new big guns(Gates) towards Foundations, Humanism, NGO and climate after the UNO was created and the brother of one of its leaders wrote a book “Brave New World”.
I can’t even imagine how honest and genuine their good intentions are – probably so good that they may, just a crazy unfounded guess, try to force vaccines on humanity.
You might consider this:
wisdom5
( https://www.uh.edu/~dsocs3/wisdom/wisdom/reincarnation.pdf )
My first thought regarding anyone who proclaims that too many humans is a problem: Why are they still here?
Indeed.
It’s clear, especially on the weather, that TDS just won’t go away.
Sadiq Khan has criticised Donald Trump in a set-piece opening speech at a Brazil climate change conference – the London mayor’s fifth foreign trip of the year. He told the “biggest-ever gathering of mayors” that the US president was one of the climate “wreckers” they needed to fight back against to reduce the threat of global warming.
Sadiq essentially reactivated his long-running war of words with President Trump. – Standard
The good news?
Sadiq’s decision to travel to Rio means he will miss the switch-on of the Oxford Street Christmas lights on Monday evening.
Probably as well. He wants Palestinian flags instead.
Where Khan is concerned, if you dare to disagree you are by default of the far right.
That goes for Labour as a whole, but even more so where this islamist wrecker is involved
Saddick is trying to get some cheap viagra in Brazil.
For new wind and solar systems, about 11 c/kWh needs to added to accommodate those systems on the system, from power system to hazardous waste landfill
For a new coal plant, only 3 c/kWh is required
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 + 3 c/kWh = 10 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
That $100 million is a drop in the bucket of what is needed. And BTW, some expensive environmental rules are still on the books and many state agencies have control over their implementation.
In general, I am against using government funds this way.
On the other hand, looking back, I recognize the huge positive impact of Federal initiatives long ago like the Hoover Dam, Bonneville Power Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Rural Electrification Administration – you get the picture. Also state initiatives – the New York Power Authority for example.
So I just hope the money gets put to good use.
Don’t forget, the whole reason coal needs government help to get back on its feet is because of government’s, as in the Obama and Biden administration’s War on Coal. Fair is fair.
The problem in this instance is much of the damage that we want repaired was done by government fiat.
There is also the issue that the next time Democrats gain power, it will be back to government war on coal mode again.
Trying to get individuals to invest their own money in situations like this is difficult.
When it results in lower electricity bills and no/infrequent blackouts and people able to heat their homes in winter, the good use will become obvious to even the blind.
IOW, still not to Democrats.
No, it won’t…never underestimate leftist propaganda or simple stupidity.
Maybe the electrical grid will be managed by competent engineers for a change?
Hmmm. Are you suggesting problems with the grid are due to poor engineering? I think not. They are the result of regulatory meddling in the markets, environmental rules, and the required favoritism shown to renewables.
Nice PR announcement, but largely irrelevant in the real world. Just double checked the current data as of 2025.
Per EIA, the average age of operating 2025 US coal plants is 45 years. The average age at retirement since 2000 is 50 years; on a capacity weighted basis it is 54 years (larger later—makes sense).
A few years ago I did the breakeven generating cost (LCOE) of CCGT (800 MW units— ‘standard’ modern size at about 61% thermal efficiency, 3 of which replaced old resid fired steam at Port Everglades a few years ago), versus ‘supercritical’ SCcoal using the only such operating US plant, Turk in Arkansas at about 700MW and 41% thermal efficiency (conventional coal is about 32% thermal efficiency depending on unit size). Turk burns lowest cost low ash Powder River basin subbituminous. The LCOE crossover is about $8/mmbtu natgas. At higher gas prices, SCcoal is cheaper. The present natgas price as of today in the US is about $4/mmbtu. Not even close.
So extending old coal isn’t going to move the coal needle much. And CCGT is half the capital cost per MW of Turk, and can be built in half the time. So old coal at end of whatever ‘extended’ life isn’t going to be replaced by new coal.
I agree. And who is going to take the risk of making a multi-billion dollar investment in a new coal plant when that can easily change with an election every 4 years? Just look at the way the rules changed back and forth between Trump 1, Beden and Trump 2.
Hi Rud:
Did your LCOE analysis span the full 50 year lifetime of a coal plant? This would encompass multiple replacements/major overhauls for the gas turbines.
Also, additional pipeline/compressor stations would be required for a large CCGT capacity expansion; at some point this would necessarily start to impact the delivered gas price. At some point the main transportation lines are going to bottleneck so it won’t be as simple as running a new lateral delivery line. That would be a step change in delivered gas price.
I haven’t run any numbers, but my gut feel is that the economics would be very location dependent. Being near rail and far from gas would favor coal and visa versa.
Yes. And the warrantied life of a GE CCGT is 40 years.
Thanks for the reply. GTs such as a Frame 7 or the 50Hz Frame 9 version have a frame lifetime of 40 years, but require a major overhaul every 25-30 thousand hours. So a complete tear down and rebuild every 3-4 years. Not an inexpensive proposition and typically 30-50 days off line while the work is done, so the facility has to be built with N+1 spares or accept slumping output during repairs.
New England ISO warning:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/11/wind-and-solar-blackouts-threaten-new-england/
Bring back King Coal, America’s most abundant energy.
Yes, but bring in more nuclear energy. Zero emissions and it keeps going and going and going…
Good luck getting them built in your lifetime.
More good news, let’s get moving.
Some questions for Rud Istvan ….
Suppose the bulk of new-build generation capacity in the US moves away from wind and solar and becomes focused instead on combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) technology.
Have any studies been done on upgrading the nation’s natural gas pipeline infrastructure to accommodate some number of new-build CCGT generation plants?
Is rail transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in tank cars an option if there are inherent constraints on quickly expanding the nation’s natural gas pipeline capacity?
Two good questions. Some quick research on partial answers to 1 and definitive answer to 2.
Thanks. This raises another question which might be a lot more difficult to answer.
Over the next two decades (or so) would it be more profitable to export our natural gas in the form of LNG to other energy hungry nations, rather than to burn it domestically in new-build CCGT power plants?
Being creative here, we might export our LNG as one possible means of paying down the national debt.
Further quick data. The FOB loaded cost for LNG at the Gulf was $10.17/mmbtu for October 2025. The NatGas supply cost before liquifaction was $3.26/mmbtu. The LNG price delivered via ocean transport/Panama Canal to Japan was about $11.80 that month. The monthly delivered Japan price is a bit murky because much (not all) is under long term contract.
Just take a look at the sad story of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It was intended to deliver gas from West Virginia to Virginia and North Carolina. Enviros fought it tooth-and-nail in the courts. Many of the hundreds of stream crossings were contested causing delays and running up the costs. The Dominion Energy CEO finally abandoned the project, stranding billions of investment and finished pipeline. The enviros are emboldened by this success. Expect similar behavior for any proposed new pipelines. We are still dependent on one pipeline and during winter the cost of gas generation can (and has) exceed the cost of using #2 in CTs and CCGTs.
And I agree with Rud about the use of LNG tank cars. Plus the cost of LNG is subject to the world market. Using a lot more LNG domestically would increase prices substantially.
Money well spent.
The solution for energy shortfalls is simple: go with what works and never mind these pie-in-the-sky solutions like wind and solar. These have been proven over and again of being incapable of delivering consistent power at affordable prices, so the logical move is to reactivate and bolster fossil fuel power and never mind worrying about what might happen to the climate in 2050, 2100 and beyond. That argument has worn thin for a number of years, and if coal can be depended upon to do the job, let’s go for it.
Hey everyone it’s the promise of free electricity just like Mamdani-
Australians to get three hours of free electricity every day under solar scheme – ABC News
Yep Nicks free solar energy has finally arrived 🙂
Reality is never strong with Chris Bowen and he has yet to explain how it will work on overcast days. Most struggling Australians who don’t have solar already are less than excited as they will be at work to pay sky high cost of living expenses and housing costs … it’s like a cruel joke.
You don’t think they’ve misallocated capital with all that subsidised peaky generation and not enough storage do you? But they’re from Canberra and they have all the experts to command at their fingertips with big compooters. What could possibly go wrong?
“What could possibly go wrong?”
The price of grid-scale batteries doesn’t come down rapidly in the near-term future. Or ever.
Beautiful clean coal!