The American people are paying a huge price for politically driven decisions to abandon the fuel that built the nation. The data are clear, coal keeps electricity prices at a reasonable level, enhances reliability, supports national security and keeps the wolf from the door in times of extreme weather events. The cost of abandoning coal falls on virtually every family, business and institution in the U.S. and can be measured along three fronts:
Price of electricity. Coal kept the cost of electricity at an affordable level for over a century but idealistic policy decisions to close to 300 coal plants in the last 15 years have opened the door for higher and more volatile electricity prices. In 2010, the price of electricity in the U.S. was about 11 cents per kilowatt hour. By 2026 the price of electricity has increased 75% to 19 cents. And, according to the Department of Energy, rates could increase another 40% in the next four years. Meanwhile coal generation has dropped from 45% of America’s power to barely 16% today and is projected to decline another 50% by 2030. In statistics this is called an inverse correlation. Simply put, the more we reduce coal generation the more we will pay for electricity. It is a sad irony that the very people who were instrumental in prematurely closing efficient coal plants, now whine about increases in the cost of electricity.
In Massachusetts, a state that eliminated every coal plant in the last decade, the price of electricity is 30 cents per kWh second only to California. Yet Governor Maura Healy blames high rates on President Trump. Speaking of California, where coal plants were cavalierly abandoned by the state’s pie in the sky energy policies, rates have increased to an astounding 35 cents per kWh. Nevertheless, Governor Newsome ingenuously laments that “electricity rates have gone up – great work Donald Trump.” Hypocrisy knows no bounds in the war on coal. Policymakers from these states are simply not held accountable for failed energy policies so their failures continue to haunt American families year after year.
Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling and Sarah Montalbano document all these issues in their essay “Blue States, High Rates:”
“California, has become a poster child for the ballooning costs of an electric grid that is increasingly reliant on wind, solar, and battery storage… California being the first adopter of many of the worst blue state policies, is showing the rest of the U.S. where those mandates lead.” Yet, despite an overwhelming array of physical evidence policymakers in dozens of states are closing coal in favor of intermittent renewables that cost more and only work part of the time.
Reliability. First, let’s establish the stark reality of coal’s contribution to American Society during crises over the last decade:
2014 – Polar Vortex Coal provided the majority of electricity but, even more importantly, coal power increased 92% YOY to meet the load. Oil increased 12%, Wind 9% and Nuclear 7%. Natural gas (NG) generation decreased 6% YOY and Hydro declined 15%. Solar was irrelevant.
2019 – “Cold Event” In the PJM region (65 million people) coal power led all fuels at 37% of electricity. All renewables combined contributed only 7% of electricity. In the MISO region (45 million people), coal provided 50 % of electricity and operated at 73 % of installed capacity.
2021 – Winter Storm Uri impacted much of the U.S. In the MISO grid, which stretches across 15 states and Manitoba, coal-based generation surged 36 percent and met almost 50% of demand. Solar power was virtually non-existent, and MISO reported that “output from wind generation was low throughout the duration of the event.” NG prices increased from less than $3 per MMBTU to as much as $700.
2024 – Winter storm Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA) reported coal-fired power plants showed the most significant increase in utilization rates: “Wind generation faced challenges… while solar generation was entirely or almost entirely absent.” Further, EVA concluded: “Higher shares of solar facilities and fewer dispatchable resources likely would have resulted in widespread power outages “.
2025 – Polar Vortex – Demand across the East, Midwest, and South reached 537 GW in January – the highest ever recorded and approximately 150 GW above average. Per EVA, coal-fired generation “played a vital role” as capacity factors reached 70%. At peak demand, wind and solar were only able to generate 3% and .0.2% of the electricity to meet the load. NG prices spiked to $30/MMBtu compared to coal’s $2.50. EVA estimated coal saved customers up to $1.4 billion.
2026 Polar Vortex – The DOE found “as Winter Storm Fern affected significant portions of the country, coal-fired electricity generation increased 31%. .. while generation from solar, wind, and hydropower declined. Grid operators can call upon the coal fleet to increase electricity generation in extreme weather events and other times when demand surges or output falls from other generation sources”
National Security. Energy is the foundation of national security and coal has been, is, and will continue to be the cornerstone of that foundation. The International Energy Agency (IEA) defines energy security as “The uninterrupted availability of energy sources at an affordable price.” In that context, no other energy source in the world can stand against coal.
The four major components of energy security are (1) availability, (2) accessibility, (3) affordability and (4) sustainability. Coal in the U.S. has a demonstrated track record of reliably meeting all four of these criteria. In terms of availability, the U.S. has the largest recoverable coal reserves in the world, estimated at around 250 billion short tons, enough to last over 400 years at current production levels. These vast reserves are readily accessible with significant deposits distributed across 20 states and an established transportation system to reach every corner of the country. Coal has proven affordability and the low energy prices it creates enabled American businesses to move to the center of the world’s economic stage. Finally, coal is sustainable through each of the above but especially the abundance of domestic reserves through that will last for centuries.
The idea that coal-based energy can be sustainably replaced by other sources in a period of unprecedented rising demand for electricity is a myopic policy built on a shaky collection of hypotheses, idealism, political suasion and wishful thinking. Rather, coal is the fuel most capable of meeting an uncertain energy future in an ever more dangerous international environment. An environment where China controls over 75% of solar panel production and almost 80% of the silicon needed to produce them. Where China has 60% of the world’s turbine production capacity compared to 19% in Europe and less than 10% in the U.S. Where Large battery energy storage systems (BESS) are increasingly important in stabilizing America’s energy grids, but the U.S. relies heavily on Chinese imports for BESS. And in terms of Artificial Intelligence, China has filed 70% of all AI patents globally as of the latest Stanford HAI 2026 data, and Chinese inventors account for 60% of total global AI patent holdings, China is building the most robust, affordable and reliable electricity supply system in the world – and it is anchored by coal.
Conclusion. the U.S. needs more coal generation, not less. This expansion should take place along several dimensions: (1) Keep existing plants operating and, where possible, increase their capacity, (2) Recommission recently closed plants that were prematurely retired and (3) Build new plants using the advanced clean coal technologies being successfully employed in other parts of the world (e.g. Supercritical Combustion) and even in the U.S. (e.g. Prairie State in Illinois)
Note: Coal is the Cornerstone seeks to give a voice to supporters of coal in its many dimensions and contributions. But we need help and ask like-minded individuals and companies to help support the effort at http://www.coaliscornerstone.com. Access to our previous articles is available on this site.
Frank Clemente PhD. specializes in the socio-economic impact of energy policy and is author of The Global Value of Coal published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as well as numerous articles in energy journals and reports for the National Coal Council. Professor Clemente has served on the faculty at the University of Kentucky, the University of Wisconsin and Penn State. His work is presented independently from any University affiliation.
Fred Palmer Esq. has served as CEO of Western Fuels and Peabody Energy’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs. He chaired the World Coal Association Board and was a member of the National Coal Council. He received the American Institute of Mining Award for “Distinguished Achievement in Coal Technology”. He also was awarded a Statement of Appreciation from the National Coal Council in 2015 with a plaque for “Guidance since 1990.”
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Those striving to reduce coal consumption in general need to review its use in two of the three leading carbon emitters and see how fast they’re abandoning the fuel. According to the Statistical Review of World Energy, India achieved for the 1st time 1 billion tonnes of coal production with thermal plants supplying 70% of its overall energy. Meanwhile China continues to outstrip the rest of the world with its production, importation and coal consumption. Do these countries have any Net Zero pretentions? If there are, they’re so far into the future that they’ll be long forgotten well before it occurs. Yet the US and the EU keep deluding themselves that renewables will somehow make up the shortfall if more coal plants are closed
I’m seriously wondering if the move to low-tech, low-skill wind and solar is supposed to go hand-in-hand with the highly successful replacement population pushing out people who can keep thermals running and understand how they work with third world savages who have neither the skill nor inclination to keep critical infrastructure working.
With wind/solar and AI distribution decisioning, the elite can keep their lifestyle while the rest of the country freezes in the dark.
Magnificent post. There is simply no substitute for a pile of coal at the generating site except nuclear. As a matter of national security and for the wellbeing of all a good percentage of coal and nuclear should be mandated as insurance against bad weather or bad people. What percent I don’t know but to not recognize the importance of such a policy is stupid and dangerous.
I have written that many times in various forums. Natural gas is “Just In Time Delivery” and if there’s not enough gas in the line the gas-fired plants can’t generate electricity. I remember a couple winters ago when there was a bitter cold snap in Minnesota with very little wind (those two weather phenomena seem to go together) Xcel Energy was pleading with residents to lower their thermostats to conserve gas. They didn’t say they needed it for generating electricity but that was the primary reason. Xcel is my supplier of gas and electricity here in Colorado and they have been doing the same thing of shutting down coal plants and installing a lot of solar “farms” just east of Denver (a mile long/half mile deep installation is just a couple miles from my home in SE Aurora) as well as wind turbines on the eastern plains. So we are being set up for the same problems seen elsewhere and is being driven by the deep blue legislature/governor claiming we must be NetZero by sometime in the next decade. The only way we won’t have the blackouts is that Colorado is working with Texas to increase the interconnection with Texas’ ERCOT with Xcel pushing for it. I wonder why unless Xcel knows they are going to need to get electricity from out of state, not unlike California.
The same people who whine about commercial strip development being ugly and a waste of the land think gigantic solar “farms” are gorgeous.
I hadn’t read this when I posted my own comment but I totally agree, the coal-fired plant’s on-site stockpiles of coal should be factored into any kind of emergency planning and provisioning.
Even nuclear, because it is likely running at a higher capacity rating, does not have the advantages of the on-site storage of coal at a coal-fired generating plant.
I disagree. The majority of the coal-plant closings were caused not by political pressure, but by market forces. The abundance of natural gas after the hydraulic fracturing boom, and the resulting lower prices, caused utilities to replace aging equipment with high-efficiency, combined-cycle gas turbine generation. In West Virginia, where coal is locally mined and has a price advantage, coal still provides almost 90% of electric generation. KY, MO, NE, ND, and WY all generate more than half of their electricity from coal. In a striking coincidence, these are all strongly Republican states as well.
Of course, we can all make a list of the eco-lunatic states who make uneconomic choices, but where coal is most efficient it is still heavily used. And I’m saying this as a strong proponent of nuclear. 🙂
Coal needs rail. Rail needs diesel.
If Georgia’s Plant Scherer had all four unit working, totaling 3.7GW, it would demand 11 million tons of coal per year. Since it gets most of its coal from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, that works out to three to five 120 car coal trains daily. 36 trains are in operation at any given time to move the coal 1800 miles.
I heard that they closed down Unit 4, so the demand is less, but that is still one heck of a brittle supply chain. With the merger no need to transfer from BNSF to NS in Memphis.
Coal can produce diesel. Just ask South Africa. It’s not economic for most of the world right now, but it is the hedge against peak oil shutting down transport.
And there’s centuries in the ground not covered by Resource statements (Resources meaning a geologic certainty backed up by intensive drilling, as opposed to my assertion that the coal bearing strata run for hundreds to thousands of kilometers of strike length without fault cutoff that show “it stops here”).
Are mining engineers developing methods to reach some of that currently unreachable coal? (I admit to knowing nothing about the coal industry but I’m curious.)
It’s not that it’s not reachable, its that the exploration drilling would cost millions in present day for mining that would be 20 to 50 years out. From the point of view of net present value spending more than is needed that for in advance is foolish.
There are several types of underground mining that go after coal too deep to make money with truck-and-shovel open pit or dragline mine. It’s a relative cost thing, when prices go up, more becomes economic. There’s a huge international supply potential at high prices.
Are there regions that have readily accessible coal but the miners are not allowed to mine it for dubious environmental reasons?
Acid rock drainage happens where sulphide based metal deposits oxidize (rust) and form sulphuric acid. Selenium is in the same chemical family as Sulphur and oxidizes the same way.
There are some salmon and trout-bearing waterways that are at risk from Selenium poisoning. Birth defects and ma,formations are common. On the flip side, the local bighorn sheep and elk populations are among the healthiest in the world because they are the only ones getting enough Se for their brains to properly develop.
And there are natural seeps / salt licks that are 2 to 10 times above our emissions threshold, but that’s OK because it’s not human caused (/sarc)
“Acid rock….”
Oh, I thought you were going to discuss Led Zeppelin. 🙂
I didn’t directly answer your question. Commissioning a new mining lease area in Canada is a multi-year process. Disturbances must be mapped and tracked. Individual pit and spoil permits are required within the lease area with their own applications and detailed reclamations plans. Leases can be done on the strata level geology and some drillholes / outcrops. Permits require detailed geologic proof of what’s in the ground.
My employer holds the leases for over 150 miles of coal bearing ground in strata fields that have been and are still being mined. Those fields and extensions of them have hosted over 30 surface and underground coal mines over the last 100+ years. We have under 30 miles of leased outcrop mined in that time (and left what was then uneconomic coal in the ground that we re-examine the economics on every 5-10 years as price forecasts change). So, just within our leases, the potential for hundreds of more years of coal mining remain. And the lease areas frequently end at park boundaries (there’s your environmental cut-off).
Interesting- thanks!
By appending ‘intensive drilling’, I think you mean ‘Reserves’, not ‘Resources’. But with that small change, you are correct. The intensity of the drilling increases to establish the economic viability of the deposit. Resources lack the economic viability stamp; Reserves are defined by it.
Sorry Willy. But you’re wrong. To be Resources listed on a Canadian or US stock exchange there needs to be an experienced Geoscientist who will stake their professional licensing on the modeling and state of exploration (and sub-surface needs to be proven by drilling). This includes a high level pass at “with these economic settings, this is the amount contained within the model that could be economic”. I’m at the edge of this process.
Reserves status means a full multi-year mineplan for areas currently under lease that includes property permitting and development capital and equipment purchase / assembly time and Plant and Maintenance planning has been done. Ideally with multiple simulations to evaluate risks. They must use Geological Reserves at a Measured or Indicated certainty (legal terms) and have Geotechnical reports / modeling as support. With all factors included the pit must make a positive NPV. Without all that they cannot legally be called mining Reserves. This is my bread-and-butter after doing these tasks for 20 years.
When I sign and stamp a Reserves package I am staking my name and professional license on the fact that everything I have seen and worked with to develop that plan is at a level acceptable for use.
In fact, no. A Reserves are economic; Resources are just target minerals that have been more or less identified and defined — but may not be economically recoverable. Your last paragraph makes exactly this point. So, when you say Resources have extensive drilling backing them up, you are overreaching.
”Extensive” might be blocking word here. When I use that term, I mean in-fill drilling; if you mean that, then you are identifying Reserves; if not, then you mean Resources.
In the end, we are saying pretty much the same thing — just a couple of hard rock mining nerds getting caught up on terminology.
43-101 disagrees with you. Agreed it’s a terminology difference. On the NY exchange both Reserves and Resources need to meet an economic test; the test is much more rigorous for Reserves. There is a massive difference between “known well enough to include in a geologic model” and “able to be disclosed in a market filing as Resources”.
PS I suspect we’re divided by a common language. Resource and Reserves (capitalized) are legal terms with direct meanings to the stock market. Non-capitalized resources are things that could potentially be used to make something else (“the trees in my backyard are a resource if the power stays out for more than a day in winter”), and reserves are everything you are holding back at the moment (“I get tired towards the end of a match but draw on my reserves to power through”). Common usage for the un-capitalized versions varies around the world; that’s why I’m being such a stickler in what I’m saying.
I got some “founder’s reserve” scotch whiskey a few years ago. It was longer aged than their normal 12 year old. Deliciously peaty!
It’s unclear what your point is. Gas needs a pipeline. Workers need cars, which need fuel. Bread needs grains grown in fields. Every product needs something.
Transportation modes have weaknesses — but rail is by far the most reliable for moving stuff from point A to point B.
It’s not market forces but state government forces. Here in Colorado, real close to those coal mines in Wyoming, is closing our coal plants. But that’s because our idiots in the legislature, now controlled by far left-wingers, has declared we must go NetZero. I used to see long coal trains heading down along the front range to coal burning plants. But the number of trains has dropped considerably. And our utility costs have gone up.
Isn’t it amazing how regulatory fiat, or banning market access, are blamed as “market forces” when the dependable system can no longer be run. It’s almost like the people pushing the replacements have no idea what an open market looks like.
A coal mine I worked for said they wanted to use their waste (non coking) coal to generate electricity. They asked the government regulators for the emissions standards that must be met for said generation. The response was a set of standards that would shut down / could not be met by any crematorium in the nation. This is what I mean by “banning market access”.
“It’s almost like the people pushing the replacements have no idea what an open market looks like.”
Bureaucrats and academics have zero clue about any market place- including the market for THEIR jobs, since they have powerful labor unions.
Most of those on the left find it impossible to believe that the market can survive with out 100’s of thousands of pages of government regulation.
Don’t forget federal forces from EPA. They put out regulations during Obama/Biden that many coal plants can’t meet without expensive new equipment. And with the trends established of more and more anti-coal regulations, why spend even more money to burn on stranded assets?
One (at least one) coal plant in Wokeachusetts spent 50 million bucks to enhance it’s emissions reductions- then when they completed that, it was forced to shut down- and then they had a party to watch blowing up the exhaust stack. F*****s!
In Victoria, Australia the coal mines are/were right beside the power plants that burned the coal. It was being delivered from the coal face to the the furnaces on conveyor belts.
Those coal plants have been shut down by government regulations and we’ve gone from the cheapest electricity in the world to some of the world’s most expensive in just over 20 years.
In the mean time our industrial base has been destroyed, the feckless government has banned gas stoves and heating in new build homes from 1 Jan this year, and is trying to stop existing ones being replaced by new ones when they wear out/break.
All this comes down to government actions and regulations.
“The majority of the coal-plant closings were caused not by political pressure, but by market forces.”
Sure, that’s a factor, but in many states they wanted to end coal so they did whatever they could to make it less successful in the market place while vigorously promoting ruinables- and don’t forget all the subsidies that aid ruinables in that market place.
It is true in some regions and for some plants that market forces have led to gas replacing coal. But as a general statement, you are wrong. Moreover, you are blurring the line that separates ‘policy-driven cost increases’ with ‘market forces’. That said, it is true that, all else equal, gas-fired plants are more efficient than coal. But that isn’t a full analysis of why the coal plant closed.
The point of the article is that coal is strategically important, irreplaceable as part of the energy mix. It’s like sourcing all of your inputs from a single, low-cost supplier — sure, that works…right up to the point when it doesn’t. There is economic value in ‘real options’ — and the fool ignores this optionality to his peril. Unfortunately, when the fools are in charge of the grid, the optionality can only be effectuated at the home level.
Coal stores in piles on the ground that can last for months to years. Natural gas needs low temperatures or high pressures. Oil or diesel needs storage tanks and protection from water infiltration. Wind and solar are only storable by changing form. Nuclear is a viable option, I confess I don’t know enough about the supply chain to advise.
I grew up with wood heat in the house. We couldn’t depend on electricity; we were near the end of a long run through mountainous terrain. There is a huge comfort in knowing that the energy supply that will keep your family alive is resilient. There’s also a lot of comfort in knowing how to use a chainsaw and drive a pickup at 13 (side skills of the many hours of work needed to get our winter supply).
Wood warms you 3 times: cutting it, preparing and moving it, burning it. The Society of American Foresters decades ago had a saying, “wood is good”. But now the enviros say trees must not be cut, while sitting in their fine wood home, with fine wood furniture and tons of paper products.
What’s the difference between an environmentalist and a developer?
The environmentalist already has a house in the woods.
Coal good. Climate activism bad. It is just that simple.
The Coal Haters, who have been waging the War on Coal since President Zero have done enormous damage to Coal Power and to the coal industry. Yes, NG was also responsible for some of coal’s decline, which is a handy deflection on their part, pretending that the War on Coal never happened. The last coal plant still operating in New England (as a “Peaker Plant”), Merrimack Station, in Bow NH was closed permanently last year, with plans by the current owner Granite Shore Power to build a “renewable energy park” in its place. Oh goody. A “park”. With lots of trees, and foot and bicycle paths and places for people to have picnics amongst the bees, bunnies, and butterflies. Riiiiight. Just like how wind and solar installations are “farms”.
Can’t wait to have a picnic amidst ruinables. 🙂
“In Massachusetts, a state that eliminated every coal plant in the last decade, the price of electricity is 30 cents per kWh second only to California. Yet Governor Maura Healy blames high rates on President Trump.”
When she was attorney general she fought to stop proposed new gas pipelines. Now she says she wants them- until of course, after the election, if she wins again. Not only closed the coal plants here, but immediately blew up the smokestacks.
While the United States shut down the majority of their coal fired electrical generating stations, China proceeded with new plants, first typical boiler steam,, then supercritical steam and now hypercritical steam for the newest plants, almost half of the new generating power. Angularly, China is behind in the use of sCO2 bottoming units, but interest in Brayton cycle CO2 plants are the first step in the U.S. to the Helium cooled SMRs on the horizon.
Don’t forget coal, with Brayton and sCO2 water usage declines and efficiency increases.
One significant, but underreported, characteristic of coal is the ability to create significant, multi-month, on-site stockpiles of the fuel that are independent of the stored fuel supplies in other electricity generating plants. Yes, they compete against other users during the time of the original purchasing of the coal but, once purchased, they can run for months on what they are able to store on-site.
This singular feature around on-site storage is likely why coal plants were able to increase electrical output in the middle of a widespread, long-duration cold snaps.
Even our most responsive generating source from natural gas has far more limited ability tap into natural gas reserves from around the country. Add in that all of the generators are cross-linked via the gas pipelines and have competition for that gas from other residential and commercial uses and, it seems to me, that coal stands out against all other sources when we need more electricity the most.