Archived Story

Nation needs to understand ‘coal’ hard truth

Published 8:58am Thursday, May 9, 2013

The World Resources Institute reports there are 1,200 new coal-fired power plants being planned in 59 countries, with three-quarters in China and India.

India has plans for 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is experiencing a slowdown after a vast building program in the past decade.

Developing countries such as Guatemala, Cambodia, Morocco, Namibia, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan, are planning coal-fired plants when they produce almost no coal at all.

In Europe; Germany, the UK and France remain top 10 importers, and coal use is on the rise. Coal led the UK’s energy generation mix, accounting for 42.8 percent of energy supplied in 2012, surging from around 30 percent in 2011.

Households in economies with a high penetration of wind and solar pay more for their electricity. Consumers in Germany, Spain, Denmark and Portugal pay twice as much for their electricity as those living in Australia; where gas produces 12 percent, renewables 7 percent and coal 56 percent of electrical generation.

International experience shows when regulatory requirements are used to increase a nation’s share of intermittent renewables, the result is high retail electricity prices.

John Hatton, Britain’s Cabinet official responsible for energy, will speak about the future of coal during a speech to the free market Adam Smith Institute in London. Hutton’s remarks are a clear sign that the British government will approve plans to build Britain’s first coal-fired power plant since 1984 at Kingsworth, Kent.

A further seven coal-fired plants are in the pipeline if minsters give the go-ahead to Kingsworth. Ministers insist they recognize the environmental concerns, claiming Britain was taking a global lead on clean coal power generation. They argue they could not afford to play fast and loose with energy supplies and must insure “the lights stay on.”

In the U.S. a growing number of renewable projects are being canceled or delayed because of unwillingness to add even small amounts to consumers’ electricity bills. Electricity generated from wind or sun still generally costs more — sometimes much more — than the power generated by coal or natural gas.

The Wall Street Journal reports “legislatures in half the states that require electric utilities to buy renewable energy are considering proposals to roll back those mandates.”

These mandates have helped fuel a huge expansion of U.S. solar and wind capacity in recent years. There are no federal laws requiring utilities to purchase renewable energy, but mandates require it in 29 states.

At least 14 of those states, including Ohio, have introduced bills that would water down or repeal renewable energy mandates.

Texas state representative Scott Sanford said he wrote a bill because he is opposed to government mandates. In an interview he stated, “they need to be developed with free-market principles, not with the heavy hand of government directing us to an inefficient process.”

Subsidies for renewable-energy cause electricity prices to rise.

Germany’s large industrial power consumers have seen electricity prices rise nearly 40 percent in the past five years, according to the Cologne Institute for Economic Research.

Michael Huther, the institute’s director, said data shows that energy-intensive industries are curtailing investment in Germany because of higher electricity charges.

In Europe, the only reason why renewable energy is growing is because it is being subsidized by governments that are technically insolvent.

At some point the renewable energy system built on government subsidies that no one can afford will lead to a spectacular crash, at which time power generation reverts to the cheapest fuel source — coal.

Joseph P. Smith


Pyro-Chem Corporation

South Point


The Tribune believes it is possible for people with a variety of points of view to discuss issues in a civil manner and will remove comments that, in our opinion, foster incivility. We want to encourage an open exchange of information and ideas. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. By contributing to this website, you agree not to post any defamatory, abusive, harassing, obscene, sexual, threatening or illegal material, or any other material that infringes on the ability of others to enjoy this site, or that infringes on the rights of others. Any user who feels that a contribution to this website is a violation of these terms of use is encouraged to email, or click the "report comment" link that is on all comments. We reserve the right to remove messages that violate these terms of use and we will make every effort to do so — within a reasonable time frame — if we determine that removal is necessary.

  • mickakers

    deist; My compliments on your insight in regard to China and India.

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    CONVERSE COUNTY, Wyo. (AP) — It happens about once a month here, on the barren foothills of one of America’s green-energy boomtowns: A soaring golden eagle slams into a wind farm’s spinning turbine and falls, mangled and lifeless, to the ground.

    Killing these iconic birds is not just an irreplaceable loss for a vulnerable species. It’s also a federal crime, a charge that the Obama administration has used to prosecute oil companies when birds drown in their waste pits, and power companies when birds are electrocuted by their power lines.

    But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly. Instead, the government is shielding the industry from liability and helping keep the scope of the deaths secret.

    (Report comment)

  • deist

    Yes coal will be used in the forseeable future. And using China and India as examples to follow is simply not wise. China and India are second world nations at best. They waste and pollute as we did starting the industrial revolution. Wind, solar, and other alternative power sources are our future and must be developed today for use in the near future. To not start now is simply irresponsible.

    (Report comment)

  • 79Tiger

    Wind, solar and hydrogen may be sources of energy in the future but let the market work to make them affordable and efficient. In the meantime, you cannot disregard what has worked and worked well for years in favor of something that is not sustainable for America’s energy usage. Why punish valid producers of energy now for something that may or may not be viable sources of energy in the future? Government does not belong in the equation as government is not proficient at anything other than wrecking economies.

    (Report comment)

  • mikehaney

    Joseph Smith–agree with all of this. We need coal at this time and into the future. Don’t know what energy sources the future will give us; but for now,Coal.
    Solar and wind is not even close to our needs at this time.

    (Report comment)

  • mickakers

    Joseph P. Smith; Yours is a backward mentality. Coal is fast becoming an outdated source of energy. Wind and in particular Solar are the future. At the present time these two sources of energy are in the infant stage and naturally more expensive. I feel Natural Gas still has it’s place. The mining and use of Coal has caused unfathomable damage to the earth and it’s peoples and continues to do so. Cheap is not always better. And by the way, my compliments on a good snow job.

    (Report comment)

Editor's Picks