Why the US Is Ditching Coal as an Energy Source || Peter Zeihan

Other than a slight bump in sales during the holidays (shoutout to all the naughty kids), coal has been on the decline for quite a while now. With more environmentally friendly alternatives surging into the spotlight, how does coal fit into the energy framework?
Full Newsletter: mailchi.mp/zeihan/why-the-us-...
Where to find more?
Subscribe to the Newsletter: bit.ly/3NyQu4l
Subscribe to the KZbin Channel: bit.ly/3Ny9UXb
Listen to the Podcast: spoti.fi/3iJyNEe
Zeihan on Geopolitics website: zeihan.com/
Purchase the Global Outlook Webinar Here: bit.ly/3xBvRxd
Where to find me on Social Media?
Twitter: bit.ly/3E1E95D
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3zJAW8b
Instagram: bit.ly/3IW2mgp
Facebook: bit.ly/3ZIAjHk
#coal #energy #cleanenergy

[@MichaelF350]

Hi…power engineer here…. Thank you for explaining this to people, you hear so many people think that their electricity would be cheaper if we burned more coal, which is based on a political narrative that they have been told and not reality. One correction, anthracite coal, it is the best coal, but is not used in any power plants. It is used for home heating and some specialized uses, but too expensive for power plants. It primarily found in eastern Pennsylvania in the US.

[@user-us3xi7se5b]

This is what happens when out-of-touch people want it their way to make themselves feel better. Thank you for your insight.

[@mrjava66]

An additional important difference is that gas and oil are fluids. You can move them around the country and around your facility with PIPES. This makes these substances much easier to work with.

[@Pappagar]

we used to use anthracite coal to heat our house, it was a pain, but cheap and you'd never get a more "pure" feeling heat. Felt amazing

[@rollyknevels3570]

I like wood but I also daydream all day.

[@aowen2471]

@@mrjava66 except when pipelines are cancelled either locally or federally because it's "fossil fuel" then it's back onto rail & trucks!

[@paul261]

Hey Peter, great stuff but need to clarify some things on the power side. Anthracite has not been used in power since early 60’s. And primary use was still in homes with coal chutes. Anthracite is not possible for power generation because it cannot burn in suspension, it has too little volatile matter (when looking at both proximate and ultimate coal analyses). Although it has a higher btu/lb than bituminous it cannot burn as rapidly as the bituminous. There is a large amount of bituminous in Ohio, Kentucky etc, but that is phased out because most of the low sulphur bituminous coal remaining is too costly to mine. Sub-bituminous is the same as powder river basin (PRB) coal. This has an even lower btu/lb rating and higher reflectivity in the ash. To balance the cost and efficiency many plants run a PRB/Lignite or PRB/bituminous blend. But here’s the catch. Boilers (Steam Generators) are sized on the post combustion byproducts of the design coal, so to burn a lower btu/lb coal that means you need to burn more coal to get the heat input to meet your MCR (maximum continuous rating) -or- design maximum output. This reduces resonance time and increases the lbs of coal, and is less efficient - recall the ash reflectivity, well when ash deposits on tube banks in the boiler it will reflect the radiation/radiant heat back into the gas pass reducing effective heat transfer at that location. So it creates a larger waste disposal problem, larger supply problems and - in fact - to bargain better rail rates on PRB coal they have shut the plant down for weeks to hurt the profit of the rail company and put pressure on the rail from the seller in Wyoming. So it’s not a great trade-off, we just work our hardest to keep the plant heat rate low to minimize waste (or minimize excess emissions per kilowatt-hour) typically measured as btu/kw-hr. Most Texas lignite legacy units will operate at around 9-10,000btu/kwh. So at 100 tons of coal per rail car, you can run 30 cars of coal a day. Here’s the tricky part - the power grid prices have traditionally been based on the price of natural gas. So PJM, ERCOT, and the boys pay the same indifferent of fuel type. Back in the 80s? Help me out here friends on the timeline, but when natural gas was a premium, expensive, everyone built coal plants because mining coal was cheaper than natural gas market prices. So as natural gas price increased profit increased and had sustainable competitive advantage against plants running on natural gas. Well with fracking, and low gas prices really put a strain on large companies that bet on high gas prices (plants operate about 30 years, +\- 10). If you don’t believe me take a deep look into Luminant/Texas Utilites - they closed a lot of natural gas plants and ran the coal units. When prices of gas dropped they became less profitable and in part contributed to their bankruptcy. Combined cycle power plants remain popular today because they use natural gas and have a heat rate around 6700-6900 btu/kwh. So that’s pretty efficient compared to a low sulphur blended fuel, and prices remain lower, for now. As prices rise, we will start seeing it in our electric bill. Moving in the direction of Europe. But for now - turning the lights on with a switch is still a great magic trick for nerds like me. And for anyone who read this far - I owe ya a beer.

[@Sleepy7666]

Appreciate the information! Thank you!

[@jakefromspace4659]

Am a licensed boiler operator. Thanks for the refresher course!

[@paul261]

@@Sleepy7666 you bet!

[@ericberg2131]

Wyoming coal is not anthracite. It is bituminous with a very low sulfur content which makes it a high quality coal. The only anthracite mines are in Pennsylvania.

[@buzzyhardwood2949]

The coal in the Powder River Basin is almost exclusively known as sub-bituminous because of its lower heat content. The only part of the basin on the Wyoming side that has some full bituminous rating is on the western edge near Sheridan, WY. The coal beds beds steeply dip on this side of the basin so there is very little mining. I don’t know about the coal mines up at Decker, MT as to the quality mined there. I do know that the pits on the Wyoming side are approaching , and in some cases have exceeded 400 feet (130 meters) deep. It is now uneconomical to mine at this depth. The closing of the massive Belle Ayr mine a few years back was the warning siren going off. Yes, there are tens of billions of tons of coal in the basin but the seams are thinner, non-contiguous, and WAY TOO DEEP to economically mine.

[@ericberg2131]

@@buzzyhardwood2949 good point. Stripping ratios must be getting quite high for the lay backs.

[@paul261]

It’s Sub-bituminous, which has a lot more volatile matter (when pulverized it’s the gaseous portion of the carbon allowing for more spontaneous combustion by comparison. Sub by two is cool is really only valued due to its low sulfur content making units that were built before sulfuric acid removal equipment (scrubbers) Were legally required. sub-bituminous coal has a lower BTU per pound and requires higher volumes of combustion to meet the same requirements. To make the same megawatts.

[@jkbrown5496]

Coal was the original "alternative fuel". It replaced wood which was becoming an availability crisis in the 11th century.

[@Withnail1969]

That's right. How do you think the Royal Navy became so powerful? It's because we had a lot more trees than most countries left over for shipbuilding since we needed a lot less timber for firewood.

[@ktvindicare]

@@Withnail1969 Fun trivia, Timber was one the US' first biggest imports as a colony. American trees were strong and plentiful and exactly what Britain needed for just about everything.

[@Withnail1969]

@@ktvindicare European history up until the 19th century was essentially about wood.

[@timothykeith1367]

Coal saved the forests of Europe.

[@Withnail1969]

@@timothykeith1367 That's right and it meant wood was available for all kinds of furniture and more housing. Coal was a huge boost to the economy.

[@souravjaiswal-jr4bj]

Last year India imported 12.4 mt of US coal, almost 100% growth since 2022. Powder river basin coal is of highest quality, low sulphur low ash coal out there. There will always be demand for US coal as long as export terminals are built.

[@frequentlycynical642]

Nothing to do with export terminals. Just demand. And someday India will use alternatives. Just like we are. They are smart people and have zillions of engineers.

[@daniellarson3068]

There will always be a demand for buggy whips too. Just not all that much.

[@redcoltken]

India can go nuclear but that would take time

[@jorgemarmolejolu6222]

India is also in a transition, they use whatever they can for now but eventually will make the switch

[@adarshpandey8023]

India has nuclear electricity generation capacity much lowee than even france and japan, even vietnam has more. So Indian dependance on coal is not going away any soon.

[@HKim0072]

While the European settlers realized American was bountiful in natural resources, no one would have expected this. Really are fortunate: energy, arable land, relatively good weather.

[@Chris.starfleet]

I just want to point out ... RELATIVELY good weather.

[@nicholassmith7984]

I'm often curious how things might have been if the Vikings stayed after arriving first.

[@here_we_go_again2571]

@@nicholassmith7984 If they had landed further South than Canada (some say they went as far south as Cape Cod -- or New England) they might have been able to make a go of it

[@HKim0072]

@@Chris.starfleet Yeap, I think India and Russia are the other countries with the most arable land. Pretty sure the weather in the US is a leg up on both countries.

[@DK-ev9dg]

That's why creating turmoil in every corner of the world. Russia also has everything and China also has almost everything.

[@gregorytoddsmith9744]

Cheers from the bituminous coal fields of Wyoming. I'll be at some of the mines in the Powder River Basin today. My vocation takes me there. We flare more natural gas in the basin in one day than New York state would need for a month. Crude oil is collected from those wells. We have thousands of wind generators in Wyoming with more coming online this summer. Oh that wind blows here! We have solar fields as well. We are the Energy State.

[@daniellarson3068]

And the state is smart enough to not put all the eggs in one basket. Bill Gates is trying to get a nuke built there.

[@Elpolloloco-li9cn]

How much is your monthly bill?

[@guiwhiz]

@@Elpolloloco-li9cn I don't know about that person's particular bill, but I can tell you how much my cousin and her husband pay... less than $100.00 per month for their TOTAL utility bills. Gas, electric, and water and the bulk of the bill is the water bill because the water and sewage treatment plants are funded that way.

[@ElMeanYo22]

Texas is the energy state, but you guys are catching up

[@FromPovertyToProgress]

Are there no natural gas pipelines running into Powder River to capture the natural gas? If not, then there should be.

[@robf5230]

I was so anti-fracking when it first blew up, like most people given the news at the time. Earthquakes! Flammable well water! What a plot twist that it's become a major player in cleaner energy, and that most of the panic was just sensation. But I do feel for the coal communities. The workers were mistreated for generations, and now they're scaling back on what little's left.

[@joeltucci1916]

It was bound to happen anyway, more efficient methods of excavation have eliminated lots of miner jobs. Coal mining jobs peaked way before coal extraction did.

[@thehunzz]

Buddy of mine once went to a pro-coal miner protest, just so he could hook up with a female protester.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

Most shale plays are already declining. We'll be back to coal firing in a decade or two. Look at how fast North Sea oil and gas was depleted.

[@nicholassmith7984]

The big red-flag for me when it comes to fracking is how secretive gas companies are over the chemical being pumped into the ground to extract the gas, and what happens if it gets into a water source.

[@CharlesVaughn-bm9gq]

C’mon, earthquake?!

[@tombayley7110]

Minor fact check - the primary fuel at the start of the industrial revolution was the gravitational potential energy in water. Coal took over later after the re-invention of the steam engine. As a result many uk industrial towns are under high threat of flash flooding due to climate change because they were built in areas of fast flowing water. The steam engine was arguably originally ancient Greek but re invented and applied by the British.

[@danieparriott265]

The ancient Greeks never used it as anything but a toy. The Brits made it an ENGINE that did useful work.

[@TurboLoveTrain]

This was the first thing that came to my mind as well. Water was the foundation of early mechanical devices then it became heating water with wood which rapidly was replaced by heating water with coal... but wind and water were the foundation of "mass production" long before coal entered the mix.

[@janvesely3279]

Coal power production in USA peaked in 2007 (~2000 TWh/y) and since then it has fallen to ~800 TWh/y in 2023. During the same time the renewable production rose by about 600TWh/y and gas by about 800 TWh/y. The difference is not that big. That extra 200 TWh/y of production is caused by the decline of fossil fuels other than coal and gas (~40 TWh/y), decline of nuclear power production (~ 40 TWH/y) and the growth of consumption (~120 TWh/y).

[@shifteeninjee9641]

Is there a good source to look these numbers up?

[@CaedenV]

​@@shifteeninjee9641the eia.gov website has all the raw numbers if you want to put them in excel, and they also have some interesting reports and charts they make themselves too... But it's faster to copy/paste and make a chart than to dig through random reports to find a good one

[@Propelled]

The forced decline

[@uhliuv]

in Europe we see a decline of the consumption caused by many solar systems installed on the privet properties specifically for privet use offgrid ... this way the grid and electricity suppliers measure a decline in consumption ...

[@Brookaveli]

www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ Lots of good info here. If you scroll down a little ways there is a stacked line graph that shows how total energy production and the mix of sources has changed over the years.

[@Alex_Plante]

The comments are great! They are as informative as the video (maybe more).

[@holysmoke7043]

Thank you for the information.

[@michaeldowson6988]

Acid rain - that's why we dropped coal for energy production. Canada helped by selling hydro-electricity to the US. Powder River metallurgical coal is being exported to Asia, partly through the Port of Vancouver, Canada. We have 3 coal terminals in Vancouver but nixed plans to build a fourth terminal.

[@guru47pi]

Acid rain is why coal power plants put in extra filters on their smoke stacks. The real reason coal is dying is that natural gas is cheaper, and it was heavily subsidized for decades before that.

[@t6v5c2]

“Acid rain” 😂

[@richdobbs6595]

@@guru47pi A better term for the equipment used to remove sulfur (and hence acid rain) than "filters" is scrubbers. Filters would be to remove particular matter - fly ash.

[@gviehmann]

My high school had a recurring experiment measuring pH of rain water. Went often as low as 2.2 in the 80ies. Stronger than vinegar.

[@frequentlycynical642]

@@richdobbs6595 I love intelligent people!

[@stantheman9072]

I live in KY’s coal region. The coal mining companies have turned over multiple times. They seem to last as long as their current contract holds. The names are often the same, but the combinations and partnerships are a lot more fragile. Some seams have value for containing deposits of rare earth materials, but not in a huge volume that would make them highly profitable so that great hope has been marginalized by reality over the past decade. The majority of the coal being mined has slowly converted over the past 40 years from going to power generation at big utility companies in the southeast to gaining more international customers. Closing the huge gaps in the infrastructure for delivering it to them has been one of the biggest obstacles to overcome. The shipping process had to be completely redone.

[@TheVeritas2100]

Nazi Germany had a fully developed technology which produced the gas ( from coal) when they lost the oil fields towards the end of the WWI in South-Eastern Europe! So why not convert all the American Coal Regions in to ( clean) Gas Region 🙂

[@candybanks8717]

I was just a little west of where you are, Peter. I made a delivery to 20 Mile Coal, up by Oak Creek. Used to be the #1 longwall mine in the world. Used at the Craig and Hayden power plants just down the road from them. Fly ash from coal is where we get a lot of our cement.

[@hydroac9387]

If you look at net CO2 emissions for the US you'll see that they hit a peak ~2006 and since have actually gone down. And that is with a modestly expanding population. We doing more with less. The reason is just what you suggest: the power generation switch from coal to natural gas

[@Les_S537]

There are two reasons the US emissions have dropped. Number 1 is that since the 1970's when coal was 65% of US power production we have been replacing coal power plants with natural gas power plants to the point that now only around 19% of our energy comes from coal. Number 2 is that we have made much more efficient appliances that use less energy overall, but use what energy they do way more efficiently. So we've been burning the candles at both ends, so to speak. But we need to do away with all emissions from power generation, and we will eventually.

[@paul261]

But what percentage of the CO2 emissions do utilities make up for because it can’t be 100% I’d say closer to 25 or 30%

[@Les_S537]

​@@paul261 Here's how much CO2 man produced last year. Sorry for the length but wanted to be thorough. 1 Coal Last year mankind strip mined ~7.5 billion tons of coal out of the crust of the earth, and burned it. Burning 1 ton of coal will produce around 3 tons of CO2 (you have 1 ton of carbon atoms in the coal, and when burned it combines with 2 atoms of oxygen which produces the CO2 molecules). Not all coal is the same, but a ton of anthracite coal (rare) will produce 3.6 tons of CO, and a ton of sub-bitumous coal will produce around 2.8 tons of CO2. So 7.5 billion tons of coal produces 22.5 billion tons of CO2 2. Oil Last year mankind pumped 37 billion barrels of oil out of the crust of the earth (102 million barrels a day), and burned it mostly as transportation fuels. About 81% of every barrel of oil goes towards producing gasoline/diesel/jet fuel. One barrel of oil will produce 19-20 gallons of gasoline, 12 gallons of diesel, and 4 gallons of jet fuel. A gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of CO2, a gallon of diesel produces 22 lbs of CO2, and a gallon of jet fuel produces 21-22 lbs of CO2. So a barrel of oil produces 400 lbs of CO2 from gasoline, 264 lbs of CO2 from diesel, and 88 lbs of CO2 from jet fuel which adds up to a grand total of 752 lbs of CO2. So 37 billion barrels of oil produces 14 billion tons of CO2 3. Natural gas Worldwide production of natural gas was around 7 trillion cubic meters. Burning 1 cubic meter of natural gas will produce 6 lbs of CO2. So we produced 21 billion tons of CO2 from burning natural gas. Conclusion? 21 billion tons of CO2 from natural gas 14 billion tons of CO2 from gasoline/diesel/jet fuel 22.5 billion tons of CO2 from coal Equals a total of 57 billion tons of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

[@michaelcap9550]

The greenies still aren't happy.

[@uncipaws7643]

Austria already stopped operating its own coal mines and decommissioned coal power plants or converted them to gas. However coal is still required for making steel, so is imported from Poland and Slovenia. Voestalpine (the country's most important steel company) is working on new steel making processes that don't require coal, but until they are fully implemented it will still be a couple of years.

[@dzcav3]

Coal-free steel will be more expensive. People are going to have to pay more money to feel good about themselves. Poor people will suffer.

[@TheBeingReal]

The only way to make steel without coal is with an EAF process that uses scrap metal. That process does not yet make quality steel for exterior / finished applications like automotive and appliances.

[@frequentlycynical642]

@@dzcav3 Life sucks.

[@Simple_But_Expensive]

@uncipaws7843 Isn’t coal free steel called iron?

[@TheBeingReal]

@@Simple_But_Expensive Nope.

[@quemahoning]

Coal in the Powder River Basin is not Anthracite aka hard coal. Powder River Basin coal is low quality sub- bituminous coal. It produces less heat per ton than higher quality bituminous coal mined from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Anthracite coal or hard coal is found in a geographically small area of eastern Pennsylvania.

[@daniellarson3068]

But it's low Sulfur so you don't get as much acid rain

[@buzzyhardwood2949]

Thanks for correacting Peter on this very salient fact. Not only is it sub-bituminous but the original mining plans , written in the late 70 s to early 80s were for 40 years of mining. Well, times up!

[@TexasRiverRat31254]

@@buzzyhardwood2949 Peter states opinions as facts in a very convincing manner.😂

[@quemahoning]

Yes, it is low-sulfur coal, but at 8,500 BTUs it is still low-quality coal. It may be regarded as a high-quality reserve, in that the coal is found in a 50-foot thick seam making it highly economical to mine on a large scale. I would not be opposed to calling it a high-quality reserve. Some coal seams in western Pennsylvania produce low-sulfur coal at 14,000 BTUs out of the pit--nearly twice the energy for the same amount of sulfur. This is what I regard as high-quality coal--too good to go straight to power plants. It is used for making steel or for blending with low-quality coal to bring it up to power plant specifications.

[@iananderson8498]

I grew up in the UK during 1940-1960 period when coal was the major power source. Gas was made from coal. I can tell you pollution was terrible - house windows needed cleaning weekly, washing get covered in soot, fog turned to smog, and people coughed up black mucus, and many people has lung problems (even non-smokers).

[@kennethkaminski3438]

Thank you, Peter. That was a simple, yet very informative explanation of what’s going on with the grid, cool and green energy.

[@inflationmillionaire-df3mn]

states with coal plants have the cheapest cost of energy in the usa. In kansas they are using a coal plant to provide energy for a japanese battery factory, you can't make this up.

[@EdBate]

no they dont. wind and solar are already cheaper. geothermal is cheaper, gas-combined cycle is cheaper stop coping coal is trash

[@inflationmillionaire-df3mn]

@@EdBate nonsense

[@EdBate]

​@@inflationmillionaire-df3mn Renewables are cheaper now. you want me to hold your hand and show the data? natural gas is almost 25% more affordable. why do you want to keep polluting the planet with coal? is it nostalgia?

[@jmpattillo]

The coal in Wyoming is not anthracite.

[@ernesthale2471]

Thanks!

[@williamcathcart7994]

Thank you.

[@randallporter4835]

The power plant in Indianapolis convert to gas years ago from coal. My family is from Letcher County Kentucky and all of the mines are pretty much shut down and the area has pivoted to cultural tourism. They know King Coal is not coming back and those big old cold trucks won't be wining down the road any more.

[@paulmitchell5349]

NUCLEAR is not pronounced NU KU LAR , or is it ?

[@mikepaulus4766]

It is, by people who pronounce it that way. It isn't by people who pronounce it nuc le er.

[@JamesSims]

Nu- clear. Think: “Nucleus of a cell “.

[@HighPorte]

As a property owner in coal township pa we are eagerly awaiting the infrastructure stimulus.

[@Darhan62]

Peter Zeihan is like a book. Lots of information.

[@philtimmons722]

sometimes a comic book. Not always really educational. ;P

[@tubepass100]

What about the coal used in steel production? Is it significant and is it available in the US?

[@wertigon]

It is a matter of money. If it is cheaper to use other forms of energy, coal will also disappear from the Steel Industry. It sure as heck does not make sense to burn for electricity.

[@geneharrogate6911]

@@wertigon It not just about energy. Metallurgical coal is a key ingredient in steel making.

[@7891ph]

The US is still a world leader in metallurgical coal; Virginia/West Virginia have some of the best in the world, and are some of the still active mines, but a lot of it is for export.

[@michaeldowson6988]

@@wertigon Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon, so metallurgical coal is needed.

[@wertigon]

@@michaeldowson6988 It all depends on the processes and how cheap or expensive they get. There are already processes in place, do a search for carbon free steel. If I can get coal based steel for $50 and carbon free for $30, who the heck is going to buy the coal based steel? And the other way around, of course.

[@stephencullum8255]

I retired from a power company and worked at a coal fire plant working in the lab and operating the industrial water treatment equipment . It takes three (fast) to a week (usually) to take a coal plant, cold to full release. Gas combine cycles about an hour or two. The cheapest going right now is solar and wind. They are displacing coal fire plants. You still need the combine cycles to do night and peak demand. When not if , economical and large power storage comes fossil fuel generated electricity is going the way of buggy whip manufactures. Every once in awhile you dance in my wheel house and I find you generally correct but in the details not so much.

[@daniellarson3068]

There was a tremendous amount of technology developed for coal burning over the many years. My heavy Babcock and Wilcox book about coal sits somewhere amongst my books. Coal created the Industrial Revolution.

[@chapter4travels]

How can wind and solar be considered cheap when they only get added to a full-scale gas plant? The most they can do is offset some fuel costs but all the other plant costs are the same. But they also add cost, integration, and maintenance costs all go up. Add in too much and then you get curtailment costs.

[@stephencullum8255]

​@@daniellarson3068 We owe the coal miners a lot. Very supportive of taking care of them . Although a bit frustrated with them that many want things to stay the same and keep mining coal. The younger ones have to transfer to a industry growing not a dying one. More jobs now with solar and wind power than coal.

[@FabioCapela]

@@chapter4travels Solar needs much less maintenance than any other kind of power plant. Mostly you need to clean the solar panels, but there are relatively cheap specialized robots for doing that. It also doesn't have fuel costs, and the panels - and, with them, the initial installation costs - are getting cheaper very fast (though the US is lagging behind due to the tariffs on Chinese solar panels, which are by far the cheapest worldwide). Wind isn't quite there on costs (or, rather, solar got cheaper than wind in recent years), and it needs more maintenance than solar, though even then I believe it needs less maintenance than coal or gas. In many places it's often complimentary to solar, though, both because it also produces at night and because some of the highest winds happen in stormy or overcast days when solar production falls, making it very useful as a complement to solar. As for curtailment, that is where batteries enter the scene. With battery prices getting cheaper - and new, cheaper kinds of batteries, like the Sodium batteries that use no Lithium, starting to become commercially available - adding batteries to store excess renewable (or even fossil fuel baseload) energy and use it when demand increases and/or production falls is increasingly cost-effective. It's why one of the US states adding grid-scale batteries the fastest is Texas, as the cost to buy and store cheap baseload or renewable energy when it's abundant and sell it back when demand is higher is often already lower than the cost of building and operating a peaker plant.

[@daniellarson3068]

@@stephencullum8255 Yes - Take care of people that have sacrificed their ability to breathe freely and shortened their lives to keep the nation's lights on. If the country didn't have it's head stuck in it's derriere, some of those folks could be building new nuclear plants that take little land and would generate vast amounts of power for the next 60 years.

[@temujin23]

Glad to hear someone finally explain in coherent detail what is going on with our local power plants like Drake. Thank you for quickly breaking this all down so well.

[@daverodgers9416]

Hey Peter! Spot on concerning the coal natural gas connection. I managed a large coal fired power plant and experienced first hand the displacement of coal by natural gas. The real problem is restricting gas plants and chasing the wind solar pipe dream. Note also that Powder River Basin coal's allure is its low sulfur content, typical heating value in the 8kbtu/lbm range.

[@elvaquero5554]

I don't know if its bituminous or anthracite, but I know southern CO and northern NM have large deposits of coal. The firing lines on NRA Whittington Center near Raton are coal.

[@MrSir-qp8zj]

"Nuculear", seriously.

[@ihwras]

It’s nukular. Need to learn how to spell 😂

[@beibei93]

About time.

[@cvillefarmer]

Powder river basin coal, only advantages are low sulfer and strip mines are generally cheaper production. Coal from places like IL, IN and MO burns hotter and produces alot more btu per ton of coal. However it has mid sulfur. So they burn more tonnage of powder River basin coal than what they would with IL coal.

[@dansaville3333]

The farmland in West Virginia is being covered with solar panels so data centers in Virginia can say they use clean energy. The view from the front yard of the house I grew up in is now the backside of solar panels as far as you can see.

[@stevemac5]

Sounds like terrible / non-existing engagement with your community

[@economistfromhell4877]

Better than breathing coal fired air pollution....... and now solar is the cheapest power source on earth. Google it and give thanks to the Lord for her mercy. Free energy from the sun forever and dirt cheap.......sounds like the smell of money and opportunity - the sort of stuff that made Americans excited.....once upon a time....

[@gregorymalchuk272]

When energy supply is threatend, they'll strip off the solar panels and the overburden to access the high sulfur Appalachia coal underneath.

[@TankEnMate]

@@stevemac5 Planning laws should provide for base level engagement.

[@AndrewDasilvaPLT]

Oh, what county?

[@thomasakase]

The last part is critical. Coal is energy. It's been in the ground a long time. If and when we need it, we'll get it out of the ground, whether for use here or for exports. The need for energy isn't going away, but how we satisfy that need will constantly be changing. So, in essence, coal is not dead, it's just sleeping.

[@terrylutke]

I agree..no matter what the future holds politically, Americans will demand that their lights come on whenever they hit the wall switch. Coal will just fine with them if all else fails.

[@julianskinner3697]

Yes it's stored energy from the photosynthesis of plants which lived millions of years ago. Back then carbon dioxide was combined with water to make glucose. When we burn coal or oil or gas we release that carbon dioxide back into the air. So we have our normal background carbon dioxide and also the stored stuff from millions of years ago That's the problem.

[@rtqii]

That is over simplified. Coal is a raw material, yes it contains energy, but coal can be converted into many products.

[@DieFlabbergast]

Sweet dreams, Mr. Coal.

[@tatersncorn]

​@@rtqiibut the vast majority of it is burned to power an entire third of the planet

[@loveofsisrael]

In Colorado, there were eight coal-fired electrical power plants in 2019.

[@davidmech2956]

Brilliant

[@darthnihilus511]

We also stopped using Cole Hauser

[@gp2917]

Cole Trickle

[@davidsnyder3094]

No more Nat King COLE?? joking I also bake many mistakes on my spelling

[@frankjoseph4273]

Most coal out west is a shorter in the ground variety, bituinious having less energy .

[@darthnihilus511]

@@gp2917 😂

[@Joe-ij6of]

I sold all my Kohls stock

[@alexandruraresdatcu]

Can you try to say nuclear, just once it is not written "nucular" or whatever some Americans say....

[@marcariotto1709]

Splitting hairs over splitting atoms. If you can get people to use and pronounce the right word at the right time could you please try to get them to stop calling America a democracy for me?

[@justincheatley4882]

Peter, I love you, I love your books. I’ve read all of them twice. You need to pronounce it “New Clee Er.” Not “New Queue Lar.”

[@davidweihe6052]

That complaint is elitist. Which pronunciation is used varies by base language or dialect. According to my Physics professors, when they were in the Manhattan Project half the foreign scientists used the same pronunciation as did George W. Bush (new-cu-lar, vs. nu-cyu-lar). Thus it is orthogonal to education or intelligence.

[@bzn2sfo]

With the new EPA rules on coal fired plants, are we sunsetting generation before we have baseload replacement. Particularly with the demand from data centers, EVs? The most expensive power is when you don't have enough (see Enron). Germany was green until they didn't have enough power and had to add old-growth forest and dirty coal.

[@donaldjmccann]

Exporting coal for burning elsewhere is like pissing on your own side of the hot tub.

[@PolishBehemoth]

what the???

[@wisenber]

It's more like finding a market for your product when domestic use has been regulated out of solvency.

[@sunspot42]

@@wisenberExcept coal was never regulated out of solvency. It can’t compete in the free market with gas, much of which is a byproduct of oil production and the rest of which comes from fields with a crazy low cost of production. Much cheaper than mining and transporting coal. The flood of cheap solar power hitting the grid during the day will just be the final nail in coal’s coffin. Nuclear, too. We won’t need a 24/7 base load power source anymore, just intermittent sources which gas is best suited for (along with hydro and pumped hydro, batteries, other storage tech and - most of all but seldom discussed - aggressive demand shaping).

[@wisenber]

@@sunspot42 Except it was. And I already cited two examples of exactly that. Maryland is happening due to a Sierra Club lawsuit, and TVA specifically cited the regulatory environment for the premature retirement of plants that have been paid off for decades. It can't compete with regulations and lawsuits. Meanwhile, the Mid Atlantic faces potential outages due to lack of reliable replacements. Not having power isn't the market.

[@romanval69]

@@wisenber Regulation or not, natural gas is 1/4th the price of coal for the same amount thermal energy. I don't know of many utilities (or their customers) that will willing pay 4x more.

[@Andrew-mh2cv]

He got the names of the coal types of Powder River Basin and Appalachia wrong, but he got their properties right. Anthracite comes from Appalachia, has lots of pollutants, but burns with significantly higher BTUs, and the Powder River Basin coal is Bituminous, has much lower pollutants, but burns with much less BTUs. Also, there is enough coal in the Powder River Basin to last for a very, VERY long time. There are two seams that average about 50-ft thick and cover the square mileage of somewhere between New Jersey and Connecticut. These are the Anderson and Canyon coal seams.

[@Les_S537]

Coal, while abundant, and reliable, is a horribly inefficient fuel source. Only about 30-40% of every ton of coal burned in a coal power plant actually gets converted into electricity. Coal just sucks as a power source.

[@buzzyhardwood2949]

How deep are they? That is the most important question. The Wyodak and Fort Union coal seams are the shallowest and have about played out . I’m not disputing the amount of coal, just the accessibility.

[@jeffr6280]

Ironically, the Rehobeth Beach area of Delaware, where many of Washington D.C.'s "elite" have their summer beach homes(Including the Presidents), are powered by the Indian River coal fired power plant. Also ironic that it was supposed to be shuttered in 2022, but it's demise has been postponed at least until 2026....but likely longer as there is absolutely no alternative power source that will be ready to come on-line by then.

[@Greg-lt2jp]

That's a nice view

[@bspilcker]

Same with Australian coal.

[@oldcynic6964]

The problem in Australia is that the states (principally Vic) have plenty of gas but will not allow anyone to extract and use it. They are too busy virtue signalling. The only ray of sunshine on the horizon is the NSW Premier has declared he wants to spend money to keep the state's Eraring coal station (4*720MW) running for longer.

[@alvanrigby6361]

But without the gas and accompanied by severe fuel poverty.

[@seadkolasinac7220]

@@oldcynic6964 Burning coal doesn't make any sense, especially in Australia. With far less pollution, and for a lot cheaper, you could replace the electricity output from coal via solar panels in Western Australia. The only reason people want to persist with coal is because of their own conservative politics

[@SteveWithers]

@@oldcynic6964 Climate change is real. You're the one signaling willful ignorance.

[@frequentlycynical642]

@@seadkolasinac7220 Isn't one of your states? virtually 100% renewables now? I thought I saw a video about that.

[@drwisdom1]

Back in the 1980s the emissions from power plants became a major concern due to acid rain which was slowly killing the vegetation of states East of the power plants. Since natural gas makes less acid rain than coal, behind cost that was surely one of the motivating reasons to change over.

[@wisenber]

Coal plants had already reduced acid rain contribution by the late 1980's. That's why you see the much shorter stacks with scrubbers operating next to the giant ones that used to cause the emissions you're talking about.

[@davidhyder1632]

We haven't built a new coal fired plant since the first Clean Air Act. Building new coal plants became prohibitive because of scrubbers. As I recall, Eastern bituminous coal is high sulfur and contributed to acid rain. powder River coal has a lower sulfur content so the retrofits for power p.ants went in that direction.

[@masonm600]

Anyone remember T Boone Pickens? His whole energy "Plan for America"? Even back in '08 he thought natural gas would be a great bridge from coal to wind. Some years later he updated it to just use gas once the price dropped so much.

[@frequentlycynical642]

But wind is even cheaper than gas now. And solar is close to free if you use the "farm" for decades. New panels decline in output a fraction of a percent per year.

[@nozrep]

@@frequentlycynical642oof. fail. wind is not cheaper than gas per kilowatt hour

[@danieparriott265]

@@frequentlycynical642 I seriously doubt that it is cheaper, if you include maintenance, repair and decommissioning costs into it: Windfarms are large, fragile, diffuse systems far from where the electricity is needed (where most people live). Even routine maintenance requires many many hours of hazardous work by highly paid workers (there is a hefty premium to pay for people that are willing to travel away from home to work hundreds of feet in the air in all sorts of weather)... repair often requires large crews and equipment that rents for many hundreds of dollars an HOUR, and it's often days to the worksite .... you have an odd screen name for someone who lacks any sort of circumspection into the issue.

[@Les_S537]

@@danieparriott265 Total levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by source Coal - $82.61 Wind (onshore) - $40.23 Wind (offshore) - $105.38 Natural gas (combined cycle) - $39.94 Advanced Nuclear - $81.71 Geothermal - $37.62 Solar (stand alone) - $33.83 Solar (hybrid) - $49.03 Hydroelectric - $62.47 Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generator over its lifetime. It's a metric used to assess and compare alternative methods of energy production. The LCOE of an energy-generating asset can be thought of as the average total cost of building and operating the asset per unit of total electricity generated over an assumed lifetime. Alternatively, the LCOE can be thought of as the average minimum price at which the electricity generated by the asset is required to be sold in order to offset the total costs of production over its lifetime. The LCOE is calculated using a formula that takes into account the total capital cost of the project, the annual electricity production, the discount rate, and the project lifetime. The formula is as follows: LCOE = (C / (A * (1 - (1 + r)^-n)) + O&M) / GWh Where: C is the total capital cost of the energy project. A is the annual electricity production (in megawatt-hours per year, MWh/yr). r is the discount rate, representing the opportunity cost of the capital invested. n is the project lifetime. O&M is the annual operation and maintenance costs. This calculation provides a value representing the cost of generating one MWh of electricity over the lifetime of the project. The LCOE is a critical metric used in the energy industry to evaluate the cost of generating electricity over the lifetime of a power generation asset, and it often considers factors like the cost of capital and the project's risk profile.

[@ssssaa2]

@@frequentlycynical642 "Free" after many years with enormous upfront costs is the same as expensive. Could have just invested that money in the meanwhile and made more money. SP500 is up over 600% in the last 20 years. Worth taking into account if finances are your primary concern. This is also a big reason for poorer countries to use coal, which is often more locally available, uses older technology, and has very low upfront costs and high reliability. The Chinese boom would not have happened without coal. Though with time other sources continue to become more and more viable and eventually surely superior outright.

[@deserteagle-nx1hl]

New Zealand is desperately importing coal from Australia to avoid rolling blackouts. Coal has a long way to go, particularly with proliferation of wind turbines that perform rather poorly on cold windless winter days.

[@fudhater8592]

There's a reason they're called wind "farms", turbines are spread out to ensure constant operation

[@deserteagle-nx1hl]

@@fudhater8592 NZ has innumerable wind farms, the 10 largest onshore wind power plants stretching from Kaiwaikawe in Northland, North Island, to Kaiwera Downs, Southland, South Island. Every time one windmill thingy goes up in NZ the Australian coal miners rub their hands with glee.

[@fudhater8592]

@@deserteagle-nx1hl Um, ok, they rub their hand with glee. So what?

[@sirnukesalot24]

If we stockpile now, would that stabilize trade when that finally takes off?

[@S-sp2fe]

Well said Peter. In the follow up to this if there is one coming, you could add the energy grid itself not just the sources from an economic cost/benefit point of view. I can't remember the exact details, but there was a NOVA show about the US grid, and how much overlap that was needed to keep the lights from flickering when everyone turns their lights off at bed time or microwaves on at lunch across a city. It was something like 8 layers of overlap. That means coal will also always be around because it will be needed as a low cost buffer when prices or calamities affect the other available sources in America. Natural gas really is the future, but that's only until fusion gets figured out. Politically, nuclear is dead and coal is just as dirty to deal with, but they will all be here forever as buffers to cap up the grids growth. Just at lower and lower demand on the open market.

[@Joyce-bz]

Maybe 60% of Colorado’s energy comes from coal. I live on the front range and I see the train go by full of coal every hour

[@jonathancassels4835]

No, it's closer to half that. This is exactly what Peter is talking about. Almost universally in America, people think coal is a larger part of the energy mix than it is. www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vvvvu&geo=0000000000g&sec=g&freq=A&start=2001&end=2023&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

[@sdr24]

Yeah, but that coal on the train is going somewhere else too. I just did a dumb basic search and according to the government - about 33% of Colorado energy comes from coal. 29% from natural gas. And 37% from renewables.

[@larrymorley2579]

Most of those Colorado coal trains are heading to Texas.

[@bennorman2215]

Years ago, when I lived in Boulder, my neighbour bought a new electric car. They were unimpressed when I pointed out that they had bought a coal powered car.

[@RussClarkRocks]

@@sdr24 Now how can that be? I mean, she sees coal trains.

[@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745]

Just like in civ, if you have enough oil might as well use oil powerplants instead of coal.

[@lazynow1]

WoW, this was a one of his best videos....

[@ergoone1098]

Listening to this gave me memories to Enron and the spike in natural gas prices around 2000.... How things change. :)

[@Ctimmiller]

Worldwide coal consumption is at record highs and still climbing. The focus of the green energy movement needs to be more on the developing countries.

[@Brendan-tx3lg]

Most of that increase is coming from China which is also the country which has installed the most green energy. Even if every green energy project in the world was being built in China rather than around half they would still be building out coal to fill the gap to their generation targets. Realistically we can expect their coal use to drop in another 3-5 years once new renewable production ramps up to ~1000GW/year assuming current growth trends continue.

[@strigoiu13]

@@Brendan-tx3lg meet us in 2050 with even higher coal, plastic etc consumption than today after thousand of eco projects,meetings,treaties and so on being put in place before then

[@Brendan-tx3lg]

@@strigoiu13 Plastic sure, assuming we haven't found a cheaper alternative. Coal feels unlikely though; unless we face a big reversal on where prices are going it's just getting too (relatively) expensive. Environmental initiatives helped bring the price of renewables down, but ultimately it's the lower price that will mostly drive adoption.

[@SA2004YG]

Can you talk about NY trying to phase out natural gas?

[@mmorris2830]

They can try to pull a California, and pretend that their power isn't from a fossil fuel, but solar and wind just cannot carry the total volume of electricity required

[@flame5170]

I mean they do have bad air pollution but I think that's very optimistic on their part to say the least.

[@Art-is-craft]

@@flame5170 Natural gas is very low emissions.

[@flame5170]

@@Art-is-craft I don't mean carbon emissions, I mean air pollutants such as nitrous oxides, ozone, VOCs, and particulates. They are pretty bad for the lungs, and cause a lot of bad chronic health problems. Gasoline burned in cars also produces a lot more particulates than LNG, that cause similar damage to smoking over time. I definitely agree that natural gas is way better than coal, but it still has some problems. I can understand why they would want to phase out natural gas. However, unless they build nuclear reactors which can take a while to build I don't see how they can replace it with solar or wind as they would have a fun time finding the space.

[@augiemattheiss]

International Energy Agency (IEA) says that global coal demand reached a record high of 8.3 billion metric tons (bt) in 2022... demand was due to coal becoming more available and cheaper than gas in many parts of the world.

[@FabioCapela]

Much of that was the Ukrainian war and the sanctions preventing Russia from selling natural gas to Europe. Cutting off Russian gas starved Europe for energy, so they went back to coal, at least until they can get enough renewables to replace Russian gas up and running. US gas isn't a viable long term alternative for Europe, mind, because it's over 3x more expensive than Russian gas was. It's only being used as a stopgap solution, to be discontinued as soon as possible. I believe 2022 also had a higher than usual number of nuclear plants in Europe down for scheduled maintenance, which further reduced available power generation.

[@rdpeach]

I live in a former coal powerhouse area in Canada and it's pretty well all disappeared. It supported so many families for decades but now it's gone to the wayside and is only a memory

[@paul261]

Brutal. It’s the difference between driving to see your parents for dinner and flying to see them for dinner because jobs that pay a living wage are no longer there

[@chesslerbooks]

Peter, when you say the word Nuclear please stop saying Nuc-U-lar. It is Nuc-lee-are. It was President Eisenhower who said Nuc-u-lar, and it drove my mother crazy. Normally you are so well spoken It is a pleasure to listen to you speaking off the cuff, with no notes, just hiking at 7000 feet of altitude, while leaving a trail of excellent observations and opinions like bread crumbs in your wake.

[@JustBecause7754]

Mind your own pronunciation

[@TankEnMate]

Coal is more expensive now.

[@africaisking7817]

South Africa exports coal to a lot of countries so if it's expensive or going out of style nobody told South Africa lol

[@TankEnMate]

@@africaisking7817 In Africa the economics is different obviously. Transporting coal generally requires less infrastructure than oil or gas, so it coal will have an advantage in regions without the necessary infrastructure. Especially in areas where oil and gas are less common.

[@africaisking7817]

@@TankEnMate Then why is the coal going to Europe don't they have the "nessassarry infrastructure" why eat off South Africa ?

[@kyles3203]

In NC we had a lot of pollution issues with the coal ash

[@jamesbologeorges7002]

Always enjoy the commentary and well done. Small suggestion would be to ask you consider the proper pronunciation of “nuclear” “New-klee-er” Happy Wednesday

[@12time12]

It’s about that time where politicians will make huge promises about “clean coal” and bringing back coal generation. 🙄

[@nozrep]

why the emoji? real, actual coal scrubbers have yes actually yes been developed and yes actually for really reals do actually work. Boom. clean coal. Although, I definitely agree with you on politicians talking a bunch of trash. Both sides, all sides, even my man Trumpkin.

[@chapter4travels]

Clean coal is still more expensive than natural gas. If you took a fraction of the subsidies wasted on wind and solar and put them towards coal scrubbers, coal would be cheaper. Advanced nuclear is still by far the best solution, one where everybody wins.

[@cwx8]

Nice thing about nat gas is that converting coal plants to gas is relatively straightforward and you can retain the same employee base. We have done it here in Alberta. Emissions are 40% less with gas.

[@danieparriott265]

The best thing about most gas plants is that they can have a much smaller footprint and can be started as demand increases, and shut down as it decreases .... whereas coal plants can take a day to spin up from a cold start and a day to shut down. You can have many small ones near the population centers that need the electricity, without the expense of having a long, inefficient transmission system to bring it from a distant centralized generation plant.

[@101spacecase]

Well i would think most of the easy to get to cole in WV has been mined out etc

[@bobbastian760]

Solar and wind are pure green wash. They are very expensive (despite the lies told about them) because they must be backed up with gas peaker plants, so you build 2 power plants not 1. Nuclear should be and is the future.

[@Les_S537]

Nuclear is great, and I'm all for more of that, but are you familiar with the term LCOE? Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is where you add up all the costs for a given energy source such as the capital costs to build the power plant, add the cost of maintenance and operation, add in any sorts of subsides, et al to get an overall cost to produce electricity with that energy source. Total levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by source Coal - $82.61 Wind (onshore) - $40.23 Wind (offshore) - $105.38 Natural gas (combined cycle) - $39.94 Advanced Nuclear - $81.71 Geothermal - $37.62 Solar (stand alone) - $33.83 Solar (hybrid) - $49.03 Hydroelectric - $62.47 As you can see, solar and wind (onshore) easily beat fossil fuels

[@danieparriott265]

@@Les_S537 The numbers for wind are garbage because they do not take inflation and the ever tightening labor market into account. Finding workers that want to live on the road and work hundreds of feet in the air outside, year round is difficult and expensive. Wind farms are labor intensive, scattered over the countryside far from where people live and use the bulk of the electricity they generate, and are fragile. Peter's Demographic analysis of Gen Z points toward fewer workers and a LOT fewer workers that want to even GO outside, let alone WORK out there.

[@Les_S537]

@@danieparriott265 well, I could agree with you but then we’d both be wrong

[@romanval69]

Nuclear is great! You just have to wait 15 years and spend $200 billion before it generates a single watt of power.

[@DSHK-wb5cn]

​@@Les_S537it takes more energy to make a wind turbine than it generates over its lifespan. Wind is a joke and solar is a small scale only option.

[@Elongated_Muskrat]

The US has a crazy amount of coal, just no one wants to make new coal plants(NIMBY). China is still making coal plants and developing nations care about cheap and reliable power so it’ll always be used somewhere.

[@HKim0072]

Yeap, not running of out coal anytime soon. _Based on U.S. coal production in 2022, of about 0.594 billion short tons, the recoverable coal reserves would last about 422 years, and recoverable reserves at producing mines would last about 20 years. The actual number of years that those reserves will last depends on changes in production and reserves estimates._

[@adairjanney7109]

The hell we dont want to make new coal plants, we just are not free anymore, we are slaves controlled by a central government in the east, which is why the us is within 10 years of balkanization

[@doujinflip]

Also uneconomical to build for coal when gas is cheaper and more effective, with further pressure from dropping prices in renewables. China keeps building them because they’re trying to maintain their subsidized electricity prices, and are taking on debt accordingly.

[@richardbaxter1844]

Someone else has probably said this, but Powder River Basin is sub-bituminous, not Anthracite. PRB coal has a lower energy density than bituminous, but have a very low sulfur content, and cheap to produce (very large seams for surface mining). Anthracite is not a really good power generation fuel, and there's not a lot of it. Mostly used in residential furnaces.

[@Les_S537]

Peter is sometimes off on the details of things...

[@gmonynegro595]

@@Les_S537 Clowns usually are.

[@moz7491]

As long as we don't go back to biofuel for ships...that was a disaster 😞 Nothing like trying to clean out pumps & transfer fittings with cooled biofuel = it gums up pretty bad

[@danieparriott265]

Nearly every "Green Initiative" is that dumb .... it just takes awhile for the stupid to become readily apparent.

[@LibertarianJRT]

Coal plants can be refit to service nuclear in the long term.

[@chapter4travels]

Not if the fossil fuel backed NRC has a say in it.

[@Zakiriel]

Don't forget all the high quality Coal that got locked up under the Escalante Staircase National Monument.

[@jmpattillo]

Thank God.

[@ddoppster]

Awe, shucks! If the "Coal Ex-President" got his way, they'd be digging under the Matterhorn at Disneyland, but it's not what is really needed now.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

It will all be dug up once the gas and oil reserves go into decline.

[@Art-is-craft]

@@ddoppster So you would prefer copper to be dug up instead?

[@HKim0072]

Just went to the EIA website: never would have thought that Illinois would be #2 in coal reserves (demonstrated reserve base).

[@frequentlycynical642]

As long as they are reserves, all is well.

[@ssssaa2]

Lots of coal but its dirty af. Indiana and west kentucky too, same basin.

[@davidsimerly9212]

It is important for folks to realize that coal is a lousy fuel to handle. In many plants coal is dumped in yards then moved by conveyor to the plant thence to a pulverizer and then injected into the burner. Coal dust is an explosion and fire hazard and collects on surfaces all over the plant. In particular you need quenching systems to stop spontaneous combustion and explosions in the pulverizer. Equipment to deliver gas to the burner is both much less complex and easier to maintain and operate. Further burning coal corrodes all the exhaust equipment, etc. ect. Even if per BTU prices were the same switching to gas would quickly pay for itself.

[@erb34]

Coal takes a day, batteries take milliseconds.

[@ChestertonsFence]

Coal piles mean those facilities can outlast almost any weather event. Battery arrays capable of serving as a backbone for the grid would be massive & hugely expensive. Nuclear is the only “green” answer.

[@alexhayden2303]

Last week, John Hanekamp, a St. Louis-based coal industry consultant, told me that “the incremental coal production in India and China is exceeding whatever coal-fired generation capacity that was retired in the US and Europe. Whatever policymakers thought they were achieving by getting rid of coal, they’ve effectively done nothing but increase the cost of energy,” he said. “We haven’t changed anything but make ourselves energy poorer.”

[@cugamer8862]

Why should we care about anything a coal industry spokesman has to say? That would be like taking advice about cancer from a tobacco industry lobbyist.

[@flame5170]

Coal power is much more expensive than compared to LNG, that's the main point of the video. Also fun fact about coal is that it contains radioactive isotopes such as uranium and thorium. The coal industry produces more radioactive waste than the nuclear power industry, and nuclear power plants are required to safely store and deal with the waste, whereas the ash from coal just concentrates and releases cancer dust. There are other downsides to using coal, such as the higher criteria emissions that cause major health problems. Even if carbon emissions were the same, the US and Europe have greatly benefitted from ditching coal. We should have ditched coal much longer ago and gone nuclear, but we have fossil fuel consultants up in congress hosting fancy dinners for all the congressmen and telling them about all the benefits of the very few jobs that still exist due to mining automation.

[@kenergixllc527]

Powder River Basin is home to very low BTU coal which needs to be supplemented by petroleum coke to be useable The only reason that production from that area is shipped elsewhere is its very low sulfur content to meet emissions standards enacted in the early 1990's. Zero anthracite is mined there

[@edkallio2756]

Coal to gas switching reduces C02 emissions by about half. In the US this switching is based purely on economics (low cost shale and associated gas). In 2005 US L48 gas production was 50 Bcf/d, Canada added about 16 Bcf/d. Total NA gas production will approach 130 Bcf/d driven by coal to gas switching in power production, and LNG exports.

[@TF-lk6co]

"Nucular"

[@felixbors7546]

Not nucular.

[@alanstrong55]

Brown coal is still used in the D/FW area a good bit. Look across the Dallas skyline and it still has a brown haze. Brown coal use is seemingly responsible for that haze. Correct me if I am mistaken. 😊😊

[@JoeJohnston-taskboy]

"The Long Undeath of Coal" would an excellent book title.

[@AximandTheCursed]

Globally speaking, both usage and demand for coal has never been higher. You'll run out of either land or minerals for solar panels and wind turbines LONG before you run out of coal. The US-led decline in its usage is temporary unless the nuclear renaissance acquires some serious momentum.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

The decline in coal is temporary until the gas runs out, which is already happening. I give 2 decades max before US shale gas is depleted. Look at how fast North Sea oil and gas was depleted.

[@Art-is-craft]

@@gregorymalchuk272 US gas is not about to run out. That is absurd.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@Art-is-craft All fracking gains in shale plays have come from drillers packing up their rigs and moving them to known sweet-spots. We are tapping the source rock. There is nothing that comes after. Except mountains of high sulfur coal.

[@kelvinnwosa6885]

They will take the farm lands to grow food and convert them to solar and wind farms and then ask to feed on bugs and lab grown meals. Isn't that pitiful. By the century, china, India and Africa will be at the top of the food chain.

[@patrickweaver1105]

@@gregorymalchuk272 Or fusion. 🙄We're far from tapping out the world's gas reserves. Yes, I realize fusion power may be twenty years away forever. It's a joke.

[@gabecodina]

Does nuclear make any sense in Australia? (asking for a friend)

[@michaeldowson6988]

If you use CANDU reactors, sure.

[@sunspot42]

No. Too expensive and takes too long to build. I think one of the territories is already totally powered by renewables much of the time. With solar panel prices continuing to plummet and given how insanely sunny Australia is, it’s only a matter of time before even coal is displaced from their grid. The only real blocker at this point is the cost of energy storage. But at some point if solar continues to drop in price, a lot of that need could be solved with cheap overcapacity.

[@kenergixllc527]

Ash is a useful by product used to "solidify" waste to pass the paint filter test for landfill disposal.

[@danieparriott265]

It is also used in making both heat resistant and high strength structural concrete.

[@AdamAuxier64]

Wyoming doesn't produce Anthracite, the coal there is a type of bituminous that can only be burned in cyclone burners.

[@ianshaver8954]

We don’t like coal, and coal just isn’t that cheap.

[@baxtermullins1842]

We are stupid!

[@luisekjeldsen1515]

Your respons , suggests you are

[@TomTomicMic]

Coal has had its day, it started the industrial revolution which was a great step for mankind but other cleaner, cheaper forms of energy are available, my father "would" be glad that coal is gone and he was a coal miner, it will take the South Wales Valleys over 100 hundred years to get over most of the problems caused by mining and most of the miners died young from industrial disease and the villages had lots of widows at that time!?!

[@johnd6973]

"Nukular"? Really..?

[@IOSALive]

Zeihan on Geopolitics, I liked this video because it's awesome!

[@martinclark6952]

The US did not ditch coal, the use was exported to China.

[@leonfa259]

China already reached peak coal.

[@matthewgoedtel5998]

Capitalism

[@johnmorrison2894]

This is the truth. Everything else said in the video this is the main reason coal is used less as you said we’ve exported it to other countries. I just want to say that was written and summed up in one sentence beautifully, you have an amazing skill.

[@ahmednadim5859]

Most emissions can't be exported. Electricity, residential and commercial heating, road transportation etc. Most industrial emissions comes from steel, cement and plastics which are made for and by Americans. That's why you see American emissions by consumption (which is trade adjusted) it has fallen significantly due to cheap natural gas and renewables. But I have a question for you. Do you have only one brain cell or do have two but choose to only use one?

[@martinclark6952]

@@matthewgoedtel5998 Not free market capitalism. Command economy capitalism. Without central planners you can’t have Marxism. Why do you hate free markets? We don’t have free markets btw.

[@Gbizz]

Aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot with ditching coal as an energy source when countries like china and India are 2/3xing their coal consumption? Not saying it won't be a good thing in the future, but economically short term it seems inflationary for the US and gives more growth to competing countries (like those funding the other side of major wars). I don't understand why politics can't be a gradual transition, always so sudden and absolute... with due unforeseen (because ignored/not thought about) consequences

[@jorelo4313]

No, like he explained, coal is more expensive, keeping coal would a shot in the foot.

[@jonathanparnell3175]

Why does China and India tripling their coal consumption mean we should favor it over a cheaper, cleaner energy source?

[@karols432]

You could make an argument that keeping some coal in the supply stack could be useful because of the volatility we've historically seen in the natural gas market. Whereas natural gas can triple in price in the span of days because wells can get frozen shut and all that supply comes off the market, coal tends to be better at riding out this kind of volatility because the coal piles are already sitting onsite at coal fired power plants. Like Peter said, we produce such a ridiculous amount of natural gas that this concern might start to dwindle, but that relies on us actually building gas pipelines out of production regions of that gas to consumption regions though

[@aaronbaker2186]

On 20 years US income will be 11% lower just from current effects of global climate change. I'm not talking about GDP, I'm talking about take home pay for the average US worker. The more coal we use, the more money future Americans lose out of their paychecks. So no, a gradual change isn't better, as it takes food out of the mouths of my grandchildren.

[@JurassicB8245]

China has other considerations - namely energy security. They are building lots of... everything, including coal fired plants, since using coal resources is more stable (not cheaper) than using other stuff (such as imported oil).

[@mrjava66]

An additional important difference is that gas and oil are fluids. You can move them around the country and around your facility with PIPES. This makes these substances much easier to work with.

[@mrjava66]

In the end, I expect solar, wind, and storage to win because of logistics. The sunlight and wind bring themselves to you and the ash (heat and slower wind) carry themselves away. Storage does not net-consume large quantities of supplies.

[@patrickweaver1105]

@@mrjava66 The sunlight and wind bring themselves to you? Not on this planet. Most places it's unavailable in useful quantities and transporting the energy incurs the same losses as energy from any source.

[@dzcav3]

@@mrjava66 Except solar and wind don't always come to you. If you go to Peter's website, there are global maps showing where solar and wind are economical. In many places they are not. And even where they are, they are not available on demand, which means you need EXPENSIVE batteries or some other fuel source to provide electricity on demand. Forcing other sources to produce on an irregular basis causes inefficiencies and higher costs.

[@cwx8]

​@@mrjava66this is incredibly naive and overly simplistic

[@mrjava66]

@@dzcav3 the economics is driven by the cost to produce devices. They have been coming down; they will continue to come down. Storage will always be part of grid scale solutions. Look at examples like ludington in Michigan. We have had grid scale storage options available to us for fifty years. (Michigan power built a nuclear power plant a while back. In order to not need to daily cycle it, they built grid scale storage in ludington mi. With the nuclear plant being end of life, and pumped hydro with effectively and infinite life, they need new power to put into this plant.

[@thadharp4753]

Pete question: what does the future look like for the state of Georgia? Economics, energy independence, and jobs. You have answered these questions about Texas and its future. Please do a video on Georgia and maybe its neighbors.

[@SonnyBubba]

Talk to the Atlanta chamber of commerce and have them ask Peter to be a guest speaker at one of their luncheons.

[@danieparriott265]

IIRC, he did a vid from Savannah about Georgia ....

[@andyash5675]

"And coal is never coming back." I don't know when, I may be dead when it happens, but I'd bet anything on coal making a comeback. Twenty years, fifty years, a hundred years. If we don't have a mass extinction, it's guaranteed. Moreover, I will personally guarantee that everyone will be literally begging for it when it happens.

[@flame5170]

I think coal coming back is more likely if there is a mass extinction. If civilization collapses, exposed coal would be needed to reindustrialize. That's even one argument for saving it for later. We have many other potential sources of energy that will only gain more of an advantage when compared to coal, so I doubt it will come back after it is phased out. Developing countries will continue to use it and I think steel production will keep using coal for a long time so there is that.

[@andyash5675]

@@flame5170 Fair comment. I just assumed that mass extinction would mean the end of humans. Broadly though, my belief is that as long as it is there and there is sufficient intelligence to extract and use it - then it will get used. The thing with saving it for later is an issue though. If everyone else uses theirs, they're going to invade when theirs runs out! At least if you sell it to them, you can make a profit!

[@katarn848]

@@flame5170 Steel may go hydrogen route, TaTa Steel in The Netherlands is working on it if they keep getting money from the dutch government By the way there is no governing coalition at the moment. Still forming a radical right coalition and looking for a Prime Minister.

[@flame5170]

@@andyash5675 That's true, we could be like fallout but way later and without the fun nuclear powered cars (don't crash or else). I think we should still sell coal to China and other countries because if we don't they will just expand coal mining or get if from someone else anyway.

[@NightmareForge]

Hm..... no... you don't seem to be basing this off of any available data. Gas reserves for the fracking are well over a hundred years so your timeline is way to small. And this doesn't include undiscovered fields as fracking has set off a new race to find it. Plus fields they haven't managed the tech to drill for yet. Oklahoma if they can figure out some issues can put some existing fields to shame. It also ignores that solar cells have continued to get cheaper, that wind power is getting more efficient and cheaper so those areas where that is ideal certainly wont abandon where the fuel is free. Or the fact that fusion even if slowly is eventually on the horizon and if that comes around then coal will never come back. I don't understand the romantics around coal.

[@robertagordon3077]

Noo' clee uhr = nuclear, Mr. Z. Let's pronounce the word properly because children may be watching. We want our speech to match our intelligence.

[@Cheeseybacun]

Hey now, don't make fun of the way people pronounce the word Newk-ya-lurrrrrrr!

[@titanicisshit1647]

is your mental age 10 or something?

[@mrnikau1]

New clear energy. Mmm

[@robertagordon3077]

Honestly, your language arts teacher wished you well. The wry wit and insight is deeply appreciated, Mr. Z!