 
|
Signature Sponsor
By Frank Clemente and Fred Palmer; Coal is the Cornerstone LLC.
August 3, 2025 - Baseload power plants operate to serve loads on an around-the-clock basis, producing electricity at a constant rate and thereby maximizing efficiency and minimizing costs. Baseload units are dispatchable and can be programmed on demand, according to market needs. Coal, nuclear and natural gas are baseload with the latter constrained in cold events when fuel must be diverted away from power plants to meet space heating needs. In 2024, these three fuels produced 77% of America’s electricity. Baseload power provides consistent energy supply, supports system stability and enhances energy security. Wind and solar, on the other hand, are intermittent sources whose production is limited by the availability of the resource – wind and sun. Wind and solar are neither baseload nor dispatchable. In an electricity system, “capacity value” refers to the estimated contribution of an energy resource to the system's ability to meet peak demand and maintain reliability. Essentially, can installed capacity be counted on during times of peak demand? How much of a plant's capacity is available when the system needs it most? Some major grid operators in the US have presented their capacity value estimates. Obviously, base load units, including coal, are valued much more highly by system operators than wind and solar, to which much lower value is attributed. But even these numbers are gross over-estimations of the contribution wind and solar actually make in a crisis. Consider the reality of Polar Vortexes and extreme cold events over the last decade. In the 2014 vortex, natural gas generation increased only 9% YOY, solar was irrelevant but coal increased 92%. In 2019, in the PJM region (65 million people), coal led all fuels at 37% of electricity. Wind and solar contributed less than 7% combined. In 2021, coal generation in MISO surged 36% 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”. In 2024, Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA) found that coal-fired power plants showed the most significant increase in utilization rates while “Wind generation faced challenges…and solar generation was entirely or almost entirely absent.” In the 2025 vortex, just last January, EVA, found coal “played a vital role” but wind and solar were only able to generate 3% and .0.2% of electricity to meet the load. In short, wind and solar consistently failed to meet even minimal expectations and did not meaningfully contribute to societal needs when they were “needed the most”. Despite these actual experiences the US continues to head down the dangerous path of reducing baseload capacity and becoming more ever more dependent on intermittent and often unreliable sources like wind and solar. This path is even more risky because America is focused on Artificial Intelligence and currently planning thousands of data centers which will be totally dependent on 24/7 electricity. In 2015, coal generating capacity was 304 GW, nuclear 103 GW and natural gas 504 GW, for a total of 1,167 GW and 78% % of all capacity. That same year wind capacity was 73 GW and solar 14 GW for a total of 87 GW and accounting for only 7% of all capacity. Going forward, the EIA 2025 Annual Energy Outlook, just released in April, projects that by 2035 coal capacity will have declined to 3 GW, nuclear capacity will be 95 GW and NG 614 GW, for a combined toral of 712 GW. Meanwhile, the EIA forecasts that by 2035, wind capacity will be 350 GW, and solar 476 GW for a total of 826 GW. In sum, established baseload will go from 78% to 39% of all capacity while intermittent and non-dispatchable wind and solar will have increased from 7% of all capacity to 46%. The US electrical system is becoming risky indeed. Thus, while China continues to develop a solid baseload foundation for electricity through advanced coal power plants, the US is eviscerating coal, stagnating nuclear and facing increasingly intense competition for natural gas. All while becoming ever more dependent on wind and solar. The sad irony is that the US and Europe have largely ceded control of renewable energy development to China. Unlike the US, the PRC plays the long game in energy. China dominates almost every part of the renewable supply chain whether it is solar PV modules, wind turbines, batteries, or essential minerals, usually enjoying a market share of more than 70%. Wind- China has 60% of the world's turbine production capacity compared to 19% in Europe and less than 10% in the US (where manufacturing capacity is declining). Furthermore, according to Wood Mackenzie, Chinese turbine manufacturers also lead in product design and innovation. In the last four years more than 400 new Chinese turbine models were released, compared to less than 30 new models elsewhere Solar-Per Bernstein analyst Nikhil Nigania, China’s share of global polysilicon and ingot - wafer production is close to 95%. Solar energy is only possible with polysilicon. While the US imports about two-thirds of its PV modules from Southeast Asia, many of the manufacturing facilities there are owned by Chinese companies. The so-called “Energy Transition” is increasingly hostage to China’s benevolence. In essence, China controls over 80% of global solar PV value chain. Batteries- Recognizing these limitations, renewable advocates have recently started to proclaim that a crazy quilt of “baseload” can be built using wind, solar and batteries. But the US relies heavily on Chinese imports for large battery energy storage system components as well. China completely dominates with ~90% control over electrolyte, separator, cathode, anode and cell. China processes about two thirds of the world’s mined lithium and has a significant role in processing other battery related minerals. Also, even when processing occurs elsewhere, China is a key player in the supply chain for the processing equipment. Conclusion – The United States does not have a coherent energy plan. Consequently, many decisions are made ad hoc by local communities, state regulatory commissions and national politicians. The forest is often missed for the trees. Well-funded anti-coal activists have succeeded in prematurely closing hundreds of coal plants, thereby not only eliminating the reliable and affordable power they have traditionally provided but also creating a huge hole in baseload capacity. Nuclear will remain flat for well over a decade and may never significantly increase. Natural gas plants face the highest price volatility of any fuel as well as increasingly intense competition for supply. Actual events have demonstrated that wind and solar cannot be relied upon in a time of crisis and China basically controls not only that supply chain but also the battery systems which might be used for energy storage. Yet, the US has about 25% of the world’s coal and we are continuing to close coal plants. Go figure. .…………………………………………………………………………… 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 supporting coal to make a financial contribution to the effort. Visit us and donate at http://www. .…………………………………………………………………………… Frank Clemente PhD. specializes in research on the socioeconomic impact of energy policy and is the author of The Global Value of Coal, published by the International Energy Agency (2012). Professor Clemente has served on the faculty of the University of Kentucky, University of Wisconsin and Penn State. He has extensive experience in speaking, writing and presenting data on the value of coal to the United States and the world. All opinions expressed here are presented independently from any university with which he has been affiliated. Fred Palmer Esq. served as CEO of Western Fuels before he joined Peabody Energy as Senior Vice President for Government Affairs. Palmer was Chair of the World Coal Association Board and a member of the National Coal Council. He received the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers Award for “Distinguished Achievement in Coal Technology”. He also received a Statement of Appreciation from the National Coal Council in 2015 with a plaque for “Guidance since 1990”.
|
|
.png)