The Developed world and the Developing countries depend on energy to run. Developing countries need reliable PRIMARY Energy to progress from muscle power to machines and the Developed countries, including China and India require lots of reliable primary energy to sustain their quality of life. I am one of the few people who focus on PRIMARY energy and the crucial part coal plays in providing up to 25% of our needed primary energy. Dependable, affordable primary energy is what makes the world really work. Over 80% of the primary energy needed comes from four conventional sources:
I (so has NERC, FERC and other reputable orgs) have been warning of electric power shortages for years. This year could be the year that matters.
The Iranian War and closing of the Straits of Hormuz is a huge problem for LNG supplies to the world. Especially to Europe, South Korea and Japan. The foolish Net Zero Carbon path that western countries have adopted (S.C. too) has forced dependence on natural gas fuel. I wrote a blog post a couple years ago on the enormity of primary energy that America uses. The average American only understands the importance of energy in his or her life when a major weather disaster such as a hurricane makes gasoline, Diesel and electricity scarce for a few days or a week. Many are too young to remember the Oil Embargoes of 1973-1974 and 1978-1979.
Well, the Shale Gas Revolution in the U.S. nearly killed coal but it makes the U.S. mostly energy independent. Here is an excellent article by Giacomo Prandelli on the world impact of LNG supplies. Not so much of a big deal in May but likely a critical energy supply issue come next winter.
Primary energy is important. Remember this statement next December and January.
New Modern Coal Plants are Needed for Energy Security, Grid Reliability, Affordable Electricity Generation and Without Pollution, so let me explain some of the details of the equipment used to clean the flue gases and the progress made in cleaning the air since 1970
Short History of Air Pollution Control
The EPA was started in 1970, for good reasons of cleaning the air and water. Coal plants built before 1970 had no controls on sulfur emissions and particulate collection was only between 75 and 90%. Today nearly all of the sulfur and particulates are collected. I have been a strong critic of the EPA since the “War on Coal” began during the Clinton administration with the beginning of weaponization of government rules such as “New Source Review”. However, in 1970, the EPA was needed to clean our air and water.
Shortly after promulgation of the EPA the major air pollutants were identified that needed controls. These pollutants are sulfur, particulates, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), carbon monoxide, lead, oxides of nitrogen and ozone. Since 1970 the EPA has measured and reported the progress of cleaning the air and this progress of controlling the true pollutants is shown on the chart below.
Notice the increases since 1970 in population, GDP, energy use and miles driven. These all trended up, whereas the pollutants trended down 78%. This is a story that needs to be told.
We Figured Out How to Make Coal Plants Clean and Then the EPA was Politicized & Weaponized to Kill Them
The perfection of advanced flue gas cleanup occurred about the same time that the EPA became a political weapon. In other words, the air pollution industry succeeded in cleaning all of the harmful pollutants out of the flue gas stream just as the Obama administration declared CO2 a pollutant, which it is not.
This attempt to kill reliable, affordable, Dispatchable and on-site energy storable coal power has been very effective. Over half of the coal power plants in America have been shut down while the largest fuel source for power generation in the rest of the world is still coal and the coal use continues to rise.
Clean Coal Combustion in a Pulverized Coal Power Plant
Most of the coal power plants in the world use the pulverized coal firing method. I described the Zimmer coal plant in a previous article. “The Magnificent Heat Engines that Society Depends On”.
There are other forms of coal power including CFBs (Circulating Fluidized Beds), IGCC (Integrated Gasification, Combined Cycle), stoker firing and cyclone firing. PC Firing (Pulverized Coal) is the most common method used and that is what I will discuss with regard to the exhaust gas (flue gas) cleanup systems. Here is a typical schematic flow diagram of a PC steam generator and the flue gas flow path to the stack.
This schematic is from the Duke Energy Rogers Energy Center plant overview:
The flue gas cleanup equipment in the schematic is shown to approximate scale. The power generation equipment is dwarfed by the size of the flue gas cleanup systems. So is the number of employees required to maintain the chemical processes at the backend larger than those needed to operate and maintain the power generation equipment. Yes, the flue gas cleanup systems are expensive, but once built, the electricity production costs are mostly fuel. Thus, as natural gas prices rise, such as with the Middle East crisis, coal mined in America can be used competitively for power generation less expensively than natural gas fuel for power generation. All of the economic and operational advantages of coal power without pollution.
How the Pollutants are Controlled
Lets take a look at the pollutants one at a time and take a look at how they are lessened or removed from the flue gas stream.
Sulfur Removal
Sulfur emissions were the main cause of acid rain and large coal power plants were the single largest source of atmospheric sulfur emissions. Corrections began with the invention and deployment of FGD (Flue Gas Desulfurization) systems about 1978. Since 1978 the efficacy of FGD systems have advanced. Here below is a schematic of a wet scrubber which utilizes a limestone slurry to capture the oxides of sulfur into a calcium oxide slurry to create calcium sulfate, aka gypsum. The waste calcium sulfate is often utilized for fertilizer and for manufacturing wall board as a byproduct.
More commonly used in the most modern coal plants for sulfur removal is Spray Dryer Absorbers. These collect the sulfur in small droplets of limestone slurry which is then transported in the gas stream to a Baghouse. The ash + limestone is collected on the surface of fabric filter bags and collected in hoppers beneath.
Particulates Removal
The equipment to collect particulates are Fabric Filter Baghouses. These have certain advantages, especially when used with SDAs (Spray Dryer Absorbers) because of the moist nature of the collected flyash, sulfur and lime slurry can continue to react with oxides of sulfur in the filter cake. Here is an illustration of a Baghouse, followed by a photo of an actual Fabric Filter Baghouse installed on a 650 MW coal plant.
The operating principle of a Fabric Filter Baghouse is basically the same as a home vacuum cleaner, where the dust is collected in a filter cake on the fabric surface. The filter cake then breaks up and falls by gravity to the hoppers below where it is then pneumatically removed and transported to ash storage.
Oxides of Nitrogen
Combustion of coal creates oxides of nitrogen from both the nitrogen in ambient air and from the nitrogen that is trapped in the coal fuel. If uncontrolled the NOx (an expression used to refer to all oxides of nitrogen) can contribute to ground level ozone, smog, acid rain and deterioration of visibility from photochemical smog. Therefore, oxides of nitrogen are drastically controlled to very low levels through a combination of modern low NOx combustion systems applied to the furnace. Then also by use of post-combustion SCRs (Selective Catalytic Reactors). The following two figures illustrate modern approaches to NOx controls.
First, Furnace solutions are low NOx burners combined with over-fire air systems to stage combustion.
Then, post combustion, SCRs (Selective Catalytic Reactors) are used to remove most of the remaining oxides of nitrogen. An illustration of an SCR is shown below.
The catalyst inside the SCR is reactive honeycomb ceramic as shown below.
Removal of Heavy Metals including Mercury
There are trace amounts of heavy metals in coal ash such as arsenic and mercury, Most of these are removed with the FGD (Flue Gas Desulfurization) system. Sometimes, if the mercury is above limits activated carbon injection is utilized to absorb and collect the mercury.
The Integrated Emissions Control System
The systems described above work together to collect or control the ash particulates, sulfur, NOx and mercury. One version of an integrated emissions control systems is shown below.
Stack Emissions are Harmless Water Vapor and CO2
The stack plumes are mentioned by those critical of coal power because they are so visible from far away. The fact is that the stack plumes are harmless water vapor, CO2 , nitrogen and oxygen not that much different than the exhaled breath of a human. Dr. William Happer gave a presentation a few years ago using that very example. Dr. Happer’s presentation is here.
Summary
Back in 1970 the boiler island comprised a steam generator and the fuel burning equipment. Minimum backend flue gas cleanup equipment was installed. There was no treatment of oxides of sulfur. Since 1970 the flue gas cleanup systems have advanced to huge chemical processing plants that require more manpower, maintenance and attention than the “Power Block” including the power generation equipment, steam generator, steam turbine and auxiliaries. The result is shown on the first chart above which shows the progress since 1970 in cleaning our air. The equipment for removal of harmful pollutants has been invented, perfected, installed, proven and continues to be commercially available. Another example is the John Turk Plant in Arkansas. This was POWER Magazines “Plant of the Year” in 2013 and is shown below. This is from the B&W success stories. https://www.babcock.com/home/products/spray-dryer-absorber-sda
Conclusions
Coal has been wrongly demonized by NGOs, MSM, Entertainment, wealthy individuals and enemies of the U.S.
Politicians have been duped into believing the “Manmade Global Warming Narrative” and that shutting down coal plants will make a difference. It won’t.
Regulations and Laws have been wrongly applied to shut down coal plants and the coal industry
Many of America’s elected officials have implemented policies that are Self-Sabotaging the once most reliable electric Grid in the world
Utility executives are just as bad as the indoctrinated public and have chose to follow the “Easiest path” to Bulk Power Supply. That path is, install lots of unreliable solar and wind and then back it up with natural gas turbines. Why? Because generating Bulk Power from coal fuel is complicated, expensive and simply harder to do. It takes hard work to overcome public resistance, more capital and more employees. It is simply a lot easier to take the renewables + CCGT path rather than the path of least cost, most reliable generation. Call it hitting the “Easy Button” But it is NOT best for America!
The De-Regulation of electricity in the 1990’s has absolved most Electric Utilities of Accountability to construct the needed Dispatchable electricity generation capacity. Before De-Regulation each Regional Utility planned for growth to match needed Demand with available and affordable generation capacity.
It costs much more Capital to “Burn Coal than to Mine it”
The general public Energy IQ is very low. So is the Energy IQ of most politicians.
The possibility of unreliable electric service is possible due to decades of public indoctrination
The largest need today in Energy and Electricity Generation is better energy education of the public
American Coal Ash Association used U.S. Geological Survey data to compare the levels of heavy metals in coal ash to the levels present in ordinary rocks and soil. The study showed the levels to be comparable — which shouldn’t surprise anyone because that’s what coal ash is: “the non-combustible mineral portion of coal.” It’s the dirt and rock that were mixed in with the coal. There’s nothing about burning it that causes more to appear. The study can be found here: https://acaa-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/free-publications/ACAA_CoalAshMaterialSafety_June2012.pdf
Other scientific studies of note: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted risk analysis of the use of various coal combustion products in concrete, wallboard, and agriculture and found them all to be safe:https://acaa-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ccr_bu_eval.pdf
Other scientific studies of note: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted risk analysis of the use of various coal combustion products in concrete, wallboard, and agriculture and found them all to be safe: https://acaa-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ccr_bu_eval.pdf
If it was simply the laws of Physics, Economics and Global Experiences of which source of Bulk Power was Best; then coal power plants would be on order by the hundreds. How can we fix the poor perceptions of coal power? Here are my thoughts.
Energy Powers Life as We Know It
America runs on energy. Energy is the Lifeblood of our economy and it is far more important than the MSM or public education teaches or explains. America has used right at 100 Quadrillion BTUs of primary energy each year for the last 25 years. Let me state this a different way, the total PRIMARY Energy used by the U.S. annually is about 100 quadrillion BTUs. Pro-rated, this is about 300 million BTUs for each U.S. citizen per year. I attempted to explain the use of about 300 million BTUs of energy per capita, each year by Americans here. The disconnect between perceptions and reality is, I think, a lack of understanding of basic physics and basic electricity generation economics. No one is an expert in everything and I freely acknowledge that there is much I do not understand about a lot of subjects. One reason such a large percentage of the public (and policymakers) became hoodwinked on renewables was, in my opinion, they were indoctrinated by green energy zealots that thought they knew a lot about solar and wind, but these zealots did not know as much about the energy and electric power business as they thought they did. Then these renewables advocates, with little understanding of bulk power generation, became influencers of elected officials who also did not understand. Thus, the blind led the blind into setting the Net Zero trap with high expectations from wind and solar. The result has been the self sabotaging of our reliable Grid. Many people I talk to, think they know a lot about power generation. Why? Because they have been indoctrinated with wind and solar propaganda. So, now we have a huge amount of the population, not only in the U.S. but all across the west, including the UK, EU, Australia and more. Many elected officials still believe that wind, solar and batteries can provide the electricity to compete with the world and still power our comfortable lives.
Energy Awareness, Thanks to the Iranians
The Iran war and closed Strait of Hormuz has helped create energy awareness with the general public. The last shock like this to ignite public interest, at least in my lifetime, to demonstrate the importance of energy in their lives was the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. An unexpected benefit of the Iran War is that the public is forced to gain a better understanding of the availability and reliability of the conventional fuels: gasoline, Diesel, Jet fuel, natural gas, coal and nuclear. These six forms of primary energy provide over 90% of the energy we need and use.
Keep in Mind, April is a Low Electricity Demand Month
If this was winter and the world demand for LNG soared, then U.S. natural gas prices would (LNG Demand will likely exceed supply in the winter) escalate to peaks of over $10/million BTU. Fortunately, April is a low electricity demand season. Winter will come and I predict much higher than expected natural gas prices due to the world demand for LNG. Just as a reminder, the graph below shows natural gas spot market prices compared to coal prices, from 1980 to 2024.
Coal Power and Public Perceptions
I advocate for coal because that is the fuel that I know and understand, having worked for five decades in the design, construction, startup, testing, operations, maintenance, upgrade modifications, tuning for efficiency and applying low NOx solutions to coal plants. I also advocate for natural gas and nuclear power because I believe a Balanced generation portfolio is best for the U.S.A. and each fuel has its advantages. Here is a slide from a recent presentation showing my preferred Bulk Power Generation portfolio.
In my effort to help increase energy awareness of the public, I have recently been involved in presentations to two Lifelong Learning groups, both local here in the Hilton Head Island area. For the most part, it is rewarding to share my knowledge and experiences and I have been involved with about five courses at USCB-OLLI and in addition, have given presentations to a number of civic clubs. I really appreciate the feedback from surveys that show the candid comments of the participants. Some people are very gracious and appreciative for the instructors efforts, and as an instructor, I appreciate the kind words. However, as all of us who have worked in the real world of conventional energy and electricity generation, we know that many of the public have been indoctrinated to believe that wind and solar are good, and coal (all fossil fuels for that matter) is bad. Period. This is the divided society that we live in and I wish I knew how to change it. What follows are some suggestions to help improve the average Energy IQ of voters.
Some of the Public Understand Energy and Electricity Generation, Most Do Not
My estimate of those who understand the true facts on energy and electricity generation is 5%. That is one person in twenty. Why do I say this? Because for the last twenty years I have been active in public advocacy for common sense energy policies by preparing paid ads in newspapers, presenting paid radio “Energy Fact Minutes”, presented dozens of presentations to civic clubs, taught courses at colleges and discussed with many people whom I had never met before. Thus my low estimate of 5%, although statistically unscientific, this is based on personal contact with thousands of people over the last two decades. I have confidence that it is close to being realistic.
Let’s assume that I am correct that one in twenty understands energy and that we are going to educate the other 95% on energy and electricity generation. What would be a reasonable approach? Here are three suggestions.
A Path to Better Energy & Environmental Education
I suggest a three step program to improve the public’s understanding of energy, electricity generation and the environment:
1. Electric Utilities to Replicate the 1926-1973 “Reddy Kilowatt” Program to Teach the Fundamentals of Energy and Electricity Generation
Readers born before about 1955 will remember Reddy Kilowatt, the mascot of the Investor Owned Utilities advertising campaign which began about 1926 and lasted (ironically) up to about the first Arab Oil Embargo in 1973.
Reddy Kilowatt was used to teach the basics of “Living Better Electrically”. It was also part of a magazine advertising campaign in 1950. Here is an ad by B&W which manufactured about 40% of the steam generators used by the electric utilities and the U.S. Navy. B&W has a long history of steam generator manufacturing in the U.S. since 1867, providing steam generators to Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse and then growing to be a Fortune 500 company in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
(B&W Fortune 500- #141 in 1957)
That theme of “Living Better Electrically” caught on well and none other than the Great Communicator himself was the spokesperson for General Electric on the Sunday night TV show, the General Electric Theater, 1953-1962. Ronald Reagan plugged G-E appliances but the advertising message included power generation.
Back in the early 1970’s I personally, as a CP&L startup engineer had many interactions with G-E’s Power Generation Division and they enjoyed wide public acceptance, everyone knew what G-E did to improve our quality of life and including building high quality steam turbines and generators.
I recommend that President Trump provide an incentive for all Utilities and large power generation equipment corporations to become involved with educating the public on the true facts on energy and electric power generation. Like the EEI and many municipal utilities did up to about 1974 using the “Live Better Electrically Theme” with Reddy Kilowatt as the mascot. Perhaps a new tag line, new mascot, but a replication of the public education on energy is what I am proposing.
2. Government Printing of Factual Textbooks on Energy, Electricity Generation and the Environment
The EPA and the Department of Energy, TVA, ORNL, LLNL and other government organizations together have tens of thousands of employees. This talent bank could be used to create and in some cases, simply update literature that can be reused for High Schools and Colleges to teach the true facts on energy, electricity, the environment and energy economics. The fundamentals written and illustrated in books, pamphlets and other published information on the generation of electricity by coal, gas and nuclear has not changed. Therefore, updating is all that is needed. Thermodynamics, chemistry and fluid mechanics are still the same. The few changes are higher pressures and temperatures, advanced alloys and the addition of enormously complicated Flue Gas Cleanup systems that have made clean coal, clean.
3. Encourage K-12 and University Teachers/Professors to teach the true factual physics, economics, chemistry and environmental science
Much of the existing textbooks and culture is basically biased against fossil fuels. As mentioned above with the reference to Reddy Kilowatt, back in the 1960’s, chemistry, physics, general science and environmental science was taught based on factual science. We need to return to teaching unbiased science courses to all students. Enormous amounts of literature that is factual and teaches the true laws of physics exist in the private sector. Here are some examples to help the average person (whether a High School student or an adult) understand the importance of affordable, reliable and environmentally acceptable energy:
Dr. Lars Schernikau’s website, “Unpopular Truths” which has numerous factual articles on energy and electricity generation: https://unpopular-truth.com/blog/
All of us that understand energy and electricity generation should do our part to help the other 95% of the population to understand the true facts and “How the World Really Works”, by the way, Vaclav Smil published an excellent book by that title.
I would add this and Smil’s other books to the required reading for anyone who is involved in creating energy policy, or anyone who really does want to learn “How the World Really Works”. Energy is the Lifeblood of all that we cherish, it is my hope that the public will learn more and respect the sources of energy that power our lives.
Yours truly,
Dick Storm, April 23, 2026
References and Including Documents that address CO2 and Control of Exhaust Emissions from coal power plants
For my friends that asked, “Why didn’t you discuss more of the environmental impacts of coal power, well, here is a lot of reading if you are sincerely interested in learning more.
Other scientific studies of note: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted risk analysis of the use of various coal combustion products in concrete, wallboard, and agriculture and found them all to be safe: https://acaa-usa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ccr_bu_eval.pdf
The S.C. Legislature had two choices: 1. Keep Electricity prices reasonable to keep low electricity costs for citizens plus, attract more industry or 2. Transition to Solar, Wind, Batteries, Natural Gas and create significantly higher electric bills. They chose option 2. just as most U.S. Blue states did…
The experiences of most countries and U.S. states that have “transitioned” to renewable energy has caused electricity prices to sharply rise and caused de-industrialization. Yet, the U.S. policymakers continue the “War on Coal”by implementing harmful Net-Zero Carbon policies. The Green New Deal/Inflation Reduction Act policy momentum continues into 2026. Investments in new electricity generation for fiscal year 2026, according to the EIA is still over 90% renewables. That’s right, not one Dispatchable or Base Load coal or nuclear plant is planned for construction in 2026, according to the EIA as of January 2026.
South Carolina although believed to be a very Conservative state, the energy policy is just as Blue as California or Massachusetts. The South Carolina law (S.C. Code Ann. §58-37-40) directs the retirement of coal-fired generation:
Part 1 of this article covered Winter Storm Fern and the importance of coal to provide over 80% of the low country’s electricity production.
Let’s move forward to future planning for increasing generation to meet the growing Demand. Here below is the narrowly focused basis of low CO2 generation planning by Santee-Cooper (aka South Carolina Public Service Authority) updated IRP. As you can see, the primary driver of the type of new generation capacity is CO2 Emissions. Not Grid reliability, affordability, Dispatchability or industrial economics. This is in opposition to the Trump energy agenda and policy to exit the anti-American Paris Agreement and to repeal the CO2 Endangerment Finding and keep America strong. President Trump has done his part, our state, like many blue states and Deep State Bureaucrats, is continuing to trod down the destructive regulatory path of Net-Zero Carbon.
My Letter to S.C. Senator Davis, April 2025
I wrote to S.C. Senator Davis as a response to his Press Release asking for public comments. Here are some excerpts from my letter to Senator Davis:
“Electric Power Grids that have a high percentage of wind and solar must be backed up with fast start natural gas turbines or reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE). Because the cost component of the fuel used is up to 90% of the electricity production cost, then the electricity cost is as volatile as the fuel cost. Natural gas is a clean and abundant fuel. However, the cost of natural gas can vary from $2.00 per million BTU to $5.00 per million BTU. When the fuel cost varies, so does the electricity production cost. Sometimes doubling. The state electric rates of California, MA, CT and Hawaii are examples of extreme switches to renewables with natural gas or oil backup. Here are two slides used in presentations by me and other electricity generation experts during 2024. The ten highest cost states and ten lowest cost states are instructive when the sources of primary energy for electricity generation is considered. My blog referenced below has more references.”
This letter was written last year, well before the Iranian conflict began. Gas prices are likely to become more volatile and mostly higher when summer electricity Demand begins and of course, a lot higher next December.
“Repeal the S.C. Restrictions on Greenhouse Gases. The EPA Law referenced in the Santee-Cooper IRP and also applying to Dominion Energy and Duke, is flawed and in the process of properly being nullified by the new EPA Administrator. The shutting down of coal plants is the main reason why electric rates will increase, and Demand Response (Rationing) measures will need to be implemented.” (1. Below-From Santee-Cooper IRP)
“Maintain, Improve and Expand coal power generation in S.C. The lowest production cost electricity in S.C. is from the coal plants at the following plants: Cross, Cope, Winyah, Williams and Wateree Generating Stations. The 600 MW Pee Dee Coal Plant that was planned to be built about 2010 should be constructed ASAP. The existing coal plants should be authorized to perform all required maintenance to keep in first class operating condition until such time that new nuclear capacity is put on line. “
“Build sufficient new coal generating capacity at the Santee-Cooper (South Carolina Public Service Authority) with the same Balanced Generation Portfolio of coal, nuclear and gas as has been the practice for over 80 years of reliable and affordable electricity production by Santee-Cooper. Santee-Cooper is the primary supplier of electricity to Palmetto Electric and the generation assets are over 60% coal fueled.”
“Stop the building of more non-Dispatchable solar and wind power generation systems. Stop subsidies and incentives for Solar, Wind and Battery Storage Systems (BESS). Why? Because shutting down of reliable, dispatchable, affordable coal plants has been done by these other states and the electricity costs are the highest in our country. California, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Connecticut and Rhode Island. (2. EIA list of U.S. Electric Rates by state)Also, the high cost, non-competitive electricity experiences of Germany, Scandinavia and the UK are instructive. (3.) “
Included in the letter to Senator Davis was a couple charts, including this one of the renewable premium paid in electricity costs in various countries of the world.
I have written an article on my blog which outlines the good results of coal plants (such as Santee-Cooper’s excellent record of 80 years) and the references to other states and countries that have abandoned coal fuel. The blog post is here.
As of this writing, the S.C. Legislature has not budged from the the Net Zero path to increased electricity costs and less reliability.
Conclusion: S.C. is Planning for Electricity Price Rises and Less Grid Reliability
The previous blog posts showed many details of Palmetto Electric’s Bulk Power Supply, from Santee-Cooper. Here, here, here, here and here.
By planning for Net Zero Carbon, South Carolina is planning for higher electricity costs in lieu of building new coal plants to preserve our position as one of the states with the most Industry and consumer friendly low electric rates.
Additional references are listed below to show the clear rise in electric rates as more dependence on variable generation and battery storage. Another consideration is resistance to fuel interruptions during times of war, such as we have now. Coal power generation has the inherent advantage of storing weeks or months of primary energy in a coal pile on site.
Yours truly,
Dick Storm, March 17, 2026
References and information for further reading and research
Perhaps some day a Documentary will be made to summarize how Coal was Demonized by NGOs, government, WEF, MSM, Entertainment, Dark Money, and Environmental Extremists just as nuclear power was during the 1970 and 1980’s? Here is “Pandora’s Promise”, 2013 Movie to Expose the Facts about Nuclear Power and how it was wrongly Demonized, causing the collapse of the nuclear Supply-Chain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMutoR8YTlQ
This post will be short and to the point. Myself and many of my energy experienced friends have watched as absolutely anti-American, anti-Human energy polices have come to be. My friend Tom cut through the BS and wrote the following as a response to the Daily Caller article which documented Chinese involvement in NGOs impacting U.S. Energy Policy. From my very experienced electricity generation engineer, Tom:
This shows the real problem we have in the energy sector:
Nuclear power is the safest way to generate safe, clean, environmentally friendly bulk power. But the woman running the cash register at Walmart has been convinced by Jane Fonda and Greenpeace that nuclear power is dangerous and has a huge environmental problem with waste. Neither of these, or all the other fallacies that are widely believed regarding nuclear power are true. How did it ever get this bad?
Clean coal technology has advanced to an amazing level. Go to the top of Mount Washington in Pittsburgh, PA and look out over the clean bright city. Yes, 120 years ago the air was so bad that they needed streetlights during the day. The Monongahela River did indeed catch on fire (so did Lake Erie near Cleveland). But that was then, not now, and there is no way we are going back to using 1800’s technology for coal power plants. Yet, the West Penn Power and Cheswick plants were recently shut down and dismantled. The environmental groups have succeeded in brainwashing most of the non-technical people that climate change is real. They will believe Al Gore and Leonardo DeCaprio rather than the people that actually understand the environmental impact of energy generation. (oh, and they are fighting against building a datacenter on the Cheswick plant sight just because – it’s a lot easier to NIMBY everything than try to find real solutions).
The total thermal efficiency cycle for electric cars is far worse than burning a primary fuel in an internal combustion engine. How does this inefficiency impact the environment? (Answer: all the inefficiency is heat dissipated directly to the environment – how in the world does that not contribute to “global warming”?) But the public has become convinced that electric cars are cleaner and the way of the future. Why isn’t the technical community telling the non-technical community this side of the story? (I think we know, government $$$$$, just like wind/solar, the more the government gets to subsidize, the more money available for other nefarious activities. Isn’t this the trap ASME fell into?)
We can make nuclear safer, coal cleaner, and cars more efficient until the cows come home. The problem is – these facts don’t matter. The three-headed (now 4 with the new head of the justice system) doesn’t operate on facts. Until we start addressing this problem (Root Cause) we are just spinning our wheels. Maybe we should start with the ASME – when an organization that is supposed to be a premier technically based organization goes woke, how are the average non-technical people out there supposed to know that? If they can’t rely on ASME, then who can they believe? (think Covid, Anthony Fauci, Health & Human Services, the American Medical Association, etc….or even worse – the legal profession).
My thanks to Tom for giving me permission to share these concisely written, truthful and troubling facts.
I have written on the SWAMP Influencers, Federal Regulations and NGOs before. Tom just did it with a great economy of words.
Thank God for President Trump, Chris Wright, Lee Zeldin and a well qualified Cabinet of qualified people to look out for the best interests for America. In closing, let me suggest reading the references listed below if you are curious of who and how the absurd Federal Regulations have come to be.
Yours very truly,
Dick Storm, March 14, 2026
References and information that supports my opinion and text written above:
John Podesta, Head of 300+ Billion dollars of U.S. Taxpayer funds for clean energy. Check Influence Watch to read some interesting background on his career: https://www.influencewatch.org/person/john-podesta/
Background: Bulk Power Supply in the S.C. Lowcountry
The wholesale (Bulk Power) electricity providers serving our region are Santee-Cooper (officially the South Carolina Public Service Authority, or SCPSA) and Dominion Energy (which replaced South Carolina Electric & Gas as the Investor-Owned Utility). Most of Palmetto Electric’s Bulk Power comes from Santee-Cooper.
Santee-Cooper is a state-owned agency operating since the 1930s. Its first electricity was generated in 1941 from the Jefferies hydroelectric dam at Moncks Corner. Today, SCPSA’s hydroelectric plants still operate with a combined capacity of 142 MW.
Since 1941, population growth, industrial expansion, and regional electrification have driven steadily increasing electricity demand. During peak-load periods, SCPSA now generates up to approximately 5,000 MW. Over more than 80 years, coal has been the primary energy source, keeping production costs at or below the U.S. average—a commendable achievement.
This low-cost electricity attracted energy-intensive industries, most notably NUCOR Steel and Century Aluminum. Affordable coal-fired power was the decisive factor in locating these facilities in South Carolina. This has benefited heavy industry and all citizens of the region, including our area around Bluffton and Hilton Head Island.
How South Carolina Uses Its Electricity
Industrial, Residential, and Commercial customers each consume approximately one-third of total S.C. electricity generation. NUCOR, Century Aluminum, and other industrial customers consume about a third of all electricity generated by S.C. utilities.
The Scale of Industrial Energy Demand
Aluminum and steel production are extremely energy-intensive. It takes approximately 6 kWh of electricity to produce just one pound of aluminum from aluminum oxide powder—and that is only to create raw ingots, not including the energy to refine bauxite ore or form finished products.
At full production, NUCOR and Century Aluminum together consume more Bulk Power on a given day than the entire island of Hilton Head uses during its highest winter peak-load demand day.
Affordable electricity supports economic prosperity, employment, and national security—in addition to keeping our homes heated and cooled.
Coal-Fired Generating Stations in The Low Country of S.C.
The Cross Generating Station, located about 100 miles north of Hilton Head Island, has four units built between 1983 and 2009 with a combined capacity of approximately 2,390 MW. All four units are equipped with stack-cleaning equipment; the visible stack plume is harmless water vapor.
Winter Storm Fern Proved the Importance of Coal-Fueled Electricity Generation
Cross and Winyah coal plants provided over 80% of the electricity consumed in the S.C. Lowcountry during the Winter Storm Fern peak demand period (January 26 – February 4, 2026). Natural gas and solar generation are also shown in the chart below. Not shown: the 322 MW of nuclear generation from Santee-Cooper’s one-third share of V.C. Summer Nuclear Plant.
The chart above is the actual “Bulk Power Supply” as generated by SCPSA, which provides the wholesale power to Palmetto Electric. Note that over 80% is from coal generation. Also, note the small contribution of solar. Not shown is the 322 MW of nuclear generation from Dominion Energy.
The Net Zero Carbon Mandate and Rising Costs
The least-cost fuels for electricity generation are coal and nuclear. However, SCPSA and other S.C. utilities have been ordered by the S.C. Legislature to transition away from coal toward Net Zero Carbon. The path ahead is described in the Santee-Cooper Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).
As can be seen on the portfolio transition, the plan is to reduce coal from over 55% to about 23% by 2040.
The S.C. Legislation to Increase Electricity Costs
South Carolina law (S.C. Code Ann. §58-37-40) directs the retirement of coal-fired generation:
Santee-Cooper’s analysis demonstrated that the Net Zero CO₂ by 2050 portfolio would be higher in costs and involve more risk for customers than the Economically Optimized Portfolio. Several supplemental analyses were performed reflecting the retirement of the Winyah generating station by end of 2028 or 2030.
This is the fundamental reason electricity costs will rise in the years ahead. The transition from reliable, affordable coal generation is a transition to higher-cost production. This is not a forecast—it is fact, based on the experience of countries and U.S. states already further along in the Net Zero transition.
Understanding Your Electric Bill
The major component of electricity production cost is primary energy (fuel). When wholesale power costs rise, retail electric bills follow. For a Combined Cycle natural gas plant, fuel alone constitutes about 90% of production cost. If natural gas prices double, so does the cost of electricity. Coal is a low-cost, price-stable source of primary energy, benefiting all ratepayers.
Why Transitioning to Renewables Raises Electricity Costs
The Core Problem: Backup Power
When the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, power must be supplied immediately by backup generation. In the U.S., that backup has primarily been natural gas. In some cases—Hawaii and New England—diesel, kerosene, and jet fuel have been used when other sources were unavailable.
Electricity must be generated the instant it is needed. Wind and sunshine may be free, but backup power is not. The charts below show world generation by fuel. Note the coal consumption of Asia compared to the U.S.
This shows the absurdity of the path to Net-Zero Carbon when the entire world coal consumption is considered. If America’s coal consumption went to zero, it would barely make a difference in total CO2 emissions.
Credit for the chart above goes to Mr. Mike Caravaggio who prepared and posted on LinkedIn.
Case Study: Hawaii — An Energy Island
Hawaii is not connected to the mainland grid, making it a telling example. In 2021, 76% of its generation fuel was diesel. Hawaii once had a 180 MW coal plant that produced its lowest-cost electricity—even with imported coal. After transitioning to renewables, diesel backup became dominant when the sun set or wind dropped. Because diesel is among the most expensive generation fuels, Hawaii now has the highest electricity rates of all 50 states.
Case Study: New England
States that have retired coal plants have experienced sharply escalating costs, including California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine. During Winter Storm Fern, New England generated roughly one-third of its electricity from diesel for several days. Their plan to import Canadian hydropower failed when Canada needed its own capacity during extreme cold.
Electricity Costs by State
The pattern is clear: states with the least coal power tend to have the highest electricity costs.
The state of Tennessee for some reason was not included in the chart above. TN does in fact have some of the lowest electricity costs in the U.S. according to: https://findenergy.com/tn/ The low cost is attributed to a lot of old hydroelectric power, considerable nuclear and a still large coal fleet. TN average electricity cost is about $0.129/kWh.
Case Study: Germany
Germany began its coal transition in 2011 under the Energiewende policy. Once Europe’s strongest manufacturer, Germany has experienced de-industrialization driven by skyrocketing electricity costs—now approximately $0.33/kWh, even higher than Hawaii.
Dr. Lars Schernikau is an energy expert and knows a lot about European energy policies, including Germany. Here is a quote from Dr. Schernikau in the Engineering News:
Schernikau was bluntly pessimistic about the true financial viability of wind and solarenergy on a grid scale.
“There is no way you can make honest money with wind and solar. It’s not possible. When I say honest money, I mean without somebody else’s money, because you are living off somebody’s subsidies, which is paid by taxpayers,” he said.
He illustrated this by pointing to the economic problems with high solarpenetration in markets such as Germany, where an oversupply of solarenergy has led to a significant drop in prices. In May, for example, the price of solarenergy in Germany fell by 50%, reducing the earnings of solar producers. Negative power price days are at an all time high in Germany and other countries, Schernikau pointed out.
The impact of high electricity costs on households was another area of concern. Schernikau cited a March report from the German government auditor Bundesnetzagentur, which revealed that energy poverty in Germany had risen to 25%, meaning one in four households is now classified as energy poor.
So, I would ask. Why is South Carolina following the same Net Zero path of Germany?
Natural Gas for Electric Power Generation
Intermittent sources like solar and wind must be backed up by dispatchable generation—gas turbines or reciprocating engines (RICE). The chart below shows a typical daily generation profile in California. Solar (yellow) is strong for about six hours; as the sun sets, Dispatchable power must ramp up sharply.
Here is the generation by fuel for the lower 48 states for the first 24 days of January 2026. Thanks again to Mike Caravaggio from EPRI for posting this on LinkedIn.
A reliable Grid should have a balanced generation portfolio. In my experience, 85% Dispatchable or Base load generation works well and has been proven.
A balanced generation portfolio works best with at least 85% dispatchable power generation capacity.
Fuel Price Stability: Coal vs. Natural Gas
Natural gas prices are volatile, especially during winter when home heating competes with power generation for pipeline capacity.
A key point on the generation of electricity: The fuel cost is the single largest component of the operating dollar for the production of electricity. So, if much solar and wind is installed, then it must be backed up with Dispatchable electricity generation. Usually in the U.S., that fuel for Dispatchable, backup power is natural gas. As can be seen from the examples of New England, California, Hawaii, Germany and the UK, the cost of that backup fuel matters when retail electricity prices are compared.
The chart below compares natural gas prices (blue) with coal prices (black) since 1980.
Conclusions
Coal provides the fuel to generate reliable electricity at amongst the lowest cost in the world. This is based on actual results and actual rates, not on economic models or expert opinions.
Modern coal plants like Cross are clean; their ash is recycled for cement and sheetrock manufacture.
Nuclear is excellent but new construction takes a decade and costs tens of billions (Vogtle 3 & 4: 10 years, $30+ billion).
Natural gas already provides ~43% of U.S. electricity (2025)—a high share for a pipeline-delivered fuel. Coal plants balance price volatility and store weeks of fuel on-site, an intrinsic grid security advantage.
The author recommends the S.C. Legislature repeal the Net Zero Carbon law and allow SCPSA and AI Data Center developers to pursue new coal-fueled generation
Part 2 will follow and show some more reasons why wind and solar although using “Free” fuel, cost more.
Coal power in America remains important and I wrote on that last week. This is a followup to provide an overview of the importance of coal as a form of primary energy in the rest of the world. The key phrase is Primary Energy.
Ron Stein and Nancy Perlman wrote an excellent article on the importance of providing primary energy to the six billion people on the planet that are living in poverty. Lifting them from poverty requires energy, just as energy powered the citizens of countries living in the Developed world.
“In poor countries, millions of those in poverty die every year. From indoor air pollution from having to burn wood, charcoal, grass, and dung, because they don’t have natural gas, propane or electricity for cooking and heating. From bacteria and parasites in their water and food, because they don’t have electricity, water treatment or refrigeration. From malaria and other diseases, because their substandard clinics and hospitals lack electricity, clean water, sufficient vaccines and antibiotics, even window screens. “
It’s disheartening that the wealthier country governments have chosen electricity generation “winners,” i.e., wind and solar, to generate electricity, paid with taxpayer funds, to support the Government Mandates and Subsidies.”
How about India and China?
China did in fact lift millions from poverty since they entered the World Trade Organization and became the world’s leading country in manufacturing. One example is their use of enormous amounts of coal as the primary energy to produce aluminum. Before the year 2000 China was an insignificant producer of aluminum. Look what they did in 20 years.
How did China power their economy to become the world’s largest producer of aluminum, steel and most manufactured products in such a short time? They did it with coal power. Thomas Shepstone, Jr. and Duggan Flanigan also wrote about energy intensive aluminum production. Here is an overview of China’s energy production during this period of astounding industrial production growth. This chart below is from my July 2025 presentation to the Coal Institute.
China consumes over 50% of the world’s coal. They understand the sources of primary energy that are viable for affordable, Dispatchable and reliable electricity production, so does India. From the IER (Institute for Energy Research)
“China and India – both considered “developing countries” by the IPCC – are burning record amounts of coal and using more kinds of energy to keep energy prices affordable and increase the standard of living for their people. Wind and solar energy in China and India are complements, not substitutes, to their massive growth in energy, particularly in fossil fuels. Fossil fuels provided 82 percent and 88 percent of China and India’s energy, respectively, in 2022.”
How about India, Germany and the UK?
From the Economic Times: “India’s coal consumption could more than double by mid-century before plunging sharply as the country shifts toward cleaner energy, long‑term projections published by government think-tank NITI Aayog show.“
Germany’s path to Net Zero has created much loss of industry. Here are a few references:
WUWT on the Decline of German Chemical Industries due to High Energy Prices, and How Germany is Dismantling it’s Core, by Tilak Doshi.
Lars Shernikau’s blog post on the decline of German Industry due to missteps of Green Policies. Dr. Shernikau is a well respected author and world renowned energy expert.
Coal use in the world has steadily increased.
So if Coal Is Such an Obvious Source of Primary Energy, Why is the West Self Sabotaging Their Economies?
I provided a presentation to the ENERUM Energy Forum in Columbus in 2022 to ask this question. A similar presentation to Liberty University in 2023. I am glad to send those presentations. upon request.
Getting back to aluminum production, here is a graph of U.S. and China production. As America shut down many coal plants and electricity costs rose, China was building new coal plants to provide reasonable cost electricity to smelt aluminum in huge quantities. Many folks, including me believe that China Dumped aluminum on the International markets in lieu of counterfeiting U.S. currency. Note the rise of aluminum produced in China during the years 2004-2014 (from chart above). Both of these charts are from a presentation to the Delaware County Bar Association in 2016 to discuss energy, the economy and how it impacts the Real-Estate Market. Yes, I know that sounds abstract, but reasonable cost energy = jobs, especially for energy intensive industries such as aluminum smelting, then the jobs impact the Real-Estate market.
The Self-Sabotaging and excessive environmental laws of the U.S. have not only seriously (I hope not mortally) wounded the aluminum industry, but also steel and heavy manufacturing. Steel production by country is shown below. Why do western politicians continue to do their best to weaken their countries and force manufacturing overseas? It is not only the U.S. it is Australia, Germany the UK and more. President Trump is trying to correct the U.S. problem, but he has much opposition by the Democrats.
The west has been committing energy suicide. Here are links to several articles written by Professor Vaclav Smil, CO2 Coalition’s Gregory Whitestone and Ron Stein. Vaclav Smil for Fraser Institute, “Why Net Zero is Impractical and Unrealistic” and Scam of the Century: Ridding the World of Crude Oil Without a Replacement is Global Suicide”, by Ron Stein and Gregory Whitestone, July 2024. I have also written much with many credible other references on the Self-Sabotaging of the U.S. electric Grid. Here, here and here are three such articles.
Professor Samuele Furfari whom I admire and follow, has written much on the fallacy of hydrogen, wind and solar. Here is a short article he wrote for the CO2 Coalition. Here is an excerpt:
“Over the past ten years, the EU has reduced its energy demand by 6.1 EJ. In contrast, the rest of the world has increased its energy demand by 76.8 EJ – thirteen times more. This is not surprising given that the EU’s competitiveness is currently under threat from the Green Deal. This tragedy is even recognised by the Mario Draghi report, although it does not directly attribute faults to the Green Deal n order to remain politically correct. Instead, the report blames the increase in energy prices, which are nevertheless the consequence of EU energy policy. Outside the European Union, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power have generated 8 EJ. This figure actually surpasses the change in energy demand within the EU itself. Nevertheless, over the past ten years, fossil fuel consumption has increased by 59 EJ. This means that outside the EU growth in fossil fuels has outpaced that of renewables by a factor of 7.3. In other words, while modern renewable energy is expanding, fossil fuel use is increasing at a rate more than seven times greater. Contrary to the commonly held belief within the EU that the gap between renewables and fossil fuels is narrowing, the reality is that the gap is widening. The evidence suggests that the EU has indeed achieved results in the energy transition, undergoing a profound transformation of its electricity sector and setting benchmarks for renewable energy integration and emissions reduction. However, the EU’s progress is not being matched elsewhere, and its leadership is merely symbolic because the rest of the world is accelerating its use of fossil fuels more than its use of renewable energy. When a leader realises that no one is following them, they must reconsider whether they are truly leading.” I emboldened the line which I thought was most important. It is not only the EU that has chosen the foolish path of Net Zero Carbon, but many other countries and states remain on this course. So, let’s take a look at Australia.
Australia
I saw Ben Tan’s post on LinkedIn where he showed the primary energy used in Australia 1984-2024. It is copied below. This shows the constant need for coal power, steady since 1983.
Two other Australian sources for up to date enelectricity generation by source are Rafe Champion and Ben Beattie. I thank them for their articles, links and information. Here below is the Australian Grid generation by fuel for Feb. 22, 2026. Note that it is over 50 % coal. (at one point 38.5% Black coal and 13.2% Brown Coal) Solar and wind were producing 45% at this same moment. Solar does very well during the sunshiny 6 hours or so of the day and wind does well when the wind is blowing, but the voltage control, base load, sudden increased demand requirements (like turning on a 150 MW electric furnace in a steel mill). Also, the rotational inertia and Grid stability are provided by the coal and gas plants.
Numerous references are included at the end from Rafe Champion, PA Pundits and others on the problems with wind and solar. Although electricity generation is complicated, it is not rocket science. If the politicians would do just a little bit of reading and research and maybe even ask folks like us that do understand, they could make right decisions. However, across the west politicians insist on weakening their countries. Just like the U.S. presidents Obama and Biden (before President Trump began the Herculean job of correcting anti-American Energy policy) and the German and UK politicians. Of course, even many Bureaucrats and state Legislatures to this day, are still stuck on the destructive path of Net Zero Carbon. Even my Conservative (Red) state of South Carolina. Here is a quote From the Santee-Cooper IRP: “As required by S.C. Code Ann. §58-37-40(A)(4)(c), Santee Cooper has evaluated a Net Zero CO2 “
This reminds me of Charlie Reese’s last column on how a minority of legislators and judges can force their Ideology on the citizens. Off topic but voter energy education and voter turnout needs to be improved. As I said, we even have misguided voters and politicians in the deep red state of South Carolina. We have got to improve the energy IQ of the voters.
Recent Articles to Support Building New Coal Power Generation Plants
Rather than repeat my same message, here are recent articles I have written in an attempt to explain the case for new coal plants, including two articles on the need to build new coal plants based on coal being the default source of primary energy. The default source of primary energy because the electricity growth is expected to out pace the production of gas turbines to provide for all new generation and nuclear generation, although a very good approach, will take a decade or more to provide the needed electricity generation capacity.
• Wind and Solar are the Highest Cost Power and Cannot Meet Demand, they are a risk to national security and when a region exceeds 30% renewables and the electricity rates are the highest
• More Dispatchable Bulk Power Plants Need to be Built
• Coal, Gas and Nuclear Plants provide the lowest cost, most reliable Power over the long term
• States and Countries on Path to Net-Zero Carbon are Paying a high price
• Natural Gas Prices will likely rise in the future
• Electricity prices will rise with fuel cost as well as from inflation of components and construction costs.
• Production prices of electricity will follow fuel cost
• A Balanced Generation portfolio is Beneficial as a Hedge Against Fuel Cost Volatility
• America should learn from the experiences of Germany, CA, Hawaii, CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ and other states with high electricity costs
• States and countries that have shut down coal plants have experienced increased electricity production costs. This is not a forecast, this is fact
The thermal performance of the existing coal fleet can be improved by applying proven and reasonable cost mechanical tuning solutions. Coal power generation has many advantages when done with excellence in operations and maintenance. This article is based on my presentation to the EPRI Heat-Rate Conference last week and it is written for experienced electric power generation professionals, thus this is somewhat technical. The purpose is to show both the importance of coal power and to highlight some of the opportunities to improve coal plant thermal performance.
First, Apply the Fundamentals!
Our approach to coal plant performance improvement has always been: First apply the fundamentals which we refer to as the 13 Essentials for Optimum Combustion and the 22 Boiler Controllable Heat-Rate Variables. More on these later. After these have been applied, then consider modifications and upgrades of bottlenecking components.
The charts of coal use in the world below highlight the absolute importance of coal power as a major source of primary energy. Paraphrasing Mark Twain’s comment on seeing his Obituary, and applying it to coal: “The reporting of the demise of coal has been greatly exaggerated”...
Coal Remains Vital as a Source of American Primary Energy
Some of us nuts and bolts practical engineers knew the importance for coal fuel to meet the demand of last week’s winter storm. The U.S. Grid Dashboard helped document that need. However, this seems new to many academics and government policy makers.
In fact, here is the U.S. electricity generation by fuel for January 30th. Note that coal is shown generating 128,526 MW. This is about 22% of the total generation. During this cold period, this is a very important 22% of Dispatchable and affordable generation.
Coal powered well over 60% of the low country of South Carolina last week. To be fair, SCPSA owns about 322 MW of Summer nuclear plant and that power is not shown on the display below. Like many areas of the U.S. coal, nuclear and gas provided over 80% of the total electricity generation.
The chart below is a screenshot of MISOENERGY. For this region, coal was over 39% during winter storm Fern.
Coal literally saved the Grid during winter storm Fern. And, nearly all of the expert forecasts of electricity Demand show about 100,000 MW of new generation needed by 2030. So, my question is, why aren’t new base load coal plants under construction right now?
The charts above show the importance of coal as recent as last week. However, the Deep State Bureaucrats, NGOs. state Legislatures (including red states like S.C.) and much of the public still resist facing the energy reality that coal offers many advantages for at least the next two decades. Well, let’s move on to getting the best performance from the existing coal fleet by first, applying the fundamentals!
Getting the Inputs Right
Achieving excellence in operating a coal plant takes hard work and vigilance of paying attention to the details. Rankine plants are tough, resilient and forgiving but when attention is paid to the details it can make a huge difference in heat rate. Here is a typical spread of plant efficiencies as performed by an NETL study.
This is old timey data but, in my experience, it represents the spread between the Best Run and those that are run with Mediocrity. The chart below is from Electric Light and Power, Nov./Dec. 2014. This shows the top 20 Rankine Cycle coal plans for the year 2013. Net Heat-Rate for that year. Excellence in O&M as well as design. Notice, Turk Plant at the top of the list. More on Turk later.
I coauthored an article in POWER Magazine with Dr. Robert Peltier entitled, “How Stealth Losses in Combustion Can Lower Efficiency”. This article was based on experiences and proven results. It has been shown that by excellence in O&M, Heat-Rates can be influenced by as much as 1,200 BTU/kWh. Later a couple examples will be shown where the magnitude of 500 BTUs/kWh in Heat-Rate improvements were achieved by applying the 13 Essentials and the 22 Boiler Controllable Variables. This was accomplished by testing to identify the opportunities and then correcting them. Most of the improvements have been through optimizing primary airflow, improving coal fineness, correcting air in-leakage and reducing upper furnace exit gas temperatures (FEGT). The reduced FEGT then improves thermal performance by reducing S.H. and R.H. de-superheating spray water flow and reducing cycle losses from soot blowing.
Getting the Inputs Right!
The first step to optimizing combustion and heat rate, is to apply the 13 Essentials. All 13 are important, but nine of the 13 are pulverizer, fuel and fuel line related. This list of 13 essentials is the best and most important single document for optimizing combustion on a large PC Fired Utility Boiler. I am dead serious. These are NOT optional for a pulverized coal fueled boiler.
Some of the most common opportunities for improvement that we have found and then corrected for mechanical tuning with great results are:
Pulverized coal fineness
High Primary Airflow
High FEGT due to secondary combustion
Air In-Leakage
Air Heater Leakage
Fuel line imbalance
Secondary air imbalance
Burner tuning optimization
I know that there are other combustion tuning and controls manufacturers believe that airflow management to different zones of the furnace is not important, However, it is our experience that airflow management is in fact, crucial. We know from experience that these do work very well and where we have implemented the 13 Essentials they have always created a positive result for improved efficiency, reduced slagging, less tube metal overheating, best NOx performance, improved ESP (Electrostatic Precipitator) performance and more.
The correction of these individual items then complement each other to provide synergy which compounds the improvements. Such as: Reducing high primary airflows will usually result in better fineness, lower flyash carbon in ash losses, reduced upper furnace gas temperatures (FEGT), reduced sootblowing, less de-superheating spray water flows and reduced dry gas losses as a result of lowered tempering air flows. When all 13 Essentials have been earnestly applied and the O&M Team bought in on constantly maintaining them with vigilance, good RESULTS have been achieved. I will provide a couple examples later in this discussion.
The potential improvements and the synergism between them is shown on the chart below to show how about 600 BTUs/kWh in Heat-Rate can be achieved by focusing on boiler and combustion optimization. The data and examples shown have been proven in full size coal power plants and in at least one complete Utility that adopted the approach over a several year period.
Here is a figure which shows several of the most important “Essentials” of optimum combustion. Key to best coal fineness, best airheater “X” Ratio, fuel balance and good reliability is, a repeatable and optimized Primary air curve. An example of a preferred primary airflow ramp is shown below.
Pulverizer performance is important and it has been our experience, that unless pulverizers are undersized, the fineness and fuel distribution can be corrected to within the parameters of 75% passing 200 mesh and 1.8 #air/#fuel and +/- 10% Fuel line balance. Truly, the pulverizers are the heart of a PC fired boiler.
One of the simplest tests to ascertain whether high carbon in ash is due to combustion issues or pulverizer performance is to run a three-part flyash carbon in ash test. First, obtain a representative ash sample and pass a measured quantity through a 200 mesh sieve. Then measure the LOI (Loss on Ignition) of the coarse and fine particles. If most of the carbon loss is in the coarse particles, then the high loss due to carbon in ash is pulverizer performance related. If high LOI in the fine particles, then fuel balancing, air balancing or high post combustion air in-leakage is the problem. I am not one to promote shortcuts, but this is an easy test to conduct and it is very informative with regard to combustion performance and pulverizer performance. However, the flyash sample MUST be Representative!
Stealth Heat-Rate Losses
Stealth heat rate losses are those losses in Rankine Cycle efficiency due to controllable losses, some are located at the Boiler Island. Here is a list of 22 Controllable Losses that are controllable by optimization of the steam generator and combustion system performance.
Application of these practical steps have been accomplished on numerous single units and on several total utility systems. All Utility boiler furnace exit gas temperatures should be in the range of 2,150 degrees F. to 2,,300 degrees F. Often, the first indication of a problem is in the use of an HVT probe with a 310 ss radiation shield and the metal and thermocouple literally melt. The melting temperature of 310 ss is about 2,900 degrees F. The pre-requisite for achieving good furnace performance is to apply the 13 Essentials as covered above and when the are, lower FEGT’s are attainable. (FEGT=Furnace Exit Gas Temperature)
The stealth losses compound together because of poor furnace combustion, this leads to flame quenching, overheated S.H. and R.H. tube metals, high S.H. and R.H. spray water flows, higher exit gas loss, slagging and fouling, increased draft loss, increased sootblower operation and consequent cycle steam losses, increased fan horsepower and carbon in ash losses. These seemingly small, individual issues when corrected, compound to create significant heat rate improvements as will be shown later. Never underestimate the adverse impact of poor pulverizer performance on overall unit Heat-Rate!
High primary airflow contributes to poor coal fineness, higher FEGT, increased NOx, high metal temperatures in the S.H. and R.H., requires increased soot blower operation, fouls the convection pass, air heater and SCR and much more. High primary airflows are very commonly found by our test teams. One of the most frequent opportunities for improvement.
Non-optimized combustion then creates Rankine cycle Thermodynamic losses through increased de-superheating water spray flows. The R.H. sprays are particularly harmful to Heat-Rate.
Case Studies of Large Utility Steam Generator Successes
Here is an example of a 450 MW 2400 psi/1000/1000 unit which has a design best heat rate of about 9,200 Btus/kWh. In this case study the 13 essentials were applied but these alone did not correct the high FEGT. To correct secondary air imbalances windbox baffles and perforated plates were installed in the burner inlets. These secondary airflow system changes corrected secondary air maldistribution. The result was about a 300-500 Btu/kWh heat rate improvement.
However, the largest economic gain came from improved fuel flexibility where lower cost coal with a lower fusion temperature could be burned and this provided better generation economics and increased load factor operation, which also helped to achieve a better heat rate from the increased operational hours at higher loads.
The next case study is a 600 MW class 2400/1000/1000 unit in northern Kentucky. The heat rate was about 1,000 Btu above achievable. Again, first step was the application of the 13 essentials for combustion optimization. But also, a very effective team effort was organized by the plant manager to place priority on all of the heat rate factors on the steam generator and all of the balance of plant. Including the condenser cleaning and cooling tower fill corrections.
The results of the coordinated efforts of the operations and maintenance team plus the heat-rate engineer and Storm Technologies testing, resulted in a step change in heat rate improvement of about 800 Btus/kWh. The primary pre-requisite for this success was TEAMWORK! All of the O&M Team bought in on the approach and the end result was extremely gratifying to all.
The main factors in this unit’s success were: Pulverizer optimization, fuel balancing, optimized primary airflow program (reduced PA flows), secondary air balancing, correcting air in leakage, correction of cooling tower fill problems, reducing secondary combustion, reduced high spray flows, reduced soot blower operation, reduced air preheater leakage and reduced system losses.
The typical opportunities that are found are worth about 600 Btus/kWh in heat rate improvement. Here is a breakdown of where these opportunities are typically found:
A frequently found opportunity is air in-leakage. Especially on older boilers. Any air that enters the boiler setting without passing through the air preheater, constitutes a Dry Gas Loss. Also, if it is large enough, can contribute to secondary combustion due to low furnace oxygen content, upper furnace secondary combustion and high FEGT’s.
The air preheater is the last heat trap on 99% of all the coal plants we have worked. Improving the performance or ultimately replacing the air preheaters with newer, reduced leakage and higher efficiency preheaters can drastically improve overall unit performance.
For older plants and especially those that have poor performing air preheaters such as the Rothemuhle type, then installing an upgraded new air preheater can provide a step change in improved performance. It is my hope that New Source Review and any other restrictive Regulations against modifications to improve performance are gone forever.
Another upgrade option is to change the superheater and/or Reheater surface areas for optimum steam temperatures and overall performance. Also, possible changes in tube lane spacing, sootblower lane erosion protection and upgraded higher alloy tubing.
America’s last new coal plants went into service over a dozen years ago. Three of the newest and highest efficiency units are Duke’s Cliffside, AEP’s Turk and Kansas City Gas and Electric’sIatan. All of these are supercritical and capable of heat rates of about 8,300-9,000 Btus/kWh. About 38-41% thermal efficiency. https://www.powermag.com/plant-of-the-yearkcpls-iatan-2-earns-powers-highest-honor/ The Europeans, Japanese and Americans advanced the state of the art for Rankine cycle plants to approach 42% thermal efficiency. These improvements were in steam turbines, steam generator design and metallurgy. Then, we stopped building coal plants. The Chinese, on the other hand, had the advantage of applying all of the improvements that the west had achieved and then they kept on working to advance the state of the art even further. Indeed they have approached 50% thermal efficiency with their coal plant designs. However, the Chinese plant Heat-Rates are reported on a fuel LHV basis. To be a fair comparison to the Best units in America, such as Turk or Cliffside the efficiencies should be based on the fuel HHV. These Chinese units (and Turk and Cliffside) have been featured in Power Magazine.
The American advancement of coal plant design in the modern age, for the best thermal efficiency possible, began with the Eddystone Unit # 1 designed in the 1950’s.
Quest for Improved Thermal Efficiency
In my personal experiences, I began my career in the power industry in 1962. This is when Philadelphia Electric’s Eddystone Station was new. Eddystone started up in 1960. At that time, this was the most efficient power plant in the world. Steam conditions were at throttle pres. 5,000 psi 1,250 degree Superheat and two stages of Reheating at 1,050 degrees F. The design Heat-Rate from 1950’s technology was 8230 Btu/kWh or 41% thermal efficiency. Since that time, America’s coal fleet has held pretty steady for the “Best” coal plants. Eddystone was the “Best” in 1960 at 41% Thermal efficiency. The most recent U.S. Ultra-supercritical plants, Turk, Cliffside and Iatan are capable of about the same efficiency as Eddystone was. However, I should mention that today’s clean coal plants use much more auxiliary power to drive the Flue Gas Cleanup equipment. FGD, SCR, ESP’s, Baghouses etc. These were not yet invented when Eddystone started up and therefore were not installed at Eddystone. For new plants such as Turk to achieve similar thermal performance with the backend environmental cleanup gear represents a true advancement in the state of the art.
The above chart shows the Thermal Efficiency progress of heat engines, since the days of Edison, Tesla and Westinghouse. As can be seen on the chart, the U.S. gas turbine fleet has progressed amazingly well and has reached design capabilities of over 60% thermal efficiency.
At the end of my EPRI presentation I showed the POWER Magazine information on the Chinese Pingsham, Phase ll coal plant that is advertised as being nearly 50% efficient. This is based on steam conditions of 4,500 psi 1100 degrees F. steam temperatures with two stages of Reheat at 1100 degrees F. (close to Eddystone #1) The EPRI Heat-Rate Conference is a technical meeting and the people in attendance are very sharp. It was quickly pointed out that the efficiency attributed to Pingsham ll of 49+% is based on fuel LHV and not HHV. Thus, the performance of Pingsham is just a couple points above the AEP Turk Plant in Arkansas. The John Turk Ultra-Supercritical coal plant went into operation in 2012 and is about 39% efficient. The steam conditions at Turk are: 3500psi throttle, 1100 degree S.H. and 1100 degree Reheat. Design Heat-Rate of Turk is 8730 Btus/kWh (39% Thermal efficiency)
My point is, the Chinese have taken advantage of all of the engineering and operational experiences gained in the U.S. and Europe and built on these developments, experiences and knowledge to provide further advancements. Even though modest, the newest Chinese coal plants are in-fact more efficient than the U.S. newest coal plants. The Turk coal plant was started up in 2012 and only one other since then. Duke Cliffside #6, 2013, which is similar overall efficiency as Turk. Another outstanding coal plant of high efficiency, built around the same time is the Prairie States Plant in Illinois. Another point is the fact that the EPA restricted efficiency improvements for about 30 years. That is, if a U.S. coal plant implemented improvements to increase efficiency, they would be severely penalized. Now, with an energy friendly administration, the EPA “New Source Review” Rule, should not be a deterrent to implementing performance and even capacity improvements. In my view, the existing U.S. coal fleet should be capable of being upgraded in capacity, reliability, fuel flexibility and efficiency. In my Power Magazine article published in 2009, I showed several examples of plants that could be improved with new S.H. surfaces, larger fans, upgraded pulverizers and modifications such as these. The word “Upgrade” is or at least should not, be a dirty word.
The Demise of Coal Has Been Drastically Exaggerated
Borrowing Mark Twain’s quote on the premature posting of his obituary, coal is needed, it is being widely utilized and it will not be easily replaced as a form of primary energy. Here below is a chart of electricity generation 2000-2023 from the G-20 nations presented by EPRI. Electricity generation from all fuels has steadily increased and will accelerate the electricity growth during the next 20 years.
As mentioned above, the U.S. worked hard at advancing thermal power generation efficiency. Gas turbines and combined cycle plants have made great progress. However, the war on coal stopped American progress for improving coal plant efficiency which effectively stopped in 2012. On the other hand, China continued to improve coal plant efficiency. Here below is one example of applied excellence in obtaining coal plant efficiency. I should point out that the 49+% Thermal Efficiency is based on the fuel LHV. Still, a commendable effort and results to achieve overall thermal performance in the high 40’s% is the Best I am aware of.
Coal: America’s Treasure of Primary Energy, Why Not Use it?
Coal power has at least a dozen solid advantages for electricity generation. Winter Storm Fern during the week of January 30, 2026 proved the importance and resiliency of coal plants. Even older plants that have not had the optimal maintenance once practiced. For reference, here is my list of the top dozen reasons that coal power is important.
Another important reason for new coal plants is that to provide the future demand in electricity growth, it is the most viable sources of primary energy to be utilized. I wrote on this before here and here. The electricity growth forecasts all show increases of about 100 GW needed by 2030 and about 800 GW by 2050. This is a lot of power and not easily built in 25 years. For example, the Roxboro coal generating station is four units and is capable of about 2400 MW when it is in top condition. Here is a photo of Roxboro Generating Plant. The first unit started up in 1966 and the newest one about 14 years later. Over 16 years of duration from the first contract signing till the 4th and last unit became commercial. Picture building 40 plants like this in four years to achieve the needed 100 GW of new Dispatchable generation by 2030. We can hope and wish. Sadly, the limitations of the Supply-Chain of manufactured components and craftspersons make this an impossible task today.
So, what are the alternatives? Here is my view of what it will take. Nuclear is loved by everyone today. However, it took Southern Company about ten years to build Vogtle 3&4 which is about 2,200 MW of new Base Load capacity. This is a great plant, now the largest nuclear plant in the U.S., but building 14 of these each year just doesn’t seem plausible.
Conclusions
Thank you for reading this. There are numerous additional articles listed below in the references.
Yours very truly,
Dick Storm, Feb. 7, 2026
The words “Modifyand Upgrade” re dirty words with the EPA for about 30 years. Thanks to a misguided EPA the U.S. existing coal plants were forbidden to be upgraded in any way other than back end environmental emission eqpment installation. Now, the EPA-NSR should no longer be a fctor. References and for further reading:
Coal fuel should be included in the future electricity generation portfolio based on the laws of physics, available forms of primary energy, proven economics of electric power generation and the proven track record of coal power for providing reliable, dispatchable and affordable electricity generation. The CO2 Coalition’s Angela Wheeler interviewed me for the CO2 Coalitions Podcast, “Climate De-Brief” and here are my views of the absurd anti-American energy policies, many of which are still strangling President Trump’s path to restoring America’s Greatness. Energy is, in fact, The LifeBlood of Our Economy.
This article will attempt to show some of the reasons why based on the merits of coal why it should be increased as in the portfolio of reliable sources of primary energy. Speaking of BTUs, I would like to start with describing the potential sources of the primary energy America needs and is using now to supply 100 quadrillion BTUs of primary energy.
Back to Basics: Let’s Look at the Available Sources of Primary Energy
From a primary energy viewpoint, America has used right at 100 quadrillion BTUs of energy each year since about the year 2000.
This includes all forms of energy including oil, gas, coal, nuclear and renewables. As more AI Data Centers are built, more manufacturing is reshored, more EVs placed on the highways and greater electrification is transitioned across the economy, the demand for total primary energy is expected to increase. Coal is the most practical, achievable and available addition to provide 10-30 quadrillion BTUs more per annum of growing primary energy supply. Do you remember the phrase from a couple years ago, “Electrify Everything”? Let’s get back to the basics of Primary energy and then look at the incredibly huge contribution of conventional fuels. Also, the diminutive contribution of wind and solar.
Conventional forms of energy, that is those forms of energy we have depended on for the last hundred years, still provide well over 90% of the Primary energy that we need for our economy to thrive and to power our lives.
The Enormity of 100 Quadrillion BTUs
The statistics of energy use, fuel sources, electricity generation, plant efficiencies and much more are well understood by people who read this. However, outside of our energy professional’s network there are millions of Americans that have low energy IQ’s. Some of the low energy IQ individuals create national energy policy. As a result of indoctrination by renewable energy proponents many Americans believe that wind and solar can replace coal, gas and yes, even nuclear.
The public in general, has a very weak understanding of the generation of electricity and how it is managed. Therefore, I thought I would describe in understandable terms; primary energy, electricity and the enormity of 100 Quadrillion BTUs. Perhaps this will reach people and politicians that are otherwise unaware of the magnitude of the primary energy supplied by conventional forms of energy which we absolutely need to power our lives.
Reliable, Dispatchable and affordable Electric power generation is the Life-Blood of any country’s economy. The source of most of the electric power generation for most of the industrialized world since the Industrial Revolution has been Thermal Power generation. Even in the western countries that have attempted to transition to carbon free sources of electric power generation, thermal power continues to dominate. For the year 2024 about 76% of the electric power production was from thermal power. The primary energy of over 90 quadrillion BTUs was provided by coal, gas, nuclear, oil and Biomass.
One of the advantages of Thermal generation is just about all forms of Thermal power are dispatchable on demand. Gas turbines and Reciprocating gas engines obviously respond faster than a pulverized coal or nuclear unit, but most of the thermal power plants are in fact, dispatchable.
The demand for electricity is growing. The quantity of growth in the future in debatable however, most experts agree, electricity demand is growing and U.S. growth may require as much as 100 GW of new generation by 2030 and 800 GW of new generation by 2040. Limited battery backup is available for intermittent renewables. Proven sources of dependable, affordable and dispatchable power are needed for grid reliability.
Gas fuel provides 43% of America’s electric power generation. Nuclear is now accepted by almost everyone. However, deploying 100 GW of new nuclear power generation by 2030 is unrealistic, given the record of permitting and construction times from recent new nuclear power plants such as Vogtle 3 and 4 which took about 10 years to build. In the U.S. nuclear power provided about 808 TWh of electricity out of about 4200 TWh total or about 19%. This is commendable, however, most of the U.S. nuclear plants were built decades ago and are an average age of about 42.
Think about the need of 100 GW of new power generation by 2030. If the growth in supply was all nuclear, 100 GW would be equivalent to completing 45 new nuclear units the size of Vogtle units #3 & 4 in four years, if started today.
Included in the heading “Conventional Energy” is Hydro. Why? Because it is important, it is dispatchable and it has been around for well over 100 years. Therefore, in my view, it qualifies as being conventional. When hydropower is included with thermal power, the total Primary Energy from conventional sources exceeds 90%.
This is the primary energy that generates electricity, provides ground and air transportation, commercial & Residential heating, cooling, cooking and very importantly, industrial production. Electricity generation consumes between 33 to 40% of the world’s total primary energy.
Electrify everything was the buzz phrase of a few years ago. Let’s look at the enormity of replacing the conventional fuels we all depend on now.
Thermal electric power generation dominates U.S. electricity generation. Gas fuel has taken the lead from coal since about 2010. The total Thermal power generation in the U.S. in 2024 was about 76% Thermal generation.
The Enormity of BTUs Measured in Quadrillions
About 43% of America’s electricity was generated from pipeline supplied natural gas in 2025. It is hard to visualize 33 Quadrillion BTUs of methane, so I thought showing huge LNG tanker ships might be a way to describe the challenge of increasing America’s total Primary energy consumption from the current @ 100 Quads to the range of 120 Quads by 2050.
How About Coal?
In the year 2008 America consumed about 20 Quadrillion BTUs of coal generated electricity. Since then natural gas use has overtaken coal’s #1 position and coal in 2025 generated about 16% of America’s electricity and consumed about 10 Quadrillion BTUs. Coal has been demonized by many and is not perceived by the public to be the Treasure of American energy that I believe it is.
However, from the standpoints of physics, economics, proven track record, dispatchability, energy storage and reliability….Coal is an important fuel for the next twenty or thirty years. Here are thirteen advantages of coal as a source of primary energy for electricity generation:
Coal Power is Proven Here and Now
Energy Density
Reliable
Affordable and has the best record of low cost electricity production over the long term
On-Site Fuel Storage for months
Dispatchable
Coal Plants are Robust and have a long life when properly maintained
The Manufacturing Supply-Chain is Established
America is the Saudi Arabia of Coal and has hundreds of year supply
Operations and Maintenance Training and Protocols are Established
Manufacturers, EPRI and Training companies all have an established library of Best O&M practices
Flyash/Bottom Ash Use as Concrete Additive for Strength and resistance to spalling, FGD sludge byproduct used for sheetrock and also a source of Rare Earth Minerals
Modern Coal Plants are cleanand the emissions of major pollutants have been corrected with backend pollution control equipment. The six main pollutants have been reduced since 1970 in spite of increases in GDP, Population, auto miles driven and greater use of energy in all forms. The EPA chart below shows the progress achieved.
Conclusions
Wind and Solar are the Highest Cost Power and Cannot Meet Demand
More Dispatchable Bulk Power Plants Need to be Built
Coal, Gas and Nuclear Plants provide the lowest cost, most reliable Power
States and Countries on Path to Net-Zero Carbon are Paying a high price
Natural Gas Prices will likely rise in the future
Electricity prices will rise with fuel cost as well as from inflation of components and construction costs.
Production prices of electricity will follow fuel cost
A Balanced Generation portfolio is Beneficial as a Hedge Against Fuel Cost Volatility
America should learn from the experiences of Germany, CA, Hawaii, CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ and other states with high electricity costs
States and countries that have shut down coal plants have experienced increased electricity production costs. This is not a forecast, this is fact
Building new clean coal plants are needed to continue America’s excellent record of providing reliable electricity at affordable costs.
Coal is the default fuel to increase America’s Primary energy supply beyond 120 Quadrillion BTUs in the next decade
Part ll will cover electric power generation in the rest of the world and some of the advances of clean coal power generation.
Here is an absolutely nutty proposal, replace a reliable 2700 MW coal plant, (the Sherco Coal Plant) with solar panels. This is Minnesota where it gets very cold and also is known for heavy snowfall in the winter…, CNN report: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/16/climate/coal-to-solar-minnesota
The term BULK POWER means just that, Bulk Power in hundreds and thousands of Megawatts. America needs huge Bulk Power generation additions of about 30,000 MW per year, not small scale R&D projects of variable generation or unproven new SMRs. Perhaps some time in the future renewables and new nuclear will be viable and competitive. However for now, we need 100-800 GW of new electricity generation to replace the more than 200 GW of reliable coal plants that were either shut down or planned for shut down soon. Satisfying the growing electricity demand of the future requires lots (Lots= 30,000 MW each year) of new generation capable of 24/7 generation.
When I joined CP&L in 1973 I entered a door emblazoned with a sign: Bulk Power Supply. Then I thought the name odd and frankly, I have not seen it since. However behind that door were the men and women that managed the generation assets of CP&L which at the time was only about 5,000 MW. The Bulk Power Supply came from seven fossil plants. Those plants were; Cape Fear, Weatherspooon, H.F. Lee, Sutton, Roxboro, Asheville and Robinson, including (1973) one lone nuclear (H.B. Robinson #2) and some small hydroelectric plants in the western corner of N.C. Bulk Power Supply was measured in Megawatts. Many of those coal units (CP&L has been absorbed into Duke Energy of the Carolinas) have been shut down. Most of them have been demolished as shown on the video of the Sutton plant implosion.
These coal plants should have been replaced with new coal generation plants of higher efficiency and even better flue gas cleaning. America is paying a price which will rise further, for the loss of this vital generation capacity without replacing it in kind.
The Bulk Power Supply of America needs to grow by about 800 GW by 2050. Increasing the Bulk Power Supply is a huge challenge which has been vastly underestimated. Do the math. Building new 800,000 MW of capacity in 25 years is 32,000 MW per year of new dispatchable, reliable and affordable new capacity.
Unfortunately, I think many Utilities and government officials have under-estimated the enormity of building 800 GW of new power generation. I tried to lay out my perspective in a presentation to the Coal Institute in July. 800 GW of new generation capacity is equivalent to building over 325 coal plants the size of Duke Energy’s Roxboro Coal Plant (2462 MW) or building 360 new nuclear units such as Southern Company’s Vogtle Units # 3 & 4. (2200 MW)
How About the Primary Energy to Generate 800 GW of New Electricity Generation?
As mentioned above, many experienced authors of energy and electricity generation do not dwell on the importance of primary energy, so I will. Primary energy is not magic and it is not free as the proponents for wind and solar suggest.
The results are now in for “the Global Science Project” of experimentation with wind and solar aka “The Green New Deal”. One simply has to observe the actual electricity prices in Germany, Hawaii, Spain, California, the UK and Scandinavia to know that wind and solar cost more, are not reliable and of course they are not dispatchable.
Primary Energy
Electricity is secondary energy, it must be produced from Primary energy. In the vernacular of physics one Kilowatt hour of electricity is equivalent to 3,412.6 BTUs of thermal energy. Thermal energy has proven to be the most reliable, dispatchable and affordable. The reporting of Total Energy use by countries and the world is usually done in BTUs for U.S. customary units or in Exajoules in International units. The total world, according to the IEA has used right at 600 Exajoules (rounded from 592) and is shown below in a graphic from the Visual Capitalist. The conversion of EJ to Quadrillion BTU is EJ x 0.9478=QBTU. Example 592 EJ x 0.9478= 562 Quadrillion BTU.
The U.S. uses almost one fifth of the world’s primary energy. A reminder that economic prosperity is driven by energy. America is still the world’s #1 economy and therefore it should not be a surprise that we use almost a fifth of the world’s total primary energy consumption. This is Primary energy used not only for electricity generation but also for transportation, Industrial production, heating, cooking and commercial uses. Remember the phrase “Electrify Everything?”
The First Prerequisite to a thriving economy is that there must be available, reliable and affordable Primary energy to generate that electricity.
America Uses about 100 Quadrillion BTUs Annually of Primary Energy
The LLNL Sankey Diagram shown below details the Primary Energy flows from sources to consumption. The U.S. has used right at 100 Quadrillion BTUs for the last 20 years. A little more than a third of total primary energy is used for electricity generation. (37.7%)
The chart above is from 2022. The one below from 2009. I used this chart in a presentation to the ASME in 2011 to attempt to impress the members with the importance of coal. At the time, America was using coal for about 45% of our electricity generation and the primary energy used to generate that power was about 20 Quadrillion BTUs of coal fuel. As can be seen from the two charts, natural gas increased about 10 Quads and coal decreased a similar amount. Basically, substituting natural gas for coal power production.
Self Sabotaging of the U.S. Bulk Power Supply
Since President Obama’s two term escalated war on coal over 50% of America’s reliable, affordable, Dispatchable and energy secure power generation has been shut down. I have called this self-sabotage. Mostly as a result of Federal Regulations, especially the politically inspired (not based on human health or science) EPA Endangerment Finding. But also due to NGOs and other voices working very effectively to demonize coal power. America had the most reliable, least expensive electricity supply in 2010 and the forces against coal power have steadily weakened our energy security, reliability and affordability. Electricity prices are climbing and will continue to do so as more unreliable, variable generation is forced onto the Grid, and backed up by natural gas fuel. Low prices of natural gas are not guaranteed into the future and fuel is the major cost component for thermal power generation. If the fuel cost doubles, so does the production cost of electricity.
The chart below from the IEEFA shows the path of coal free power generation. Some states and countries are ahead of my state of S.C. and the electricity costs in those states that have shut down their coal plants has escalated sharply. Germany has suffered from significant De-Industrialization as a result of forcing wind and solar on the nation. If America continues the path set by Net-Zero Carbon advocates, we all will join Hawaii, California, Spain, Germany, the UK, Massachusetts and Connecticut with higher cost power and possible de-industrialization.
Thanks to President Trump and Chris Wright, America’s energy regulatory policy is somewhat corrected. However, some states, even S.C. still have laws on the books to exit coal. I feel this is energy suicide. Coal is a national treasure that should be utilized. In fact, in my opinion, it is the best and only viable choice of primary energy to provide the needed electricity generation between now and 2050. A coal plant should be able to be built in four years. We have done it before and can do it again!
The Future 2025-2050
Electricity generation capacity will need to increase dramatically over the next 25 years. The projected growth has been well documented by many others including Stephen Heins, Thomas J. Shepstone, Jr., the ICF, NEMA and others. What is needed is an enormous amount of new, Dispatchable, reliable and affordable Bulk Power. About 800,000 MW of new Bulk Power. he workforce challenge is a topic to cover on another day.In my analysis, nuclear will play an important part. So will natural gas. However, there are three limits to just how much nuclear and natural gas can supply. These three constraints are Supply-Chain, pipelines and achieving a Balanced generation portfolio. The nuclear supply chain limits have been discussed before and although proven and an excellent clean choice, nuclear seems decades away before the needed capacity can be built. For example, it took America over 30 years (1957-1987) to design and build the existing nuclear fleet of about 97,000 MW of capacity. We now need eight times the nuclear fleet that was built over 30 years. Keep in mind, the legacy nuclear units built 1957-1987 were constructed when the Supply-Chain was well established, there were thousands of trained and experienced engineers at B&W, Combustion-Engineering and Westinghouse and craftsmen were much more abundant in the workforce. Many experienced engineers and craftsmen are now retired. Rebuilding the workforce is a topic for another day.
“Just in Time” Primary Energy
Today about 45% of the U.S. electricity generation at peak times is provided by natural gas through “just in time” pipelines. Not only is the Supply-Chain of new gas turbine plants limited but so are the pipelines and fuel supply. In my analysis, we already have too much dependence on pipeline provided natural gas. Remember the Colonial Pipeline Hack of 2021? Coal plants have the inherent advantage of being capable of storing several months of fuel on site.
The best choice for a Balanced Portfolio then, in my analysis is to build new coal plants. In Dick Storm’s Perfect World of Power Generation, I would like to see a Balanced generation portfolio of 30% coal, nuclear, gas, with 10% renewables. Illustration from the Coal Institute presentation.
Conclusion
The policy planners and utilities have gravely underestimated the growth of electricity Demand and now are catching up by using the “Easy Button” of purchasing gas turbines for backup power for wind and solar. Most of the capital being invested in new generation in this calendar year is for solar, wind and BESS (Battery Electricity Storage). This is a mistake that will cost Americans dearly.
President Trump, Chris Wright and Lee Zeldin have done the best they can to correct decades of poor flawed planning by the EPA and Congress with the Inflation Recovery Act version of the New Green Deal. However, many states and large Utilities still remain on a foolish path toward Net-Zero Carbon. For example, Here are five articles on U.S. and South Carolina Energy Policies:
America needs to begin building new Dispatchable, affordable and proven reliable Bulk Power Generation as soon as possible. As I see it, the best source of the needed primary energy to satisfy the demand is America’s own treasure of coal reserves. Think about the needed capacity in terms of 32,000 MW per year for 25 years. That my friends is a heavy lift. As a country we must unite behind President Trump to get this done…Wake up Americans!
Dick Storm's Thoughts on Energy, Education, Economic Prosperity & Environmental Blog 
