The United States' transition away from coal energy has begun.

Permits for new coal plants are being denied and many that were in production are being abandoned. With the Energy Department forecasting a 22% increase in power usage in the next 20 years, it is obvious that the vast majority of this increased power will come from alternative sources. This is further evidenced by the $16.8 billion of stimulus allocated for renewable energy compared to the relatively paltry amount of $3.4 billion for clean coal technologies.

Chris Morrison of BNET Energy contends that it would be wise for environmentalists to allow the construction of new plants with better emission-control technologies on the condition that older plants with antiquated technology be closed. While it is true that new plants are considerably cleaner, the general consensus is that "clean coal" technology, which includes carbon capture and sequestration, will not be readily available for at least another decade. It would be more costly to build new plants that would have to be either shut down or overhauled completely in order to implement CCS technology after just ten years. Factor in the exorbitant expense of implementing carbon capture technology and the prospect of building a coal-fired plant becomes financial suicide.

Still, despite the block against new plants, very few existing coal-fired power plants that are in operation have been shut down. With over half of the nation's energy derived from these plants, it is easy to see why.

However, once laws are enacted that impose costly fines against coal producers for carbon dioxide emissions these existing coal factories will certainly begin to diminish. As renewable energy becomes more efficient and reliable the dwindling profits of the coal energy factories will be squeezed further by the new competition.

For better or worse, the transition has certainly begun.

Sources:
Companies rethink coal plants from USA Today.
Coal plants checked by enviro campaigns, costs from The Washington Post.
Cost is Chief Barrier to Clean Coal from The New York Times.
Time for Environmentalists to Compromise on Coal from BNET Energy.

West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin recently sat down with the editorial board of a local newspaper and dished about the state's coal industry, nuclear energy, environmentalists and obstructionists.  Highlights include Governor Manchin's wish to have nuclear power as a part of West Virginia's energy portfolio and the balance that can be achieved when working with environmentalists.

Read the story in the Register Herald.

Climate change concerns are intesifying and coal is being acknowledged by a growing number of people as the crux of the problem.  The push to make coal "clean", viewed as the only viable solution by the coal industry, seems certain to raise the cost of producing energy from coal so high that it will have to be funded by the government.

The fallout from this includes a deluge of plans for new coal-burning power plants being denied as the coal industry fights to survive.

Read the story at the New York Times.

This is according to coal industry executives speaking at a Cambridge Energy Research Associates conference yesterday.

Read the story on platts.com.

Throughout the coal industry production is being reduced, mines are being idled and jobs are being cut as the industry feels the effects of the deepening recession.

Read about it at MSN Money.

The bad thing about contracts is the same as the good thing: the buyer's price remains constant while the actual price fluctuates. In a reeling coal industry where coal prices have been in a free-fall, even contracts a few months old are locking buyers into what are now considered exorbitant amounts for coal.

One such casualty is a contract initiated only last September between ArcelorMittal and Foundation Coal Holdings that is now the subject of a breach of contract lawsuit.  The original agreement was for a $40 million dollar purchase of over 200,000 tons of coking coal.

Read the article here.