This is a transcript of the video.
Brian Palmer, writer, NRDC: Coal. It pollutes our environment, makes us sick, and contributes to climate change. If we’re going to keep burning it, we need a very good reason.
Here’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s best argument for coal, which he prefers to call “solid hydrocarbons:”
“The utility companies across this country need fuel diversity. You need solid hydrocarbons on-site that you can store so that when peak demand rises, you get solid hydrocarbons to draw on.”
This isn’t the 1920s; we don’t meet increased demand by shoveling more coal—I mean, solid hydrocarbons—into a fire. The modern grid is market-based. Here’s what I mean.
Each day the grid operator looks for the cheapest sources to fill the next day’s energy needs. It’s like an auction, except the lowest bidder wins. If the sun is shining, and the wind is blowing, these two will always be the lowest bidders because they cost basically nothing to run, but these low-carbon energy sources only supply about 7 percent of the energy we need, which means that for now, these three guys compete to supply most of the next day’s energy needs.
For decades, the winners were typically these two, coal and nuclear, but these days coal is the priciest energy source, which means now the winners are usually these two, nuclear and gas.
Sorry, coal, we’ll just power you down for now.
Now, what happens when tomorrow comes and we need more electricity than we thought, when people are turning up their AC, and the sun and the wind aren’t producing as much energy as we had hoped?
This is what Scott Pruitt was talking about when he suggested that coal could help us meet increased demand. In theory, this gives coal a second chance to sell its energy at a higher price.
Unfortunately, turning on a coal-fired power plant takes between 90 minutes and 15 hours. You have to heat up all the pipes and all of the water to create the steam that spins the turbine that creates the electricity.
Compare that to booting up a gas-fired power plant, which is basically as simple as turning on a car. So, when the grid operator says, “I need electricity right now, and I’ll pay top dollar,” coal isn’t the right choice.
That’s why coal has no future.
As wind and solar supply more and more of our energy needs, we’ll only need to fill the gap for cloudy, windless moments. That requires responsiveness, which for reasons of simple physics, coal will never have.
Plus, the administration plans a debate on climate change as coal executives continue to party in Trump’s hotel.
The Trump administration undermines an historic trail, tries desperately to save just one coal-fired power plant, and sells out the endangered delta smelt.
The air in southwestern Indiana is bad enough without the emissions from yet another proposed polluter.
If you want to know where coal is headed, look no farther than Texas—where this dirty fuel is in its death throes.
COP24 attendees mocked the Trump administration for its “clean coal” fantasies—while a shadow delegation of climate-conscious Americans quietly worked the room, mending fences.
Plus, the president looks to autocrats for anti-climate allies, and the Atlantic coastline is about to get really noisy.
Southern Illinois is waiting for Trump’s promised coal boom, but job prospects are still a bust.
Plus, it turns out Trump’s cabinet was ordered to praise him, and Pruitt’s ethical adventures continue, now with chicken chains and used mattresses.
Fun fact: In most of the country, there’s a daily auction to sell energy into our power grids—with the least expensive sources winning. Also noteworthy: Coal’s not cheap.
Ten percent of the state’s greenhouse gases come from a single coal-fired power plant—which will soon trade coal for solar.
Thanks to concerned citizens, the coal industry is making progress on how it handles its combustion wastes, but the toxic slurry is still a threat to groundwater.
Trump won’t sign the G7 climate commitment, Pruitt doesn’t have time for smog limits, and Zinke cancels science.
A Harvard study says clean energy could save billions of dollars—and thousands of lives—every year.
A 400-megawatt solar farm could make this region a hub for clean power and big companies looking to cut carbon.
As the country seeks to cut its carbon emissions, onEarth looks into whether clean-burning nuclear reactors are a worthwhile option.
Trump is confused about coal, NHTSA is confused about math, and Zinke is confused about climate change.
Trump is pushing a fossil fuel–heavy energy agenda, but in the final days of the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management left a hurdle in his path.
Canoers, kayakers, and other citizens have had enough of the purple and orange pollution oozing into the Vermilion from Vistra’s waste pits.
By working with the U.S. Department of Defense, NRDC is mapping the way for renewable energy production near military bases in the West.
The new proposal would take us backward on climate, tilt the grid toward coal, and actually kill people.
Harnessing power generated by the sun reduces your reliance on fossil fuels, but it can come with a price tag. How to decide if it’s worth it to you.
Coal is getting harder to get to—and that’s contributing to a respiratory epidemic among miners.
The Southeast has the hospitable weather and the shallow waters—but does it have the will?
A recent study found that the state is home to four of the country’s most polluting power plants. But elected officials won’t even show up to hear their constituents’ concerns about it.