New Rules, Cheap Energy Heighten Battle Between Coal and Gas

Wall Street Journal ^ | April 23, 2015 | AMY HARDER

[thackney]

Tough new environmental rules and cheap energy prices are heightening the battle between coal miners and natural-gas pumpers over which fuel will dominate the U.S. power market.

At the IHS CERAWeek global energy conference here, there were some heated words on both sides of the debate.

“Cleaner coal, there’s no such thing,” Eldar Saetre, chief executive of the Norwegian oil giant Statoil ASA, told an audience of hundreds of people, most of them employed in the fossil-fuel industry. He added climate-conscious electric companies should burn natural gas instead.

“The only thing that gets tense is when somebody like the head of Statoil makes a comment like there is no such thing as clean coal,” said Gregory Boyce, CEO of Peabody Energy Corp., one of the largest coal companies by volume in the world. “In my view, that’s an irresponsible statement to make,” Mr. Boyce said in an interview.

The dispute over whether coal can be considered a clean fuel isn’t merely semantic. In 2007, coal powered almost half U.S. electricity production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Last year, its share dropped to 39% and due in large part to climate-change regulations proposed by the Obama administration, that percentage will fall to 30% by 2030.

Natural gas, which fueled 21% of U.S. electricity in 2007, rose to 26% last year and could account for close to 40% by 2030. A decade ago, natural gas was considered to be in short supply in the U.S. and therefore was relatively expensive. The advent of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has unlocked a glut of cheap gas from American shale rock formations. The price of competing coal has been battered, leading money-losing companies to close mines....

[dhs12345]

The important thing is that we keep our options open. There is probably not an unlimited supply of nat gas.

And no, wind and solar will never replace conventional energy sources.

Bottom line: as a consumer I don't care which source powers my lights and heats my home as long as it is cheap and plentiful.

[thackney]

as long as it is cheap and plentiful

BTTT, but I would add "and not subsidized by Tax Payers".

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The US can claim 400 years of coal reserves at the present rate of consumption. It’s our ace...

[mountainlion]

“Cleaner coal, there’s no such thing,”

So many people make things up to sell their product you do not know who to believe. Coal is cleaner than the mouths of liberals.

Next the utopians will expect us to stay out of the forests but clean up the air from forest fires.

[dhs12345]

Yup.

And until fusion is in full scale production, we have no other choice. And it doesn’t look like fusion is going to happen in our lifetime.

[bestintxas]

“There is probably not an unlimited supply of nat gas.”

Noting is unlimited save the grace of God.

Having said that, my +40 years as an O&G engineer tells me that the abundance of natural gas that is available is staggering.

It far outstrips all the oil in the world and will last hundreds or thousands of years.

BTW, were you aware that a good % of the natural gas we use comes from coal? A natural process exists of methane being generated by coal that is produced and used.

I agree being diverse in our energy is important, save that energy which can be supported only at the government tit like solar, wind and biomass.

[dhs12345]

Cool, I mean warm. :) Okay, cool in the summer, warm in the winter.

As long as we are not stupid about it, our economy and society will continue to thrive for many years to come.

But the likelihood of us shooting ourselves in our “collectivists” feet is great. It is easy to give away something when you don’t understand its value because you have had it too good and haven’t had to do without.