Coal: Our Most Affordable, Abundant Fuel for Electricity Generation. Why Does the Governor Oppose It?

Coal is unquestionably our most abundant, affordable fuel for electricity generation. We have more than 27% of the world’s coal reserves; that’s more energy than all the recoverable oil reserves found anywhere in the world.

Say that again and ponder: The United States can get more energy from coal than is contained within all of the oil reserves in the Middle East, Russia, and anywhere else oil is found in recoverable quantities.

That’s not us talking – it’s the United States Department of Energy!

So why has the House of Representatives passed a climate change bill to cap emissions, discourage coal use, and impose the most costly tax in our nation’s history? A bill that, by the way, would cost Colorado an additional $500 million per year in increased energy costs. Why are those who voted for the bill – which includes all of Colorado’s Democrats in Congress save John Salazar – giving China, India and the rest of the world a free pass? The Waxman Markey bill and its Senate counterpart would effectively level our economy, while transferring wealth to other nations. To what end? And for what purpose?

Turning to the state level, why has Governor Bill Ritter supported closing coal fired power plants, endorsed the conversion of others to natural gas, and supported increased mandates for intermittent sources that will only add to our electric bills? Quite an about face for someone whose administration just one year ago imposed sweeping new regulations on the natural gas industry.

OK, the state and federal administrations both support funding for carbon capture and sequestration. And our two U. S. Senators finally joined in a letter urging the Senate to provide additional allowances to coal dependent utilities; it’s about time!

But Colorado is now engaged in a dangerous zero sum game in which there will be big winners – the carbon profiteers – and big losers: Coal miners, rail and utility workers who lose their jobs, not to mention electricity consumers!

We hear a lot about the New Energy Economy; and I am all for wind and solar (they are big consumers of mineral products); but these sources don’t exist absent big tax credits and subsidies.

Coal, by contrast, employs more than 2,000 workers earning wages and benefits nearing six figures, pays more than $74 million in royalties and millions more in severance and other excise taxes. Portions of these amounts go to support public schools, state and local governments.

According to Holy Cross Energy, the Governor’s plan could reduce coal use for electricity generation in the state to 30% from its current 70% level. And, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, if cap and tax becomes law, expect coal production to drop by 94%!! The jobs will go with it.

This is an odd election year strategy, given that our economy faces one of the worst recessions in more than 60 years.

Here are some things the public needs to keep in mind. Don’t swallow the snake oil that renewable energy will wean us off those nasty old fossil fuels. Intermittent sources like wind and solar are capable of meeting at best a small percentage of our electricity generation. Even with governmental mandates, that still leaves us with a need for a constant source of baseload power to meet the bulk of our energy and electricity needs. That comes from coal. We have 16 billion tons of reserves in Colorado alone – enough to meet our electricity needs for hundreds of years.


Will wind and solar wean us off foreign energy sources? Well, we don’t use foreign oil to generate much electricity in this country; we use coal to meet the bulk of our nation’s electricity needs. We would be better served by developing coal to liquid fuel technologies to break our addiction to foreign oil.

Aside from a lack of transmission capacity, it would take a wind farm covering 263 square miles to equal the output of the Craig generating station and a solar facility covering 38 square miles. Think of the environmental impact studies required for that!

What about nuclear? Nuclear is an important and clean source of 20% of our nation’s electricity, although it is not used to generate electricity in Colorado. But politicians need to understand that we can’t trade one import dependency for another – we either need to increase domestic uranium production for reactor fuel substantially, or we will continue to remain dependent on imports from places like Russia to meet 90% of our nation’s nuclear power generation. Uranium mining in Colorado has met tough resistance and has received little to no support from the state.

But shale gas will save us! Isn’t natural gas the bridge fuel to our nation’s future? As Dr. Frank Clemente, relying on data from the Energy Information Administration, has noted, natural gas presents energy consumers with an extremely expensive toll:

First, natural gas costs have exceeded coal’s costs by up to 4 times with 20 times the volatility, so the historical record is not good. In Colorado, gas costs more than 100% more than coal.

Even if shale gas is developed – and it faces significant environmental hurdles including the impact that such technologies may have on water – it will offset only about 28% of the decline in production from Canadian gas fields. Thus, the U. S. will become more dependent on liquefied natural gas from such friendly nations as Venezuela, and the Middle East!

We need all of our energy sources. Our elected leaders do not serve us well when they seek to displace one abundant source of energy in favor of another less abundant one; eliminate jobs in one industry based on the speculative promises of another. Coal and uranium are important fuel sources; we need to continue to support their development and expansion in Colorado.

Stuart A. Sanderson, President, Colorado Mining Association