Donald Trump's Controversial Step To Not Close Coal-Fired Power Plants

Forbes

2 days ago

Demolition of smokestacks in coal-fired San Juan Generating Station.
We are used to executive orders from President Trump, including one on April 8 stating that the Department of Energy (DOE) could step in and prevent coal-fired power plants from closing if an emergency shortage of electricity existed in that region. But few expected the DOE to step in so soon and force a coal plant in Michigan to stay open on May 23 just a week before the closure date.
This upends a lot of thinking about pollution of coal power plants, so how are the feds justifying this action?
Bloomberg Green Newsletter on May 30 reported that the Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, announced on May 23 that the Campbell plant in West Olive, Michigan, will stay open for another three months under authority of the Federal Power Act.
The plant is old, built in 1962, but generates a lot of electricity, 1.45 GW (gigawatts). It had planned to be closed by the owner, Consumers Energy, on May 31.
Why the sudden fed action? An emergency order from Wright said, 'I hereby determine that an emergency exists in portions of the Midwest region of the United States due to a shortage of electric energy, a shortage of facilities for the generation of electric energy, and other causes.'
There are two sides of the coin, according to the Bloomberg report. On one side is the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), a regional enterprise extending from Montana to Michigan and south to Louisiana and Texas. MISO has pointed out an increased risk of electricity shortages this summer, due to greater demand from industry and data centers, but also due to closing of fossil-fueled plants. In the next five years, over 120 coal plants in the U.S. are planned to close. The last 80 coal-fired plants in the U.S. are scheduled to close by 2040.
On the other hand, an electricity emergency doesn't exist, according to MISO and Michigan officials. MISO's analysis showed generating capacity was sufficient for this year. The Public Service Commission of Michigan said the recent order from the DOE was unnecessary. The order would also boost the cost of electricity in Michigan and across the Midwest. The owner of the plant, Consumers Energy, has been deferring maintenance of the plant, and no longer ships coal there; it also has plans to move workers elsewhere. In short, to fix up the plant in order to keep it open would be costly.
Coal electricity is now down to 15% from its peak of 50% U.S. supply in 2011. Why? One answer is renewables and batteries are cheaper. Another answer is air pollution. As documented by Bloomberg and Pope, in their book Climate Of Hope, 'Particulate matter from burning coal contributes to strokes, heart disease, lung disease, and cancer. If we could eliminate all the coal-fired power plants in China and India alone, we would save half a million lives every year.' The book attributes 7 million deaths globally from air pollution. Note: these are 2017 numbers.
The book distinguishes air pollution from carbon pollution (climate change), which is also discussed in the book under the headings of Rising Seas, Severe Heat, Ocean Life, and Political Instability. Coal burns dirty and is the worst source of carbon polluting greenhouse gases. Fossil energies provide about 83% of the world's energy, but cause around 73% of greenhouse emissions.
So, extending the life of a coal-fired power plant does not seem to be the best solution to an electrical crisis if or when it happens.
Here is a recent summary of several alternatives that were laid out with arguments pro and con.
Natural gas power plants provide 43% of grid electricity in the U.S., so gas plants would be using technology that the country already relies upon. Although Rystad Energy argue that global power demand will increase strongly this year and in years ahead, they predict fossil fuels will peak shortly in the power sector.
Nuclear power is in the news since President Trump unleashed on May 23 executive orders on accelerating nuclear technologies. First, the cost of new nuclear reactors, whether traditional reactors or SMRs, is substantially higher than renewable energies. Second is the ubiquitous threat of exposure to nuclear radiation, either from nuclear accidents or from underground storage of nuclear waste. Third is that modern forms of nuclear energy, including SMRs, are at the commercial starting gate, illustrated by one of the first domestic contracts that was canceled by a Utah community when the SMR price grew 50% more than agreed to.
Renewables. As well as commercial success in Australia, 90% of new energy in the U.S. in 2024 was provided by wind and solar renewables. Globally, renewables are rising and catching up to fossil sources in their percentages of electric power.
There are three clear advantages of renewables. One is commercial success of current operations in the U.S. and Australia. Two is cheaper cost, particularly PV solar and storage batteries. Three, renewables tied to grid-scale batteries provide dispatchable power.
The big battery at Hornsdale Power Reserve.
The big battery at Hornsdale Power Reserve. Source: David Box.
As energy secretary Chris Wright commented on Trump's executive order unleashing nuclear electricity, 'Nuclear has the potential to be America's greatest source of energy addition. It works whether the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining, is possible anywhere and at different scales.'
The latter sentence is a negative reference to non-dispatchable renewable energies. But this is false: when a battery energy storage system (BESS) is connected to wind or solar, it makes the energy dispatchable. For example, in the state of South Australia renewables plus BESS have been providing 72% of grid electricity continuously for three years, and this is expected to rise to 100% by 2027. Renewables plus batteries have proven the stability of renewables commercially.
Rystad Energy has reported that global battery systems set a record 200 gigawatt-hours (GWh) last year, implying a growth rate of 80%. Beginning at 0.5 terawatts (TW) in 2024, total BESS capacity will rise by almost ten times to over 4 TW by 2040.
BESS, first built in 2017 by Elon Musk as the Hornsdale Power Reserve in South Australia, are expanding rapidly in the U.S. Intermittent power is no longer a reason to dismiss renewables, because BESS have solved this problem and solar and wind renewables with BESS are dispatchable.
The answer to an electricity crisis in the U.S., which may be coming with the AI revolution, is renewables—especially PV solar plus battery storage, because they are cheaper and faster to install. Growth in U.S. renewables, strong in 2024, will continue to provide dispatchable power for new data centers, industry decarbonization, and also electric vehicles.