Trump's push for a comeback in coal may turn to ashes
In the first few months of Trump's second term, he has signed several executive orders and deployed federal funding aimed at reviving the coal mining and power sectors. read more read more read more read more
But U.S. utilities continue to prioritize adding renewables, batteries, gas and nuclear power ahead of new coal-fired capacity based on the cost and efficiency.
Even the coal export market has only limited growth potential, as Indonesia and Australia - much larger exporters - boast far quicker and cheaper access to key buyers in Asia, the only region showing a sustained increase in coal demand.
That means that even with strong support from the federal government, the U.S. coal sector may still struggle to generate any sustained growth over the near to medium term as global energy systems continue to lean towards cleaner power supplies.
There's been six times more coal power plants retired than constructed in the U.S. this century, which underscores the scope of the challenge facing even the most ardent coal bulls as they try to engineer an industry revival.
Between 2000 and 2024, nearly 166,000 megawatts (MW) of outdated coal capacity was retired in the United States, according to data from Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
And even though around 26,000 MW of new U.S. coal plants have been constructed since 2000, the newest - the Sandy Creek Energy Station in Texas - came online over a decade ago.
This has caused total U.S. coal power generation capacity to drop by around 42% in the last quarter century, to around 194 gigawatts, according to Ember.
The rapid retirement pace reflects the age of the U.S. coal power network, as more than 80% of all U.S. coal power plants were built between 1950 and 1990, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
And over 75% of the remaining plants are already 40 years old or more, exceeding their expected lifespan.
Several power networks have delayed the closure of some aged plants on the grounds that keeping them operating will avert potential power shortages.
And the Trump administration has exempted several coal plants from new emissions standards that would have forced them to close within the next decade. read more
However, the power generation sector is handling less and less coal as more plants have been retired and replaced by other forms of generation.
Indeed, since 2000 there has been a 65% decline in the amount of coal used by the power sector, data from the Energy Institute shows.
There is thus little appetite among utilities to construct new coal plants, given the plethora of alternatives available to them that can generate power more quickly and cheaply and with fewer emissions.
The drop in coal-fired U.S. power has led to a sharp fall in domestic coal mine output, which has more than halved since 2000 to just over half a billion short tons in 2024, EIA data shows.
Wyoming (237 million tons), West Virginia (85 million tons), Pennsylvania (43 million tons) and Kentucky (28 million tons) were the top coal producing states in 2023.
Lower mine output has triggered steep cuts to the number of people engaged in coal mining, which peaked this century in 2011 at around 91,600, but contracted to around 45,500 by 2023, EIA data shows.
Every major coal mining state has been affected by layoffs, with some harder hit than others. Kentucky has seen coal employee levels drop by over 70% since 2011, while Pennsylvania and Virginia have seen employee numbers fall by nearly half.
The hardships resulting from these mass layoffs have helped turn the coal mining sector, which is primarily found in Republican "red" states, into an influential political force, as candidates look to tout their industry-friendly credentials.
This has certainly been the case with Trump. Beyond encouraging power networks to increase use of coal in generation, the Trump administration has recently approved mine expansions on federal land in order to boost supplies for export to Japan and South Korea.
Targeting Asia makes sense given that the region's buyers already account for over half of all U.S. thermal coal shipments, data from Kpler shows, as well as 80% of global coal consumption.
However, U.S. market share in the region can only grow so much, as rival exporters such as Indonesia still boast a significant advantage in terms of shipping times and cost.
The journey time for a possible coal shipment from Westshore export port in British Columbia - the main exit point for coal mined in the Western U.S. - to Japan is around 15 days, according to LSEG.
In contrast, the journey time from the largest coal export point in Indonesia to Japan is nine days.
In addition to cutting the journey time by over a third, Indonesian coal exporters can also offer lower coal costs and larger cargo volumes, an attractive combination for large-scale importers.
That means that U.S. vendors will likely only be able to eke out piecemeal sales to Asian buyers, while bigger exporters secure larger and more regular trade flows to the region's utilities.
In combination with declining coal demand by power plants at home, this will likely leave the coal mining sector struggling to generate sustained demand for its output, regardless of how much support it enjoys in Washington, DC.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.
Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How bull---t took over our lives
'One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bull---t.' So begins American philosopher Harry Frankfurt's unexpectedly delightful essay, On Bull---t, first published in an academic journal in 1986 and later as a bestselling book in 2005. Today its message is even more resonant. Greta Thunberg may think we are living in a climate emergency, but what is clearer, if less trumpeted, is that we are living in a bulls--- emergency. Thanks to – among other things – the democratising effect of the internet, the resultant decline in deference to 'experts', rising scorn for the political establishment, online echo chambers, the blurring of fact and fiction online – a problem recognised in 1995, by the journalist John Diamond: 'The problem with the internet is everything is true'' – we live in a post-truth era. All these factors favour the liar, but they favour the bull---ter even more. How astute then of Princeton University Press to reissue Frankfurt's essay, in a 20th-anniversary edition the neat size and colour of Mao 's little red book. (You might carry it around in your pocket so that you too can become a bull---t detector.) Heaven knows that it's the superpower we need today: Frankfurt perhaps didn't know when he wrote those words how high the tide of bull---t would rise in the ensuing two decades. And he surely had no inkling that the defecatory business model of Thames Water would provide an obvious parallel for his subject. But what is bull---t and how is it different from lies? Frankfurt draws on philosopher Max Black's 1983 essay, The Prevalence of Humbug, to help make that distinction: 'humbug' is 'deceptive information, misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody's own thoughts, feelings and attitudes'. For Frankfurt, bull---t is humbug's vulgar bastard sibling but somehow worse. That Frankfurt never really defines his key term beyond 'humbug' may seem a shortcoming. Or maybe not. Maybe bull---t is like what pornography was for the US Supreme Court Judge Potter Stewart who famously failed to define the term but added: 'I know it when I see it.' Likewise, we often sense bull---t. We recognise it when the government minister, asked about a policy about-turn, begins their reply: 'The prime minister has been very clear about this…', only to continue with some sub-Chat GPT dross that doesn't even start to address the question. Or when a police officer tells the media in tone-deaf boilerplate, 'Our thoughts and prayers are with the friends and family…'. We see it thriving in greenwashing ads for oil companies; virtue-signalling gender fluid sign-offs in flyers from estate agents; why the AI Overview at the top of your Google search is plausible but on closer examination obviously wrong. We see it, most topically, when Donald Trump, like an overtired toddler, bless him, issues a raging 4am caps-lock policy initiative on Truth Social – yet the following day announces something that contradicts his nuit blanche fever tweet. The great thing for Frankfurt about such bull---ters is that they are not liars – not quite. As he explains: '[The bull---ter] does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bull---t is a greater enemy of truth than lies are.' At least liars, in principle, can be argued against, and their lies exposed. (What bull---ters and liars have in common, as Frankfurt recognised, is that they take the rest of us for mugs. True, some of us are attuned to bull---t, but not all of us and not always.) At the same time, the virtuoso of bull---t can be regarded as smart and deserving of promotion. In his sub-Machiavellian 1998 bestseller, The 48 Laws of Power, for instance, pop psychologist Robert Greene might have heralded bull---t. I imagine the 49th law of power should read as follows: any human seeking airtime, status and, in extremis, the big chair in the Oval Office, better become a bull---t artist. Frankfurt also quotes a passage from Eric Ambler's spy novel Dirty Story, in which a character relates the sage advice he got from his father: 'Never tell a lie when you can bull---t your way through.' Bull---t was certainly part of Trump's skill set before he was elected president. His butler, Anthony Senecal, related in a 2016 interview a particularly summative anecdote about the US president's relationship to truth: one day, Senecal was reading Trump's book The Art of the Deal, and was puzzled by a passage in which Trump mentioned that the tiles in the nursery of Mar-a-Lago, West Palm Beach club, had been personally made by Walt Disney. 'Is that really true?' the butler asked the billionaire. Trump replied: 'Who cares?' The great virtue of Frankfurt's book is that he called out such bull---t long before Trump and other populist bull---t artists got elected. That said, perhaps even Frankfurt, who died in 2023, might not have foreseen how central the art of bull---t would be to his president's second term. Consider more recent Trumpisms: during last year's presidential race, he claimed illegal immigrants were eating pets. In March this year, speaking at a joint session of Congress, he alleged that the Biden administration had spent '$8m for making mice transgender'. The claims had journalists scurrying around like, well, transgender mice (if such rodents exist) to debunk or substantiate the claims. But, in a sense they missed the point. The truths of these matters – most likely that there are no transgender mice nor pet-eating illegal immigrants – didn't matter. What Trump did here was apply his former adviser Steve Bannon's notion of 'flooding the zone' with bull---t, in order to occupy the media's time and effort, which in itself takes a kind of genius. Since he wrote On Bull---t, other intellectuals have extended Frankfurt's analysis. Among them was the late American anarchist anthropologist David Graeber who, in his jolly 2013 piece, 'On the Phenomenon of Bull---t Jobs', paid tribute to Frankfurt's essay. Graeber's all-too-convincing argument was that many of us are working in jobs that are bull---t: 'A world without teachers or dock-workers would soon be in trouble. But it's not entirely clear how humanity would suffer were all private equity CEOs, lobbyists, PR researchers, actuaries, telemarketers, bailiffs or legal consultants to similarly vanish.' (When I interviewed him, Graeber conceded that some might argue that his own work is bull---t. He didn't include book reviewers like me as bull---t artists, but he could have done.) In 2018, philosopher George Lakoff proposed an anti-bull---t remedy for journalists called the truth sandwich. Confronted by the quotidian pump of Trumpian bull---t, the thing to do is not to repeat it. Or if one did repeat it, envelope it in – as it were – the nourishing bread of truth. As you may have noticed, that hasn't happened: the hopeful notion that we might have reached peak bull---t has been disproved by politicians ever since – from Boris Johnson's stints at the No 10 Covid lectern to risibly gaudy yet impotent threats against Israel and the US from Iran's supreme leader. The foregoing may seem to suggest only men do bull---t. Not so. Think of Liz Truss who, in her hilariously self-serving memoir, wrote of her battles with proponents of trans rights: 'I am not prepared to leave the field until the battle is won.' Pure bull---t, especially from someone who left the battlefield as prime minister after 49 days of chaos at Number 10. Meanwhile, journalist Matthew d'Ancona has argued that the post-truth era was only made possible by Sigmund Freud. In psychoanalysis, he claimed, the imperative is to treat the patient successfully, irrespective of the facts. 'Sharing your innermost feelings, shaping your life-drama, speaking from the heart: these pursuits are increasingly in competition with traditional forensic values.' Truth, in other words, is the leading victim in the spread of therapeutic culture. Frankfurt's essay concludes similarly: we have given up the ideal of correctness for that of sincerity, he claimed. He wrote: 'Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, [the individual] devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the fact, he must therefore be true to himself.' In that sense, Trump is the Humpty Dumpty of politics. Consider Alice Through the Looking Glass, where Lewis Carroll has Alice observe: 'The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.' Humpty Dumpty retorts: 'The question is, which is to be master – that's all.' Power and mastery are all. Truth is beside the bull---ter's point. It's a sign of our cynical jaded times that even some of the president's fans know not to expect truth from him. No wonder, then, what happened in Selma, North Carolina in April 2022: 'I think I'm the most honest human being, perhaps, that God ever created,' Trump told a rally. His remark was greeted with laughter in the crowd. An equally valid reaction would have been: 'Bull---t!'
Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
India to maintain Russian oil imports despite Trump threats, government sources say
NEW DELHI, Aug 2 (Reuters) - India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. On top of a new 25% tariff on India's exports to the U.S., Trump indicated in a Truth Social post last month that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. But the sources said there would be no immediate changes. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union, the source said. The New York Times also quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials on Saturday as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy. Indian government authorities did not respond to Reuters' request for official comment on its oil purchasing intentions. However, during a regular press briefing on Friday, foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump, who has made ending Russia's war in Ukraine a priority of his administration since returning to office this year, has expressed growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. He has threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the leading supplier to India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, accounting for about 35% of its overall supplies. India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. But while the Indian government may not be deterred by Trump's threats, sources told Reuters this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil after July discounts narrowed to their lowest since 2022 - when sanctions were first imposed on Moscow - due to lower Russian exports and steady demand. Indian Oil Corp ( opens new tab, Hindustan Petroleum Corp ( opens new tab, Bharat Petroleum Corp ( opens new tab and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd ( opens new tab have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources told Reuters. Nayara Energy - a refinery majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft ( opens new tab, and major buyer of Russian oil - was recently sanctioned by the EU. Nayara's chief executive resigned following the sanctions, and three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions, Reuters reported last week.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Taiwan has a stronger claim to statehood than Palestine. Will Starmer recognise it?
Now that Sir Keir Starmer has declared his intention to recognise the imaginary state of Palestine, perhaps he might want to consider affording similar status to one that does actually exist: Taiwan. Starmer's decision to recognise Palestine at the UN next month might have helped to appease his restless backbenchers, who champion the Palestinian cause without having the faintest notion what they are talking about. But recognising a state that does not exist, is incapable of holding democratic elections and where a decent proportion of the population are in thrall to Islamist-inspired terrorism is hardly a blueprint for success. Taiwan, by contrast, is a self-proclaimed independent territory that regularly holds free and fair democratic elections – despite the malign efforts of China's Communist rulers to disrupt the process – where the overwhelming majority continue to uphold their right of self-determination. Apart from being a fully functioning democracy, Taiwan is also a valued trading partner, with total trade between the UK and Taipei currently averaging around £9.3bn. And yet, despite his willingness to offer full recognition to Palestine, an area that has no formal borders, a non-functioning administration and meagre trading options, our prime minister appears strangely reticent on the subject of upgrading our diplomatic ties with a democratic and prosperous ally such as Taiwan. This aversion to addressing the issue is all the more remarkable given that the official policy is to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression, a position that means the Royal Navy regularly conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the region – including through the Taiwan Strait – to demonstrate Britain's solidarity. The extent of the UK's military support for Taiwan is evident from the participation of HMS Prince of Wales, the Royal Navy's new 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier, in the Talisman Sabre exercises currently taking place in the Asia-Pacific region. The British warship is part of a 35,000-strong multi-national force conducting military exercises aimed at deterring China from launching an attack against Taiwan. Indeed, Defence Secretary John Healey was at his most bullish when asked about the UK's commitment to defend the region from Chinese aggression, commenting, 'If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together, and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together.' It is unlikely that we would ever see Healey, or any other Labour minister, making such robust comments about defending a future Palestine state – assuming, that is, that one ever materialises. The Starmer Government's desire to steer clear of any serious military entanglements in the Middle East was evident during the recent confrontation between the US and Iran. While the US deployed its aircraft carrier groups to the Gulf in anticipation of war with Tehran, the Prince of Wales, which was sailing through the region at the time, continued on its passage to Australia, out of harm's way. If the Government is so determined to defend Taiwan's right to exist, even risking the prospect of war with China by doing so, then it begs the question: why, having recognised a non-state like Palestine, will it not make the same commitment to Taipei? Ever since the leadership of the original Republic of China fled from the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, successive British governments have sought to adopt a neutral position in its dealing with the territory. While the UK is perfectly willing to maintain lucrative trade ties, as well as providing declarations of military support, ministers have been reluctant to upgrade Taiwan's diplomatic status for fear of causing offence to China, its more powerful and prosperous neighbour. Since 1972, when London eventually recognised the People's Republic as the sole government of China, the view in Whitehall has been that the future status of Taiwan should be a matter for the Chinese to decide. A number of recent factors have made this compromise appear less satisfactory, not least Chinese President Xi Jinping's pronounced determination to reclaim Taiwan as Chinese sovereign territory. Having declared that the ' reunification' of China with Taiwan is a cornerstone of his aim of achieving the Chinese dream of nation rejuvenation by 2049, Xi has authorised the Chinese military to engage in a massive build up, with some Western military analysts predicting a Chinese invasion could take place by 2027. The gathering storm clouds over China's territorial ambitions towards Taiwan have already resulted in significant changes to British policy to the region, most notably the 2021 Integrated Review that proposed an Indo-Pacific 'tilt' in our military and security outlook. Apart from sending an aircraft carrier to participate in joint naval exercises, the Royal Navy is also committed to upgrading its 'persistent presence' in the region to include the rotational deployment of nuclear submarines from 2027 as part of the recent Aukus agreement signed between the UK, US and Australia. If the UK is preparing to defend Taiwan's sovereignty, it makes sense for Starmer to give serious consideration to offering the Taiwanese people the same level of recognition that he is prepared to give to the Palestinians. Otherwise the UK could one day find itself in the invidious position of fighting for a people whose sovereignty it does not even acknowledge.
