Coal MinersBy Peter Galuszka

Is there a real “War on Coal” or is it part of a natural transition to more non-polluting and less destructive forms of energy? One way to find out is to track job creation.

A new study at Duke University shows that since 2008, more than 49,000 jobs in the coal industry have been lost. But, about 196,000 jobs – or four times as many – have been created in other energy sectors such as natural gas, solar and wind.

The study suggests that all the gnashing of teeth that President Obama and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are out to ruin the energy sector by killing off coal may be off base.

This has been the cry of Virginia’s utilities, and its few coal firms, along with some members of the business establishment that the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan to encourage cuts in carbon dioxide by 2030 are unworkable and too threatening to employment in the coal industry since some coal-fired power plants are likely to be shut down. (Of course, some of them have been in operation for 60 years, but never mind).

Overlooked is that as coal jobs die, more energy jobs have been created in natural gas thanks to hydraulic fracking and in renewables like solar and wind which are getting increasingly cheaper.

“Our study shows it has not been a one-for-one replacement,” says Lincoln Pratson, a Duke professor of earth and ocean sciences who is one of the report’s authors.

Hardest hit are the coalfields of southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Small wonder. The coal is of excellent quality but easy-to-reach seams have been mined out and abundant shale gas has undercut its price power. Coal has also taken hits in Utah, the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, and Colorado. The biggest job increases are in the Northeast, Southwest, Midwest and West.

Where does Virginia fit in with renewables? Hardly anywhere just yet. Its neighboring states are much farther along. One reason is they have mandatory renewable portfolio standards to force shifts to wind and solar. Even coal-heavy West Virginia had mandatory standards although the legislature just dumped them.

Virginia is just gearing up with solar. As for wind, Dominion has plans for two turbines off Virginia Beach.

Remarkably, this vision of non-coal energy jobs growing four times the amount of coal jobs cut is left out of the debate as Dominion gets the General Assembly to freeze electricity rates and forego State Corporation Commission audits for several years on the theory that it doesn’t know what the EPA will do about carbon dioxide reduction.

And, to show you how bizarre the coal people are, and appeals court in the District of Columbia is ready to shoot down a coal-led attack on the EPA’s carbon rules. Among the plaintiffs is Robert Murray, the iconoclastic CEO of Murray Energy which has been picking up West Virginia coal properties from long-time operator Consol, which obviously is happy to unload them

During the 2012 presidential race, Murray ordered his workers to attend a rally for Mitt Romney under threat of firing. He insists that Obama is trying to put him out of business.

One problem the appeals judges have with his lawsuit is that the rules are only proposed rules. They are not official. EPA is asking for comment by this summer show it can make adjustments. So why is Murray suing?

It would be as if I were to sue Jim Bacon for an idea he might be envisioning. I know it’s a tempting idea, but it would be silly.

The Duke report was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Energy Policy.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

13 responses to “Non-Coal Jobs Thriving in Energy Sector”

  1. There’s no question that the United States is transitioning to a new energy economy that relies less upon coal than in the past. New technologies are making renewable forms of energy more economically competitive, especially solar. The question is, how fast would renewables be adopted in the absence of Renewable Portfolio Standards? By mandating the adoption of the current generation of renewables, as opposed to waiting until technological refinements make them economically competitive, how much unnecessary cost are we embedding into our electric system?

    China just announced a plan to invest $40 to $50 billion in Pakistan’s infrastructure, including new coal-fired power plants to prop up that country’s fragile electric system. New coal-fired plants continue to come online around the world. Would Virginia really contribute measurably to a decrease in the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere by mandating the acceleration of renewables into the electric grid by maybe 5 to 10 years faster than would occur under the current regulatory regime? Is it really worth the expenditure (if you believe the SCC) of an extra $5 billion to $6 billion a year to achieve the incremental gains of the Clean Power Plan — all to reduce global temperatures (which, if you believe the anthropocentric global warming “consensus” about the link between CO2 and temperatures) by maybe one one-thousandth of a degree by 2100 less than what it otherwise will be?

  2. Excellent perspective Peter. Thank you!

    Bacon talks about disruptive technologies – but never in terms of jobs lost – which is certainly true… but if you hew from the right – your “good” ideas don’t do harmful things like cost jobs.

    However – if you are on the right and opposed to ideas from the left – then “catastrophic loss of jobs” is the complaint – rather than rah rah for disruptive technologies.

    one more issue from the right – is that they defend pollution-generating technologies over non-polluting – not considering the pollution as a quantifiable cost – but instead an “externality” as if it something not relevant and can’t be helped – as in all the crap that comes out of coal-burning smokestacks or the superfund-grade coal waste ponds or mountain-tops blasted into valleys …

    when a coal waste pond self-destructs – who pays for it? Taxpayers do because utilities like Dominion are guaranteed a profit – so cleaning up just becomes a cost that can be passed on to ratepayers.

    yet when we compare coal-generation costs to solar and wind – we do not include the environmental costs – which are very real. The cost of coal is what goes into the calculation for comparison with renewables not the downstream and upstream environmental costs.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    Yes, it is true that some Asian countries, notably India and China, are giant carbon polluters because they rely heavily on coal. Here’s a piece I did for the NY TImes a couple years ago that’s a bit dated now but just to show you that I am aware of the situation:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/china-leads-the-way-as-demand-for-coal-surges-worldwide.html?_r=0

    That said, China has entered into an agreement to cut its coal back because it has to. CHinese cities have become unlivable and they know it. And, there are two China’s the old CHina of Communist bureaucrats who built the coal plants and young technocrats who want to develop energy sources — perhaps coal — that operate in a much les polluting way. The Chinese have the money and the technology to do something like carbon capture. They don’t have much regulation, so a top-down command economy approach might work for them in building clean coal plants that we could never build because it is too expensive and non-competitive. The Mountaineer plant, a much cleaner station — was shut down because of cost.

    India is worse — much worse. No idea about Pakistan. I have been in Mongolia which burns so much coal that I was ill the day after I arrived.

    But you can’t just say, they pollute so cleaning up here doesn’t matter. You know who makes that argument? Don Blankenship, the former head of Massey Energy who goes in trial July 13. Not exactly a visionary, I’d say.

  4. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Larry,
    Damn right. They sure leave off the external costs of fuels like coal under the guise that’s a cultural thing and it’s been this way for years and that’s the way it is. The propagandists always hit that selectivity. A Washington Times reporter actually stated in a story that just about everyone in Virginia relies upon coal and is affected by the jobs it provides. Can you believe that?

    My favorite example of the selectivity you point out is nuclear. People like (you know who) always criticize renewables for government subsidies, Solyndra etcetera. But nukes have always been an enormously expensive subsidy. Look at the Manhattan Project, the weapons program, Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” the Price-Anderson law, Admiral Rickover and the Navy. Newport News Ship, one of the state’s biggest employers the only place in the country where they can build nuclear surface ships.

    The selectivity is laughable. SO is the “drop in the bucket” attitude about less developed countries.

  5. Steve Haner Avatar
    Steve Haner

    All right Peter, that woke me up. There are indeed major federal subsidies and some legal protections for commercial nuclear power, but don’t just co-mingle them with the military programs. The Navy builds nuclear carriers and submarines because it wants ships that don’t need to be stopping for gas or surfacing for air. The two nuclear shipyards (NNS and General Dynamics Electric Boat) do not exist to prop up the commercial nuclear industry.

    As for the Manhattan Project, the one million people who did NOT die during a land invasion of Japan (my father and uncle could have been there) don’t view that as a sop to the commercial nuke industry. Atoms for Peace, etc. – sure, those were commercial related. The new nuke power plants being built enjoy major federal financial loan guarantees. All should be part of the equation when calculating the cost-benefit against alternatives.

    But I agree the coal industry is collapsing due to market forces, not the least among them cheap natural gas and getting-cheaper non fossil alternatives. I’m no climate alarmist and I won’t miss the emissions from coal plants. But a lot of those non-coal jobs you tout involve other fossil fuels and exist in the booming fracking industry.

  6. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Steve,
    Yes I know that the Navy wants ships that can travel with refueling. But I think there are points of contact between the military and civilian programs. The bigger older reactors like Westinghouse’s pressurized water reactors were big versions of what the Navy used. There’s lots of personnel and technology crossover between sectors. When Dominion was Vepco, it had a bunch of ex Navy nuke engineers. I think it still does.

    As for WWII, I know what you mean about invading Japan. My late dad had been a Navy doctor attached to a Marine amphibious tank assault unit. They’d seen a lot of combat and were in Hawaii training for the home island invasions when the bomb went off. So, I know what you mean. We both may not have been born otherwise, as coarse as that sounds.

  7. I’m curious about two addition things.

    1. – if solar “works” why isn’t it the number one power choice on most islands instead of bunker oil?

    2.- If we can build smaller nuclear plants for ships – why can’t we use that kind of technology for distributed nukes to compete with natural gas and complement solar?

    just as an aside – we’ve been making trips into NC these days along the Rt-29, I-73 corridor and in NC there are massive fields of solar panels.. along the way that appear to be private not Duke. One of them is next to a poultry processing plant.

    1. Good question about the solar on Islands. I just heard (this is hearsay so be careful) that Hawaii is not able to handle too much more solar in the grid ( I suppose it’s fine if you want to be off-grid). Solar requires back-up power when the sun goes down or on cloudy days. The oil power plants in use were probably not designed with rapid changes in power output to complement solar. Also I believe the cost parity of solar implies smart grid with substantial compensation to the solar panel owners for excess power going back to the grid.

      My father worked for Admiral Rickover as an engineer on the nuke sub reactors including the first small commercial power reactor at Shippingport PA. The only reason we do not do smaller reactors is utility management preference for mega-projects. Also tends to be public preference for fewer but larger sites, be it landfills or whatever. It is not my personal preference.

      1. re: solar on islands

        even without buying it back from ratepayers….

        why wouldn’t utilities use solar as much as they could to reduce the amount of fuel oil burned?

        I think oil-based generation is closer to natural gas than coal in terms of ramp up/ramp-down time.

        think about your own furnace… if you have oil.. it comes on . ..it fires up and in a few minutes you have heat… that could easily drive a turbine also…

        the huge backup generators that hospitals use and most big box stores are diesel… they fire up within minutes, even seconds of the loss of grid power.

        your speculation about the lack of an effective dynamic load-balancing grid is more likely the issue.

        I think – there is much ignorance on these issues – and I fully include myself in that assessment. I think there ARE people who are knowledgeable but I’ve read fairly extensively on the solar on islands conundrum and it’s harder to gather facts on than the US budget!

      2. re: dynamic grid demand because of solar variation.

        Let’s assume that Dominion has decided they want no part of upgrading their grid to dynamically load balance…

        I content this would be an Ostrich-type strategy and he’s why:

        Right now – people are going to install solar and in doing that – they will use solar when they can and use the grid for backup when they can’t.

        this is going to introduce dynamic surging on the grid as more and more people install solar.

        Dominion will end up with two choices. Either change their mind and upgrade their grid to accommodate solar …. or..

        try to get the GA to restrict what people can do when they install solar – i.e. charge them a supplemental “availability” fee to essentially make it less cost-effective for people to adopt solar. In other words, Dominion will seek to penalize those who install solar because of the demands it puts on the grid.

        I think if Dominion attempts that – there’s going to be an uproar that will directly involve the elected GA – who will fold like a deck of cheap cards when their constituents are irate much like the extra penalty the GA attempted to put on Hybrid Cars.

        I don’t think this is a question of if solar will ever get cost-effective enough for people to install it.. I think it’s a question of when – and it’s pretty clear that Dominion believes that time is not near…. and that probably their version of the canary in the coal mine – are the world’s islands. When they see major island start to build hybrid systems – they’ll know the time is near.

        by the way – here’s a good read on hybrid grids

        http://goo.gl/UcRkaF

        I think the time is near and the phrase disruptive technology comes to mind and when it happens – it won’t be the EPA that strands the coal plants.

  8. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Tar heels rock. And they know

    1. As soon as we see technology advance so that islands like Hawaii “go solar” – Dominion will be in trouble. It’s not a question of “if”, it’s “when”.

      at that point – no matter what Dominion has done to control the Va GA and SCC, home owners are going to flock to “smart systems” that automatically utilize solar and switch back to grid power when needed.

      Even if Dominion won’t buy the solar .. it still will offer savings to those that implement it – and then Dominion will be seeking rate increases to make us the loss of usage…..

    2. talk about your disruptive technologies! :

      How You Can Go Solar Without Even Owning a Single Panel

      ” Enter Yeloha, a new Boston-based peer-to-peer solar startup that allows anyone to go solar. Yes, even if you live in a rented apartment, have a roof blocked by a particularly shady tree or don’t have the funds for panels.

      Customers can sign up for the service as a “sun host” or a “sun partner.” Sun hosts are for homeowners who have a suitable roof for solar but can’t afford panels. Yeloha will install the panels for free in exchange for access to the solar power the panels create. Sun hosts will also get about a third of the electricity created by the panels, all for free. This translates to lower monthly power bills for the homeowner.”

      http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/17/yeloha-solar-sharing/

      All of this goes back to the question of who owns the grid – the public or the power company.

      The public – provides the rights-of-ways as well as eminent domain that allows the acquisition of rights-of-ways for a govt-dictated price rather than a willing-selling price.

      The public also essentially allows the power companies to pollute according to govt-instituted limits.

      This makes the concept of the power companies being private free-market, investor-driven entities – invalid.

      Utilities are guaranteed a profit – and the choices they make affect not only the price of electricity (even bad choices that increase the cost) but also the level of pollution emitted – that also is a choice of society – not the power companies.

      When a power company like Dominion seeks legislation that restricts and inhibits the ability of citizens to use solar power to reduce their costs and their pollution impact – is that really the sole purview of Dominion? So far, it is , because Dominion has convinced the people who represent citizens – the elected legislature – to favor the rights of Dominion over the rights of citizens as well as the rights of other companies to use the grid to provide better and cheaper services to citizens.

Leave a Reply