Clean, Beautiful Coal???

                                     

               Clean, Beautiful Coal – Really?

In 2018, America’s chief executive, in his State of the Union address, assumed the missionary position for the energy lobby. His exact words? “We have ended the war on American Energy, and we have ended the war on beautiful clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world.”  Being Donald Trump, he was lying. We didn’t become net exporters until a year later. There has never been “A war on American energy.” There have, however,  been differing opinions on what we should use to produce electrical power.

Recently, in an Oval Office meeting with a group of coal miners (inexplicably in their working clothes, as if the White House had become a themed attraction)), President Trump used the moment to spotlight his administration’s push to revive the coal industry, inviting them in as he signed an executive order aimed at boosting production and rolling back regulations. He also repeated his ludicrous “Clean, Beautiful, Coal” mantra. The event was staged as a celebration of coal’s future, even as federal regulators simultaneously moved to delay new miner‑safety rules designed to limit hazardous dust exposure — a juxtaposition that left critics noting the miners were present for the photo op, while the protections meant for their protection were quietly put on hold.

Seven years ago, I wrote that coal was neither clean nor beautiful. At the time, I thought the point was obvious enough that the argument would age quietly, like an old reactor vessel—solid, inert, and unlikely to need revisiting. I underestimated the American talent for alchemy: the ability to turn political nonsense into a renewable resource.

In the years since, the chemistry hasn’t changed, the epidemiology hasn’t changed, and the physics certainly haven’t changed. What has changed is the rhetoric, which has grown even more baroque. We now have leaders praising coal with the enthusiasm of a late‑night infomercial while simultaneously loosening the safety rules meant to keep miners from coughing up half of Appalachia every morning. It’s Al Sleet the Hippy Dippy Weatherman reporting a forecast written by Jon Stewart: “Tonight’s outlook calls for particulate matter, fly ash, mercury, and a 100% chance of miners being treated like an expendable prop.”  So yes — this is the revised and emended edition. Not because the facts demanded it, but because the lunacy does.

“Clean, Beautiful Coal” In truth, these are three lies. Two are venal sins, one mortal. To begin with, there isn’t, and never has been, a “war” on American energy. That’s simply Republicanese for “any attempts to preserve the environment for posterity”, with the subtext of climate change denial. Also, in truth, while the US is now a net energy exporter, when it comes to individual energy sources, the U.S. status as a net exporter of coal, gas  and refined petroleum really means we are sending more coal abroad because until recently (the Biden years) some coal plants were being retired and not replaced with new ones, while a number of obsolete plants were/are being nursed along. The far more egregious lie was the use of the word “Clean” in any context with reference to coal.

        If coal is, in fact, “clean and beautiful” why is it that coal miners today have life expectancy about 3–5 years lower than the general U.S. population? Why?  Persistent black lung resurgence (due to thinner coal seams → more silica dust) and higher rates of COPD, cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer in Appalachia. Apparently, the assumptions of the corporate entities in New York (you didn’t really think they’d live in  Kentucky, did ya?) were:  a) “They’re poor and have no advocates” and/or b) “They’re also illiterate and don’t vote.”

        Accordingly, and since I have not only the time and the disdain for coal fiction, but also because I worked for decades in an industry which unlike coal is safe and clean – nuclear power, I have distilled relevant data from several reputable sources regarding “beautiful, clean coal.” 

        The American Lung Association (ALA) released a report on the dramatic health hazards surrounding coal-fired power plants.  The report, which was headlined “Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-Fired Power Plants,” revealed the dangers of air pollution emitted by coal plants.

Statements which leap off the page include:

“Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.”

“Coal-fired power plants that sell electricity to the grid produce more hazardous air pollution in the U.S. than any other industrial pollution sources.”

The report further details over 386,000 tons of air pollutants emitted from over 400 plants in the U.S. per year. Interestingly, while most of the power plants are physically located in the Midwest and Southeast, the entire nation is threatened by their toxic emissions.

A graph accompanying the report shows that while pollutants such as acid gases stay in the local area, metals such as lead and arsenic travel beyond state lines, and fine particulate matter has a global impact. In other words, while for some workers the pollution may be a tradeoff for employment at a plant, other regions don’t reap the same benefits but still pay for the costs to their health.

        One facet of this report is the connection of specific pollutants to the diseases with which they are associated.  According to the ALA study, 76% of U.S. acid gas emissions, which are known to irritate breathing passages, come from coal-fired power plants. Out of all industrial sources, these plants are also the biggest emitter of airborne mercury, which can become part of the human food chain through fish and wildlife — high mercury levels are linked to brain damage, birth defects, and damage to the nervous system. The three main pollutants from coal-fired power stations are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and invisible particulate matter known as PM2.5, 30 times thinner than a human hair. Collectively, these pollutants inflame the lungs, scar the airways, stunt children’s lung development, and  once the particles enter the bloodstream — trigger heart attacks and strokes.”

        Perhaps one of the most surprising coal related facts is:  Recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and independent energy trackers show that coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation has fallen to roughly 15–16%.

•       The EIA projected coal’s share at 16.1% in 2024.

•       A 2025 update notes that coal’s share fell to “under 15%” in 2024, an all‑time low. So, the best current estimate is that: ≈15–16% of U.S. electricity now comes from coal‑fired plants.

Research estimates that 24 people die for every terawatt hour (TWh) of coal burnt. Children are at even higher risk from air pollution because they breathe more for their body weight than adults. Another report, authored by three University of Wisconsin researchers, was entitled “Estimating the Health Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants Receiving International Financing”

The authors summarized what is a large technical study thus: “Summary:  In addition to the environmental and human health harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions, coal-fired power plants emit massive amounts of toxic air pollutants that result in significant numbers of deaths and disease. We estimate that between roughly 6000 and 10,700 annual deaths from heart ailments, respiratory disease and lung cancer can be attributed to the 88 coalfired power plants and companies receiving public international financing.”

        Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is also associated with other health outcomes, including infant deaths, asthma and other lung diseases.  Clean and beautiful, huh?

        Conclusions: “Coal-fired power plants were among the country's greatest sources of pollution. They are the biggest industrial emitters of mercury and arsenic into the air. They emit 84 of the 187 hazardous air pollutants identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as posing a threat to human health and the environment.”

        “Coal-fired power plants also emit a menu of nasty materials:  • Heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel • Organic toxins: dioxins, furans, PAHs, benzene, toluene, xylene • Acid gases: hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride • Radionuclides: radium, thorium, uranium.  A separate study done years later actually estimates the radioactivity (defined as the total amount of radioactive material released) of coal fired plant smokestack fly ash as 50 times that of any operating US nuclear power plant!

        Coal-fired power plants account for 81 percent of the electric power industry's greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming and climate change. The most significant greenhouse gas emitted by coal-fired power plants is carbon dioxide. They also emit smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. As stated earlier, The hazardous air emissions from coal-fired power plants also cause serious human health impacts. Arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium compounds, TCDD dioxin, formaldehyde, and nickel compounds are listed as carcinogens in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology Program. Furan and lead are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens" in the Fourteenth Report on Carcinogens.

        In summary, as shown above, hazardous air pollutants emitted by coal-fired power plants can, and, statistically, do cause a wide range of health effects, including heart and lung diseases, such as asthma. Exposure to these pollutants can damage the brain, eyes, skin, and breathing passages. It can also affect the kidneys, and nervous and respiratory systems. Exposure can also affect learning, memory, and behavior.

If, in the face of the above statistical data, you think coal is “clean” you are beyond either education or redemption.  Trump’s “Clean and Beautiful” belies the fact that in reality coal is by far the worst polluter of all the fossil fuels.

“Despite coal’s documented harms, critics often deflect by attacking renewable energy instead.” In point of fact: Trump frequently denounces wind production with rambling, and sometimes unintelligible, word salad garbage minimizing it’s contribution to clean energy efforts. Recently he publicly stated that China only made wind turbines to sell to the West and had no domestic wind power production. Trump is a world class fibber, but this one was a doozy. China actually has almost 650 gigawatts of wind produced electrical power. That is   more than double total US capacity and more than all of Europe’s combined.

 Another example was several years ago when Texas suffered abnormally cold conditions and wind turbines froze. Trump, Fox News talking heads, and the equally misinformed  Texas governor immediately blamed the wide-spread power outage on iced up wind turbines. Reality is that, in February 2021, wind supplied only about 24–25% of Texas’ electricity going into the storm. But there are two key points the haters omitted. Here’s the first: the largest generation losses came from natural gas, not wind. The drop in natural‑gas output was more than five times larger than the drop in wind generation. So even though wind was roughly a quarter of ERCOT’s generation capacity at the time, it was not the primary cause of the grid collapse.

Of equal significance is the fact that Texas “wind farmers” cut corners and opted not to have the optional freeze packages installed on their turbines.  For a mere .7 percent more of the original cost, they could have ensured the turbines continued operation to as low as minus 30 degrees. Think about it; North Dakota produces 40% of their power from wind. Their wind turbines never freeze, even with single digit temperatures.

Now, another one of the reflexive counters to the “facts of coal” argument is the mindless retort “Oh yeah, what about nuclear power.”  Let me lead off with two factual statements: Neither of the plant designs involved in the world’s (only) two reactor accidents which resulted in the release of measurable contaminants to the environment (Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi) could ever have been licensed to operate in the United States. “The U.S. regulatory framework simply does not permit the design flaws that caused those accidents.”

        And finally, not coal related, but as support for my assertion that nuclear power is a superior and light years safer alternative for electric power production: This final paragraph comes from a study which, in its long form, is entitled, “Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities. A survey of mortality nationwide and incidence in two states.” It is long, data filled, and technical, so I’ll close with just the abstract.

Reports from the United Kingdom have described increases in leukemia and lymphoma among young persons living near certain nuclear installations. Because of concerns raised by these reports, a mortality survey was conducted in populations living near nuclear facilities in the United States. All facilities began service before 1982. Over 900,000 cancer deaths occurred from 1950 through 1984 in 107 counties with or near nuclear installations. Each study county was matched for comparison to three "control counties" in the same region. There were 1.8 million cancer deaths in the 292 control counties during the 35 years studied. Deaths due to leukemia or other cancers were not more frequent in the study counties than in the control counties. For childhood leukemia mortality, the relative risk comparing the study counties with their controls before plant start-up was 1.08, while after start-up it was 1.03. For leukemia mortality at all ages, the relative risks were 1.02 before start-up and 0.98 after. (ed. Note: this is actually a lower cancer incidence than before the plants went on line! It also is absent any of the coal associated contaminants). If any plant specific cancer risk was present in US counties with nuclear facilities, it was too small to be detected with the methods employed.

In Summary:  

Coal has never been clean, beautiful, or benign. It is the dirtiest fuel in the American energy portfolio, responsible for more toxic air pollution, more premature deaths, and more environmental damage than any other source of electricity. Every hour a coal plant runs, it vents a cocktail of heavy metals, carcinogens, acid gases, particulates, and even measurable radionuclides directly into the air the public breathes. That is not an energy policy — it is a slow‑motion and well documented public‑health disaster.

By contrast, a nuclear power station releases no particulate pollution, releases no heavy metals, releases no carcinogens. releases no radionuclides into the air during operation, and produces zero operational carbon emissions

All radioactive material is: sealed inside fuel pellets, inside fuel rods, inside a reactor vessel, inside a containment building. 

It’s four layers of engineered confinement.

        Coal has zero. Decades of epidemiological data show no increase in cancer rates around U.S. nuclear facilities — a fact that stands in stark contrast to the documented health impacts of coal‑fired generation.

So, the next time a politician tries to sell you “clean, beautiful coal,” call it what it is: marketing spin wrapped around a 19th‑century fuel source. And when someone reflexively invokes nuclear fear, remind them that the safest, cleanest, most reliable zero‑carbon electricity ever produced in this country has come from reactors — not from smokestacks.

And for those who say, “Oh yeah, but what about hydro power?” the response is: But — and this is the key — hydro is geographically constrained in a way nuclear is not. You can build a reactor anywhere you can pour concrete. You can only build hydro where geology, hydrology, and politics line up.  That’s why hydro is maxed out in most of the U.S. Nuclear isn’t.

Energy policy should be grounded in evidence, not nostalgia. Coal belongs in the history books. Nuclear belongs in the future. And your elected officials should know exactly where you stand on that distinction.