Trump’s Coal Revival Likely Doomed to Fail: Aside from Delaying Plant Retirements and Near-Term Cost Savings, the Rest is Not Desirable in the Long Term: Minerals Extraction from Coal Waste is One Promising Area

     The conservative-leaning Washington Examiner just published a three-part series of articles about “Coal’s Comeback” as promoted by the Trump administration. Part 1: ‘West Virginians hesitant about coal revival say they’ve been burned before’ explores Trump’s attempt at a coal revival and perceptions about it. While Republicans have long complained about Obama’s ‘war on coal,’ the reality is that there were several reasons for coal’s demise, including cost and lower emissions competition from natural gas regulations and air pollution abatement costs. Fewer coal miners were needed due to mechanization in mines, particularly in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin. Inefficient and aging coal plants have been retiring for the last few decades, being replaced with natural gas plants and renewables.

     The article goes on to interview residents, including former coal miners, from different coal regions in West Virginia, including the Northwestern and Southern coal fields. Some of those interviewed want coal to come back, but even they realize, like the others who don’t want it to come back, that it is probably not realistic. Some small coal-mining towns were devastated by the loss of coal and coal jobs; these were generally not in heavily populated areas, which means people would likely have to move away to find work.  

     The article also points out that 75 coal-fired plants closed and about 13,000 coal jobs were lost during Trump’s first term. The state has lost more than half of its coal mining jobs since 2009. The decline of the steel industry in the state has also been a factor since steel is made with the use of metallurgical coal. Natural gas plants require fewer workers than coal-fired plants. They are also much cleaner for the air and water. Coal miners remain at a significant risk of contracting black lung disease and silicosis over time. The retirements of coal plants and the switch to natural gas have led to much cleaner air, with levels of NOx, SO2, particulates, and heavy metals dropping way down. Natural gas does not produce ash, but coal does. Coal ash is toxic as it is concentrated with heavy metals that often migrate into local groundwater and surface water. West Virginia hopes to replace lost coal jobs with tourism jobs.

     Part 2 of the series, ‘Could coal plant landfills be the answer to the rare earths supply problem?’ addresses the very real possibility of tapping coal ash, coal spoil piles, and other forms of coal waste to extract rare earth minerals (REEs) and other critical minerals. Several projects have begun to do this over the last few years, and more extraction is on the way. At some point, REEs from coal waste will help to alleviate our dependence on China for REEs.

     Both Biden and Trump support this effort, which is a strategic geopolitical plan to increase energy and minerals security via domestic production. The U.S. has the technologies for extraction, but we are behind on refining REEs to magnet-grade. China has heavily subsidized its REE extraction and refinement. The article notes that China controls most of the supply chain, along with 60% of global critical minerals production and 85% of global processing capacity. The notion of extracting REEs from coal waste and then sending the concentrate to China for refining is not desirable since it continues the heavy reliance on China. Investors don’t like it either. According to Nick Myers, the CEO of Phoenix Tailings, a company that buys extracted coal ash concentrate, we either have to subsidize it to counter China’s attempts at price control by “dumping,” or agree on some kind of price floor. We also need to develop refining capacity at a reasonable cost. That may be the harder nut to crack, but it is doable. Extracting REEs and critical minerals from coal waste can have significant co-benefits, such as treating and abating acid-mine drainage in the same operation.   

     The third article in the series, ‘Households would foot bill for Trump plan to shore up grid with coal,’ explores the costs of a coal revival.’ Unfortunately, I hit the pay wall with that one. While we may need to delay the retirements of a few coal-fired plants to preserve our ability to meet power demand, as Energy Secretary Chris Wright notes, keeping these aging and often inefficient resources online is neither cheap nor desirable nor feasible for the long term. Trump recently called coal “reliable, durable, secure, and powerful,” noting that “It’s cheap, incredibly efficient, high density, and it’s almost indestructible.” Trump plans to keep more coal plants online and to promote and approve more mining projects with lower regulatory hurdles and incentives. However, many do not see an expanded future for coal in the U.S., but a continued demise. Political climates change, and those mines and plants will become liabilities quickly if they change that way. Compared to other resources such as gas, hydro, nuclear, and renewables, coal has very high air pollution, water pollution, and carbon emissions liabilities. At a comparable cost to natural gas and with many more negatives, that makes natural gas a better choice most of the time.

 

 

References:

 

West Virginians hesitant about coal revival say they’ve been burned before. Barnini Chakraborty. Washington Examiner. May 1, 2025. West Virginians hesitant about coal revival say they’ve been burned before

Could coal plant landfills be the answer to the rare earths supply problem? Maydeen Merino. Washington Examiner. May 13, 2025. Could coal ash be the answer to the rare earths supply problem?

Households would foot bill for Trump plan to shore up grid with coal. Callie Patteson. Washington Examiner. May 14, 2025. Households would foot bill for Trump plan to shore up grid with coal