Trump's push for a comeback in coal may turn to ashes: Maguire
LITTLETON, Colorado - U.S. President Donald Trump has singled out the coal industry as a key driver of U.S. energy dominance, but there are currently no new U.S. coal plants under construction and utilities have identified quicker and cheaper paths to boost power supplies.
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.
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.
AGING OUT
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Between 2000 and 2024, nearly 166,000 megawatts (MW) of outdated coal capacity was retired in the United States, according to data from Global Energy Monitor (GEM).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.
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.
COAL CRUTCH
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.
EXPORT CHALLENGE
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 and X.
(Reporting by Gavin Maguire; Editing by Anna Szymanski and Marguerita Choy)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
2 minutes ago
- Zawya
Africa's minerals are being bartered for security: why it's a bad idea?
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains'. Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. DRC's security gaps The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. What states risk losing Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: - certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy - other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge - arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts - infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control. Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs. What needs to change Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: - investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals - demanding local value creation and addition - requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements - refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Zawya
2 minutes ago
- Zawya
Sterling stronger, supported by global market optimism
Sterling firmed against the dollar and the euro on Wednesday helped by the optimism across global markets after the U.S. and Japan struck a trade deal which boosted stocks and currencies, such as the pound, which can move with global growth expectations. The pound was last marginally higher against the dollar at $1.3540, its highest in nearly two weeks, and working its way back towards early July's near four-year top of $1.3787. It strengthened more against the euro, which was down 0.24% at 86.62 pence. The big story for markets on Wednesday was a trade deal between the United States and Japan that lowers tariffs on auto imports and spares Tokyo from punishing new levies on other goods in exchange for a $550 billion package of U.S.-bound investment and loans. That boosted stocks globally, and other risk-friendly currencies such as the Australian and New Zealand dollars, as well as the pound. While the pound is still down against both the euro and dollar in July, some analysts see better days for it ahead, as markets look past the volatility in Britain's bond market at the start of the month caused by fiscal concerns, which weighed on the currency. BofA analysts said in a note the third quarter promised to be better for the British economy. "We feel the conditions are now in place for a bounce in GBP through the summer months," they said. "We do not understate the fragile state of UK public finances but continue to be struck by how markets are willing to find the UK guilty of fiscal breaches before being (given) the opportunity of proving innocence." They also flagged that rate differentials were moving in the pound's favour, and that "tariff attrition in other countries will eventually materialise." Thursday's business activity data, and Friday's retail sales data will give the latest indications of the health of the British economy. (Reporting by Alun John Editing by Tomasz Janowski)
Emirates 24/7
10 minutes ago
- Emirates 24/7
Space42 secures $695.5 million facility to fund next-generation UAE satellites
Space42 today announced the signing of a US$695.5 million Export Credit Agency (ECA)-backed financing facility to fund the development of its next-generation geostationary satellites, Al Yah 4 and Al Yah 5. The financing represents a pivotal step in Space42's strategy to establish critical connectivity capabilities across multiple orbits. The facility, arranged by Crédit Agricole CIB, Santander CIB, Societe Generale, and Natixis and backed by Bpifrance Assurance Export, demonstrates the company's continued appeal to leading international banks and will fund the satellites scheduled for launch in 2027 and 2028. The facility provides Space42 with cost-effective, long-term financing aligned with its satellite development timeline, whilst strengthening the company's liquidity position to support future growth initiatives. Andrew Cole, Chief Financial Officer of Space42, said, "The Al Yah 4 and Al Yah 5 program is underpinned by a 17-year, $5.1 Billion Government contract commencing in 2026 and advances our goal to become the trusted leader in secure connectivity by providing multi-path critical connectivity solutions. This strategic pillar focuses on enhancing secure communication capabilities across defense and civil domains through multi-orbit satellite networks that ensure uninterrupted connectivity for mission-critical applications. The ECA financing structure optimises our cost of funding and provides increased financial flexibility to execute our growth agenda." Al Yah 4 and Al Yah 5 feature software-defined architecture with fully flexible payloads that can be reconfigured in orbit. This technology enables real-time optimisation of coverage, bandwidth, and frequency allocation to meet evolving operational requirements across the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia. The satellites will complement and eventually replace Al Yah 1 and Al Yah 2, launched in 2011 and 2012 respectively.
