Dealing with the reliability of alternative energy sources

Despite the fact that the price of natural gas and alternatives has been dropping for a number of years, our local "newspapers" have consistently argued (usually without evidence) that coal is still the cheapest way to produce electricity. The locals have stuck with this while most other news sources that examine the current costs no longer accept that conclusion. For example, here's the headline for an article by business writer Chris Tomlinson in yesterday's Houston Chronicle:

Willing to pay extra to keep coal miners working? You may have to

After explaining why coal advocates can no longer argue that coal is cheaper, he then points out something I've recently noticed: that the defenders of coal are shifting their emphasis to argue that renewables are unreliable as an energy source:

The only gambit for old and expensive coal and nuclear plants is to limit the growth of renewable sources by claiming they threaten reliability. But that's simply a lie.

And unlike our local papers, Tomlinson actually uses evidence to prove his point:

Three technical reports from the independent North American Electric Reliability Corp., energy analysis firm Brattle Group and the pro-renewable Advanced Energy Economy Institute all have concluded that wind and solar energy do not endanger the U.S. grid's resiliency or reliability.

If coal mining jobs do come back, what kind of job skills will be necessary in an age of increased automation?

Yesterday, Bloomberg's Tim Loh discussed job skills and future jobs in the coal industry. The first half of the article documents how automation has consistently dropped the number of coal mining jobs since at least 1923*, coal's peak year in terms of number of workers. The second half argues that the new jobs in mining will be for workers with sophisticated computer skills:

Coal's future, however, is likely to involve a new set of skills. It won't be long before a miner is working out of an office in, say, Denver, where she'll stare at computer screens and maneuver equipment in Wyoming, according to Blackburn. The miner -- earning, perhaps, $15 an hour -- will monitor several massive trucks that largely steer themselves, he said.

But that won't mean more coal jobs as the chair of the University of Kentucky's mining program notes:

"The way to compete is being more automated," Honaker said in an interview. "And unfortunately, that means less jobs -- more skilled labor but less overall employment."

*Note -- the Intelligencer would probably note that1923 was the year that Obama became president.

More on the future of clean coal

From Travis Hoium from the investment site Motley Fool:

Mississippi regulators have finally had enough with the "clean coal" experiment taking place at Southern Company's (NYSE: SO) Kemper County plant; they've rejected another increase in the budget for the project, which would have been paid for by ratepayers. As a result, the coal industry's flagship "clean" plant will be converted into a natural gas facility -- albeit one that will cost the company about 10 times what simply building it as a natural gas plant from the start would have.

The decision was a major blow for anyone hoping so-called clean coal would be a significant energy source for the future.