Kentucky opts for energy efficiency over coal.

Amidst growing support for renewable generation and energy efficiency, the East Kentucky Power Cooperative (EKPC) has agreed to terminate plans to construct two new coal-fired power plants. Instead EKPC will work with key stakeholders to expand the use of renewables and energy efficiency programs. Their plan could generate more than 8,750 jobs and have an economic impact of more than $1.7 billion on the region’s economy over the next three years. It is uplifting to see that even in the heart of coal country, energy efficiency and renewables have taken root.

Nice find Nick, good stuff. When people do the numbers of KWh of fossil fuels vs renewable they use current rates vs constructed rates for the renewable. Constructed vs constructed, renewable is generally cheaper with way less moving parts to maintain, etc. Where it doesn’t make sense is in areas of high real estate costs. KY is wide open country.


Please post a link that supports your claim.

You may want to read this first.


Unfortunatley your graphs shows nothing relevant to the true cost of coal energy production. The coal needs to be transported, it doesn’t just show up at the plant. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, which leads to higher insurance premiums for generally low income workers…who do you think ends up paying this at the end of the day? Add in their low quality of health due to their working conditions…respiratory, etc. Once again raise up the insurance premiums and what isn’t covered will be covered by our tax dollars. These are just two problems in a long line of trickle down effects of coal.

Here is a study done on the transportation of coal:

Misc articles:

Solar still has a way to go. We have had a few different debates on this and the one thing that is never addressed is the inflation factor and geopolitical environments. A foreign country is not going to jack up the rates on wind, the sun or ground temperatures. Inflation on sun, wind and ground temperatures is exactly 0.

If we are building a plant to last one day, then maybe coal makes sense vs geothermal and wind, but over the long haul it just doesn’t make sense anymore.

At the end of the day none of this is nearly important as just simply replacing all lighting in the US with LED. If that switch could be instantly flipped there would be an instant 18% reduction of electricity usage. No need to build billion dollar coal plants or solar farms TODAY. Wait for the cost and efficiency of solar to come down to coal cost (at the time). Build more wind, geothermal and nuclear. Not to mention the lessened stress on the very old power grid.

I have never seen, in any industry, where mechanical parts are more efficient and cost effect as solid state.


Are you sure?
The info looks vary comprehensive and is meant to provide a true picture of the costs of building a new generation facility including fuel costs(which would include transportation in the end unit cost)

Over half of the electricity produced in this country is by burning coal and replacing that in a cost effective manner will be no small task.

If we were serious about energy independence we would be drilling for oil everywhere we can, building nuclear power plants as fast as we can and patiently waiting for alternate energy sources to get up to speed.

We are not serious about energy independence and never have been.

There is no way to accurately predict the cost of any fuel source used in the transportation of the material or health care costs in the future (which isn’t even figured in to the original graph). Geopolitical concerns are just as unstable. Remember, even Warren buffet lost money in the stock market from 2007-2009.

We were also not serious about making good cars in the 80’s and you see where that got us. At least with this technology we skipped the bad manufacturing part and just shipped all the technology overseas right off the bat, except for wind turbines.


Aren’t most solar and wind components mostly made off shore?

The only thing that would affect coal prices going forward is a carbon credit scheme that is little more than a tax and is a way for the government to pick the winners and loosers.

No thank you.

Here are some more articles you will simply skip instead of read:

So we have 30 days left before China is announced as the worlds leading manufacturer. Putting us 2nd for the first time in over 100 years. Its all good though, we can just keep building coal plants and lowering taxes on the rich.

Even Buffett is betting on the US just dropping all these jobs elsewhere. He recently bought a China battery and electric car manufacturer. I wish Buffett would run for president.


Pretty sure I just said that.


I read most of them.

So if most of those jobs all go offshore, how does that help our economy?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to employ people in this country building Nuclear and coal plants, and drilling for oil?

Maybe we should use this money and get those jobs back.

We keep hearing about high un-employment I wonder why they don’t do something about it, tons of money here to be used for it. OH, wait maybe it has something to do with lobbyist.

When they figure the costs of these future plants this money is figured in. Of course coal is going to be cheaper with all this scratch being thrown at it. I am still looking for another report that was done by the WSJ a year or so ago. If you flip flopped the subsidies then solar and coal would actually be the same price (keep in mind solar is dead expensive…currently), according to the WSJ. Geothermal and Wind would be 1/2 the price of either at current subsidy level and 1/4 with those two getting the funds. Nuclear and Hydro will continue to make sense for many years to come…financially speaking. Once I dig it up I will link it.


Until you provide the subsidy per kilowatt of energy produced, that story(blog post) is a meaningless and misleading manipulation of data. :roll::roll:

Coal, great, I love all the added Mercury in the air…

We get our Mercury in fish up here.:wink:

I owned a Mercury once, I think it was a Monterrey.

So you are saying that coal and oil are not subsidized?

Read s-l-o-w-l-y.

The writer is trying to compare coal subsidies to alternative energy subsidies.

A fair comparison would be to state the $subsidy/energy unit produced.

He doesn’t and there is probably a reason.

He is being extremely deceptive.

Solar and wind are very poor competitors to other energy sources.

BTW-Why would state governments be mandating to teh power produces that significant percentages be generated by wind and/or solar?

Because they can’t compete in the market without them.:(:frowning:

This is about politics and nothing else.

So, it’s still all about $$$$$, Michael. Coal has no pollution associated with it. Coal has no other negative factors like strip mining, local environmental upheaval, death/illness of coal miners?

It’s always about $$$.


So you still don’t mind eating the mercury in the fish or breathing the air downstream from a coal fired power plant without scrubbers?

We are devolving!!, some of us are devolving!