In 2013, that figures more than doubled to 8.3 million Mwh. And to think that ten years ago, the U.S. generated only 6,000 Mwh from solar PV cells. Solar is gradually closing in on price parity with other energy sources such as coal — with full-cycle, unsubsidized costs of almost 13 cents per kilowatt-hour against 12 cents for more modern coal plants.

So, is the solar revolution finally arrived? Not really. Even after ten
years of rampant growth, solar energy still hardly makes an impact in
the U.S. energy field. In truth, solar only equals the amount of
electricity that the nation produces by burning natural gas derived from
landfills. And it is merely a little more significant than the 7.3
million Mwh we get from combusting human waste filtered out of municipal sewer structures.

Ultimately, when you collate all the sources of energy used up in this
nation, captured solar energy adds up to significantly less than 1
quadrillion Btu out of an yearly total of 96.5 quadrillion.

The largest sources are the traditional standbys. Oil still stands above
the rest at 36 quadrillion Btu, natural gas at 26 quads and nuclear at
8. Hydropower and biomass follow from behind at 2.6 and 2.7 quads. Wind
is only 1.5 quads. And coal — the great carbon-emitting monster of the
global energy sources —contributes 19 quads. That is about 8 times all
the country’s wind and solar generation put together.

This is very vital important to remember in light of pending efforts by
the EPA to institute draconian fresh regulations governing carbon
dioxide emissions from coal-burning power facilities. Coal emits about
1.7 billion metric tons annually of carbon dioxide out of the 5.3
billion ton yearly total.

The assumption, by policy makers such as President Obama, is that the
nation can reduce carbon emissions by shutting down coal plants, while
making up for the lost electricity by using more natural gas and putting
up more solar and wind plants. In truth, natural gas has replaced much
of the coal output. In 2013, coal production from U.S. mines went down
to 995.8 million short tons. The last time it went that low was in the
late 1980s. Coal production reached its height in 2008 at 1.17 billion
short tons.

The president is instituting significant measures to control
heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and to increase
renewable energy production on state-owned facilities, making use of his
executive powers to resolve climate change issues and avoiding the
partisan debacles in Congress.

The shortfall in demand has gravely affected America’s largest
Coal-mining firms. In the past five years, shares in Peabody Energy BTU
+1.5% went down 36%, Arch Coal down 67% and Alpha Natural Resources ANR-1.67% off 78%. In contrast, shares in Solar City SCTY - 4.48%, up 400% in only 18 months.

However, coal is not dead. Certainly not close to it. “Even when the
president is against coal, it is like you stand against City Hall. But
the truth will conquer,” says Andrew Redinger, managing director at
KeyBanc Capital Markets, which has performed investment banking, work for coal firms and for solar developers. “I see coal recovering soon. The
best thing for coal will be when we begin exporting natural gas.”

This winter proved that “announcing the death of coal is premature,”
says Bob Yu, analyst at Bentek, a division of Platts. “Winter showed
that natural gas is utilized for heating. Coal use was significantly up
this winter because of natural gas purchases by retail buyers.”
Consider what occurred last winter during the chilling grip of the polar
vortex. In January, shortfalls of natural gas in the Northeast led to
price spikes above $100 per mmBTU in some markets. Electricity spot
prices in the Mid-Atlantic region peaked as much as $2,000 per
megawatthour for a short period. Natural gas experienced high demand for
residential furnaces that electric utilities could not even get what
they required for their power facilities. Some had to turn to back-up
emergency generators that use much more expensive petroleum. So much for that so-called glut of shale gas.

Natural gas prices have already increased three-fold within two years.
And coal-to-gas shift has already reversed. From making up 40% of the
national electricity mix in the first quarter of 2013, coal’s share grew
to 41.4% in the first quarter of 2014. Natural gas was down from 25.6%
of total power production a year ago to 23.8% in the first quarter of
2014.

This will dampen what has been a slow shift away from coal. Power firms
have been closing down old coal-burning facilities ahead of more
stringent emissions regulations, with 4.7 gigawatts of coal capacity
shut down in 2013, following the 10.3 GW in 2012. Another 60 GW of
additional closures will occur by 2020. Analyst Yu says, “that may
appear like a lot, but not in connection to the entire power mix.” The
plants being shut down are many years old, not yet outfitted with the
pricey “scrubbing” technology that can decrease harmful emissions by
90%, even when burning low-quality, sulfur-carrying coal.

At large electric facilities in the Midwest, where coal still supplies
over 70% of fuel, the costs of converting coal into power are so low
that we will see negligible shift over to natural gas — especially with
prices of gas tripling in two years. In fact, the issue is whether or
not shale gas drillers will have the capacity to fill up depleted gas
storage ahead of the coming winter. We should be alright. After all,
predictions say more than ample natural gas supplies are available as
far as can be foreseen. Once pipeline obstacles are cleared out, there
should be enough gas for everyone wherever it is needed.

So, what would it require for America to replace every coal-fired power
facility (totaling to 19 quads of energy annually) with solar and
natural gas? Let us consider it. Assuming a natural gas turbine
construction bonanza, coupled with a rise in gas power plants’
operations to full capacity, we could significantly enhance power
generation from gas by 50% in five years, supplying about 13 quads. To
make up the rest of coal’s share with solar would require increasing the
amount of electricity we get from solar about six times to about 50,000
megawatthours annually. Attaining that would mean 20% compound yearly
growth in solar installations for a decade. Or almost 9% CAGR for 20 years.

This is feasible, on the short term. Electricity production from solar
PV generation almost tripled from 2009 to 2010. It grew more than twice
in 2011. And more than three times in 2012. Achieving such a growth rate
is not difficult when you are small; but the bigger the base the harder
it gets. Wind power is a fine example — it managed to increase 19% last
year from a much larger base, to 168 million Mwh. But remember: Both
wind and solar energy have to overcome the obstacle of geography —
developers build systems in the most windy and sunny areas first. The
worse the location, the more panels or windmills you require to attain
the same amount of electricity. That is the reason why it is less
important how many megawatts of solar capacity is built and more
important how much actual electricity that is produced by those solar
panels.

For all the discussions on “grid parity”, the simple truth is that even
mixed with far more power generation from natural gas, renewable sources
will need many decades to replace coal completely. And the irony will be
that as the coal demand decreases, it will become less and less
expensive, making it even more attractive for the coal-burning power
facilities that endure through the coming storm. The direct cost of
producing electricity from coal is 2.5 cents per Kwh.

It is encouraging to see that even some noted veteran environmentalists
have proven themselves to be realistic when it comes to coal. Armond
Cohen, executive director of the Clean Air Task Force, has concentrated
for three decades on minimizing the environmental impact of the global
energy system. Yet in an article published late last year, he claimed
that “coal is not going away.”

Coal will be crucial to economic modernization in the developing world,
where most energy supply will be installed in the next three decades.
Coal will also have an important residual role in much of the OECD. Coal
is not going away. We need to start using it without emitting
considerable amounts of carbon dioxide, and quickly. If we don’t, the
risk to global climate is great, and possibly irreversible. It’s that
simple. People who think otherwise, and simply hope for the death of
coal, are not admitting the facts. (…)

Let me be direct and clear: Except for the environmental challenges,
this expansion of coal-fired power boom is a desirable development;
dependable energy is a correlate of economic growth and human
development. But let me be equally clear: The carbon produced by this
expansion is unacceptable and puts us on a dire collision path with our
Global climate.

Coal has become enormously cleaner over the past generation. And novel
and better ways will be discovered to derive energy from coal without
producing dangerous by-products and burdening the environment. It is
scalable and dependable in ways that renewable energy sources simply are
not. Hence, unless we are willing to put up with blackouts that freeze
grandma during winter and melt her in summer, coal will stay as a
faithful source of U.S. power generation for many years to come.