“Coal is still the cheapest means of electrical power generation.”
At the most basic buying raw coal is still cheaper. Last year you could get a million BTU from $1.90 of coal or $2.40 of natural gas.
But you only need to add in transportation costs for NG to come out ahead. Pipelines are much cheaper than trains.
On the price side, you can sell your power for more if you are running an NG plant with more efficient load following.
Not sure where to start. I have no clue what the cost of NG transportation is by pipeline. I’m also sure it isn’t free.
Pipelines are sized, and at the moment out of favor. An example would be the NG pipeline serving where I live. The size of the line is smaller than needed for gas to be the primary source of energy. The size of the line is barely adequate to support the small turbine plant it serves much less the city it is in. Ironically a much larger Coal fired plant within the same City, also too small to serve the entire city, was shuttered a few years ago years before it was due for closure.
Speaking of primary sources, one source is dangerous two sources are better, but multiple sources would be the preferred ideal, and until a breakthrough that we are as yet unfamiliar with, Wood, Coal, NG, Oil, Hydro, and nuclear should be competing with one another for the right to exist as a primary source of energy or heat. All so called renewables should be gasping for air as they attempt to get the public interested in what is basically a scam without the tax incentives and subsidies they enjoy.
There are very valid reasons for Wind and Solar energy production, but very small scale. Not the be all and end all progressive folks want them to be as a means to eliminate fossil fuels altogether. To call what progressive’s do in the scheme of energy production, thinking, would be insanity on the part of realists.