Big Tech's soaring energy demands making coal-fired power plant sites attractive

Transforming Coal Power

Time is of the essence in getting power plants online. Getty Images

Coal-fired power plants, long an increasingly money-losing proposition in the U.S., are becoming more valuable now that the suddenly strong demand for electricity to run Big Tech's cloud computing and artificial intelligence applications has set off a full-on sprint to find new energy sources.

President Donald Trump — who has pushed for U.S. “energy dominance” in the global market and suggested that coal can help meet surging power demand — is wielding his emergency authority to entice utilities to keep older coal-fired plants online and producing electricity.

While some utilities were already delaying the retirement of coal-fired plants, the scores of coal-fired plants that have been shut down the past couple years — or will be shut down in the next couple years — are the object of growing interest from tech companies, venture capitalists, states and others competing for electricity.

That’s because they have a very attractive quality: high-voltage lines connecting to the electricity grid that they aren’t using anymore and that a new power plant could use.

That ready-to-go connection could enable a new generation of power plants — gas, nuclear, wind, solar or even battery storage — to help meet the demand for new power sources more quickly.

For years, the bureaucratic nightmare around building new high-voltage power lines has ensnared efforts to get permits for such interconnections for new power plants, said John Jacobs, an energy policy analyst for the Washington, D.C.-based Bipartisan Policy Center.

“They are very interested in the potential here. Everyone sort of sees the writing on the wall for the need for transmission infrastructure, the need for clean firm power, the difficulty with siting projects and the value of reusing brownfield sites,” Jacobs said.

Rising power demand, dying coal plants

Coincidentally, the pace of retirements of the nation's aging coal-fired plants had been projected to accelerate at a time when electricity demand is rising for the first time in decades.

The Department of Energy, in a December report, said its strategy for meeting that demand includes re-using coal plants, which have been unable to compete with a flood of cheap natural gas while being burdened with tougher pollution regulations aimed at its comparatively heavy emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

There are federal incentives, as well — such as tax credits and loan guarantees — that encourage the redevelopment of retired coal-fired plants into new energy sources.

Todd Snitchler, president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, which represents independent power plant owners, said he expected Trump's executive orders will mean some coal-fired plants run longer than they would have — but that they are still destined for retirement.

Surging demand means power plants are needed, fast

Time is of the essence in getting power plants online.

Data center developers are reporting a yearlong wait in some areas to connect to the regional electricity grid. Rights-of-way approvals to build power lines can also be difficult to secure, given objections by neighbors who may not want to live near them.

Stephen DeFrank, chairman of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, said he believes rising energy demand has made retiring coal-fired plants far more valuable.

That's especially true now that the operator of the congested mid-Atlantic power grid has re-configured its plans to favor sites like retired coal-fired plants as a shortcut to meet demand, DeFrank said.

“That’s going to make these properties more valuable because now, as long as I’m shovel ready, these power plants have that connection already established, I can go in and convert it to whatever," DeFrank said.

Gas, solar and more at coal power sites

In Pennsylvania, the vast majority of conversions is likely to be natural gas because Pennsylvania sits atop the prolific Marcellus Shale reservoir, DeFrank said.

In states across the South, utilities are replacing retiring or retired coal units with gas. That includes a plant owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority; a Duke Energy project in North Carolina; and a Georgia Power plant.

The high-voltage lines at retired coal plants on the Atlantic Coast in New Jersey and Massachusetts were used to connect offshore wind turbines to electricity grids.

In Alabama, the site of a coal-fired plant, Plant Gorgas, shuttered in 2019, will become home to Alabama Power’s first utility-scale battery energy storage plant.

Texas-based Vistra, meanwhile, is in the process of installing solar panels and energy storage plants at a fleet of retired and still-operating coal-fired plants it owns in Illinois, thanks in part to state subsidies approved there in 2021.

Nuclear might be coming

Nuclear is also getting a hard look.

In Arizona, lawmakers are advancing legislation to make it easier for three utilities there — Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project and Tucson Electric Power — to put advanced nuclear reactors on the sites of retiring coal-fired plants.

At the behest of Indiana's governor, Purdue University studied how the state could attract a new nuclear power industry. In its November report, it estimated that reusing a coal-fired plant site for a new nuclear power plant could reduce project costs by between 7% and 26%.

The Bipartisan Policy Center, in a 2023 study before electricity demand began spiking, estimated that nuclear plants could cut costs from 15% to 35% by building at a retiring coal plant site, compared to building at a new site.

Even building next to the coal plant could cut costs by 10% by utilizing transmission assets, roads and buildings while avoiding some permitting hurdles, the center said.

That interconnection was a major driver for Terrapower when it chose to start construction in Wyoming on a next-generation nuclear power plant next to PacifiCorp’s coal-fired Naughton Power Plant.

Jobs, towns left behind by coal

Kathryn Huff, a former U.S. assistant secretary for nuclear energy who is now an associate professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said the department analyzed how many sites might be suitable to advanced nuclear reactor plants.

A compelling factor is the workers from coal plants who can be trained for work at a nuclear plant, Huff said. Those include electricians, welders and steam turbine maintenance technicians.

In Homer City, the dread of losing its coal-fired plant — it shut down in 2023 after operating for 54 years — existed for years in the hills of western Pennsylvania’s coal country.

“It’s been a rough 20 years here for our area, maybe even longer than that, with the closing of the mines, and this was the final nail, with the closing of the power plant,” said Rob Nymick, Homer City's manager. “It was like, ‘Oh my god, what do we do?’”

That is changing.

The plant's owners in recent weeks demolished the smoke stacks and cooling towers at the Homer City Generating State and announced a $10 billion plan for a natural gas-powered data center campus.

It would be the nation’s third-largest power generator and that has sown some optimism locally.

“Maybe we will get some families moving in, it would help the school district with their enrollment, it would help us with our population,” Nymick said. “We’re a dying town and hopefully maybe we can get a restaurant or two to open up and start thriving again. We’re hoping.”

Energy sources are often categorized as renewable or not, but perhaps a more accurate classification focuses on the type of reaction that converts energy into useful matter. Photo by simpson33/Getty Images

How is energy produced?

ENERGY 101

Many think of the Energy Industry as a dichotomy–old vs. new, renewable vs. nonrenewable, good vs. bad. But like most things, energy comes from an array of sources, and each kind has its own unique benefits and challenges. Understanding the multi-faceted identity of currently available energy sources creates an environment in which new ideas for cleaner and more sustainable energy sourcing can proliferate.

At a high level, energy can be broadly categorized by the process of extracting and converting it into a useful form.

Energy Produced from Chemical Reaction

Energy derived from coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass is primarily produced as a result of bonds breaking during a chemical reaction. When heated, burned, or fermented, organic matter releases energy, which is converted into mechanical or electrical energy.

These sources can be stored, distributed, and shared relatively easily and do not have to be converted immediately for power consumption. However, the resulting chemical reaction produces environmentally harmful waste products.

Though the processes to extract these organic sources of energy have been refined for many years to achieve reliable and cheap energy, they can be risky and are perceived as invasive to mother nature.

According to the 2022 bp Statistical Review of World Energy, approximately 50% of the world’s energy consumption comes from petroleum and natural gas; another 25% from coal. Though there was a small decline in demand for oil from 2019 to 2021, the overall demand for fossil fuels remained unchanged during the same time frame, mostly due to the increase in natural gas and coal consumption.

Energy Produced from Mechanical Reaction

Energy captured from the earth’s heat or the movement of wind and water results from the mechanical processes enabled by the turning of turbines in source-rich environments. These turbines spin to produce electricity inside a generator.

Solar energy does not require the use of a generator but produces electricity due to the release of electrons from the semiconducting materials found on a solar panel. The electricity produced by geothermal, wind, solar, and hydropower is then converted from direct current to alternating current electricity.

Electricity is most useful for immediate consumption, as storage requires the use of batteries–a process that turns electrical energy into chemical energy that can then be accessed in much the same way that coal, crude oil, natural gas, and biomass produce energy.

Energy Produced from a Combination of Reactions

Hydrogen energy comes from a unique blend of both electrical and chemical energy processes. Despite hydrogen being the most abundant element on earth, it is rarely found on its own, requiring a two-step process to extract and convert energy into a usable form. Hydrogen is primarily produced as a by-product of fossil fuels, with its own set of emissions challenges related to separating the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons.

Many use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from other elements before performing a chemical reaction to create electrical energy inside of a contained fuel cell. The electrolysis process is certainly a more environmentally-friendly solution, but there are still great risks with hydrogen energy–it is highly flammable, and its general energy output is less than that of other electricity-generating methods.

Energy Produced from Nuclear Reaction

Finally, energy originating from the splitting of an atom’s nucleus, mostly through nuclear fission, is yet another way to produce energy. A large volume of heat is released when an atom is bombarded by neutrons in a nuclear power plant, which is then converted to electrical energy.

This process also produces a particularly sensitive by-product known as radiation, and with it, radioactive waste. The proper handling of radiation and radioactive waste is of utmost concern, as its effects can be incredibly damaging to the environment surrounding a nuclear power plant.

Nuclear fission produces minimal carbon, so nuclear energy is oft considered environmentally safe–as long as strict protocols are followed to ensure proper storage and disposal of radiation and radioactive waste.

Nuclear to Mechanical to Chemical?

Interestingly enough, the Earth’s heat comes from the decay of radioactive materials in the Earth’s core, loosely linking nuclear power production back to geothermal energy production.

It’s also clear the conversion of energy into electricity is the cleanest option for the environment, yet adequate infrastructure remains limited in supply and accessibility. If not consumed immediately as electricity, energy is thus converted into a chemical form for the convenience of storage and distribution it provides.

Perhaps the expertise and talent of Houstonians serving the flourishing academic and industrial sectors of energy development will soon resolve many of our current energy challenges by exploring further the circular dynamic of the energy environment. Be sure to check out our Events Page to find the networking event that best serves your interest in the Energy Transition.

------

Lindsey Ferrell is a contributing writer to EnergyCapitalHTX and founder of Guerrella & Co.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston researchers make headway on developing low-cost sodium-ion batteries

energy storage

A new study by researchers from Rice University’s Department of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, Baylor University and the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Thiruvananthapuram has introduced a solution that could help develop more affordable and sustainable sodium-ion batteries.

The findings were recently published in the journal Advanced Functional Materials.

The team worked with tiny cone- and disc-shaped carbon materials from oil and gas industry byproducts with a pure graphitic structure. The forms allow for more efficient energy storage with larger sodium and potassium ions, which is a challenge for anodes in battery research. Sodium and potassium are more widely available and cheaper than lithium.

“For years, we’ve known that sodium and potassium are attractive alternatives to lithium,” Pulickel Ajayan, the Benjamin M. and Mary Greenwood Anderson Professor of Engineering at Rice, said in a news release. “But the challenge has always been finding carbon-based anode materials that can store these larger ions efficiently.”

Lithium-ion batteries traditionally rely on graphite as an anode material. However, traditional graphite structures cannot efficiently store sodium or potassium energy, since the atoms are too big and interactions become too complex to slide in and out of graphite’s layers. The cone and disc structures “offer curvature and spacing that welcome sodium and potassium ions without the need for chemical doping (the process of intentionally adding small amounts of specific atoms or molecules to change its properties) or other artificial modifications,” according to the study.

“This is one of the first clear demonstrations of sodium-ion intercalation in pure graphitic materials with such stability,” Atin Pramanik, first author of the study and a postdoctoral associate in Ajayan’s lab, said in the release. “It challenges the belief that pure graphite can’t work with sodium.”

In lab tests, the carbon cones and discs stored about 230 milliamp-hours of charge per gram (mAh/g) by using sodium ions. They still held 151 mAh/g even after 2,000 fast charging cycles. They also worked with potassium-ion batteries.

“We believe this discovery opens up a new design space for battery anodes,” Ajayan added in the release. “Instead of changing the chemistry, we’re changing the shape, and that’s proving to be just as interesting.”

ExxonMobil lands major partnership for clean hydrogen facility in Baytown

power deal

Exxon Mobil and Japanese import/export company Marubeni Corp. have signed a long-term offtake agreement for 250,000 tonnes of low-carbon ammonia per year from ExxonMobil’s forthcoming facility in Baytown, Texas.

“This is another positive step forward for our landmark project,” Barry Engle, president of ExxonMobil Low Carbon Solutions, said in a news release. “By using American-produced natural gas we can boost global energy supply, support Japan’s decarbonization goals and create jobs at home. Our strong relationship with Marubeni sets the stage for delivering low-carbon ammonia from the U.S. to Japan for years to come."

The companies plan to produce low-carbon hydrogen with approximately 98% of CO2 removed and low-carbon ammonia. Marubeni will supply the ammonia mainly to Kobe Power Plant, a subsidiary of Kobe Steel, and has also agreed to acquire an equity stake in ExxonMobil’s low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia facility, which is expected to be one of the largest of its kind.

The Baytown facility aims to produce up to 1 billion cubic feet daily of “virtually carbon-free” hydrogen. It can also produce more than 1 million tons of low-carbon ammonia per year. A final investment decision is expected in 2025 that will be contingent on government policy and necessary regulatory permits, according to the release.

The Kobe Power Plant aims to co-fire low-carbon ammonia with existing fuel, and reduce CO2 emissions by Japan’s fiscal year of 2030. Marubeni also aims to assist the decarbonization of Japan’s power sector and steel manufacturing industry, chemical industry, transportation industry and various others sectors.

“Marubeni will take this first step together with ExxonMobil in the aim of establishing a global low-carbon ammonia supply chain for Japan through the supply of low-carbon ammonia to the Kobe Power Plant,” Yoshiaki Yokota, senior managing executive officer at Marubeni Corp., added in the news release. “Additionally, we aim to collaborate beyond this supply chain and strive towards the launch of a global market for low-carbon ammonia. We hope to continue to actively cooperate with ExxonMobil, with a view of utilizing this experience and relationship we have built to strategically decarbonize our power projects in Japan and Southeast Asia in the near future.”

Houston expert: The role of U.S. LNG in global energy markets

guest column

The debate over U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports is too often framed in misleading, oversimplified terms. The reality is clear: LNG is not just a temporary fix or a bridge fuel, it is a fundamental pillar of global energy security and economic stability. U.S. LNG is already reducing coal use in Asia, strengthening Europe’s energy balance, and driving economic growth at home. Turning away from LNG exports now would be a shortsighted mistake, undermining both U.S. economic interests and global energy security.

Ken Medlock, Senior Director of the Baker Institute’s Center for Energy Studies, provides a fact-based assessment of the U.S. LNG exports that cuts through the noise. His analysis, consistent with McKinsey work, confirms that U.S. LNG is essential to balancing global energy markets for the decades ahead. While infrastructure challenges and environmental concerns exist, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. If the U.S. fails to embrace its leadership in LNG, we risk giving up our position to competitors, weakening our energy resilience, and damaging national security.

LNG Export Licenses: Options, Not Guarantees

A common but deeply flawed argument against expanding LNG exports is the assumption that granting licenses guarantees unlimited exports. This is simply incorrect. As Medlock puts it, “Licenses are options, not guarantees. Projects do not move forward if they are unable to find commercial footing.”

This is critical: government approvals do not dictate market outcomes. LNG projects must navigate economic viability, infrastructure feasibility, and global demand before becoming operational. This reality should dispel fears that expanded licensing will automatically lead to an uncontrolled surge in exports or domestic price spikes. The market, not government restrictions, should determine which projects succeed.

Canada’s Role in U.S. Gas Markets

The U.S. LNG debate often overlooks an important factor: pipeline imports from Canada. The U.S. and Canadian markets are deeply intertwined, yet critics often ignore this reality. Medlock highlights that “the importance to domestic supply-demand balance of our neighbors to the north and south cannot be overstated.”

Infrastructure Constraints and Price Volatility

One of the most counterproductive policies the U.S. could adopt is restricting LNG infrastructure development. Ironically, such restrictions would not only hinder exports but also drive up domestic energy prices. Medlock’s report explains this paradox: “Constraints that either raise development costs or limit the ability to develop infrastructure tend to make domestic supply less elastic. Ironically, this has the impact of limiting exports and raising domestic prices.”

The takeaway is straightforward: blocking infrastructure development is a self-inflicted wound. It stifles market efficiency, raises costs for American consumers, and weakens U.S. competitiveness in global energy markets. McKinsey research confirms that well-planned infrastructure investments lead to greater price stability and a more resilient energy sector. The U.S. should be accelerating, not hindering, these investments.

Short-Run vs. Long-Run Impacts on Domestic Prices

Critics of LNG exports often confuse short-term price fluctuations with long-term market trends. This is a mistake. Medlock underscores that “analysis that claims overly negative domestic price impacts due to exports tend to miss the distinction between short-run and long-run elasticity.”

Short-term price shifts are inevitable, driven by seasonal demand and supply disruptions. But long-term trends tell a different story: as infrastructure improves and production expands, markets adjust, and price impacts moderate. McKinsey analysis suggests supply elasticity increases as producers respond to price signals. Policy decisions should be grounded in this broader economic reality, not reactionary fears about temporary price movements.

Assessing the Emissions Debate

The argument that restricting U.S. LNG exports will lower global emissions is fundamentally flawed. In fact, the opposite is true. Medlock warns against “engineering scenarios that violate basic economic principles to induce particular impacts.” He emphasizes that evaluating emissions must be done holistically. “Constraining U.S. LNG exports will likely mean Asian countries will continue to turn to coal for power system balance,” a move that would significantly increase global emissions.

McKinsey’s research reinforces that, on a lifecycle basis, U.S. LNG produces fewer emissions than coal. That said, there is room for improvement, and efforts should focus on minimizing methane leakage and optimizing gas production efficiency.

However, the broader point remains: restricting LNG on environmental grounds ignores the global energy trade-offs at play. A rational approach would address emissions concerns while still recognizing the role of LNG in the global energy system.

The DOE’s Commonwealth LNG Authorization

The Department of Energy’s recent conditional approval of the Commonwealth LNG project is a step in the right direction. It signals that economic growth, energy security, and market demand remain key considerations in regulatory decisions. Medlock’s analysis makes it clear that LNG exports will be driven by market forces, and McKinsey’s projections show that global demand for flexible, reliable LNG is only increasing.

The U.S. should not limit itself with restrictive policies when the rest of the world is demanding more LNG. This is an opportunity to strengthen our position as a global energy leader, create jobs, and ensure long-term energy security.

Conclusion

The U.S. LNG debate must move beyond fear-driven narratives and focus on reality. The facts are clear: LNG exports strengthen energy security, drive economic growth, and reduce global emissions by displacing coal.

Instead of restrictive policies that limit LNG’s potential, the U.S. should focus on expanding infrastructure, maintaining market flexibility, and supporting innovation to further reduce emissions. The energy transition will be shaped by market realities, not unrealistic expectations.

The U.S. has an opportunity to lead. But leadership requires embracing economic logic, investing in infrastructure, and ensuring our policies are guided by facts, not political expediency. LNG is a critical part of the global energy landscape, and it’s time to recognize its long-term strategic value.

------------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

View All Listings

ENERGYCAPITALHTX EMAILS ARE AWESOME