Coal is still a relatively cheap and readily available fuel, with as many as 275 billion tons of recoverable reserves - enough to last an estimated 250 years in a world that demands 300 million tons of coal each year.  So why not take advantage of this resource, especially to fill a void in demand while alternative energy sources are explored and developed?

The answer lies with the perceived main drawback about coal - pollution.  When coal is burned, it produces pollutants such as sulfur, mercury and carbon dioxide (perceived by most as the greenhouse gas responsible for global warming).  Escalating concerns about global warming and climate change are driving increasing opposition to coal-fired power from environmental groups, community organizations and even state governments.

As recently as early 2007, there was a decided buzz about the resurrection of coal-fired electricity.  There were 151 new U.S. coal-fired power plants in the works at the time. However, over the course of last year, 59 of these proposed plants were either refused licenses by state governments or ditched.  About 50 more are currently engaged in courtroom disputes.  It seems a long and torturous road for a new coal-fired power plant to see the light of day.
 
But is it advisable to rely on an already strained grid of coal-fired utilities to satisfy ever-increasing demand for electricity?  Aging air pollution control equipment is far from assured to avoid polluting the environment - in fact, older power plants are likely to be less efficient and require greater investment to attain the same level of performance as newer plants.

So who’s the winner in this controversy?