The world needs coal. We have it. And we’re going to sell it.

In the first half of 2008, U.S. coal exports increased by 13 million short tons, or 50%, over first-half 2007 shipments, according to the IEA.  Strong global demand for coal, combined with supply disruptions in several key coal exporting countries (Australia, South Africa and China), were the primary factors behind the increase.

But lately, coal prices, along with the prices of other fossil fuels, have suffered from the global economic crisis, and from a resurgent U.S. dollar. An 80% decline in global shipping rates has also fostered competition from other exporters, like Australia, which can now ship farther and compete with U.S. exporters.

As a result, the price of Appalachian Coal on the New York Mercantile Exchange (CME) has fallen to less than $80 a ton from $143 in July.  

This will have a negative impact on coal producers until the world economy is able to gather itself back up and build up a new head of steam.

But don’t expect the slump to last long.  China’s economy is getting a shot in the arm from a gigantic $586 billion stimulus package, cementing growth expectations for 2009.  Expect U.S.exports to accelerate when that kicks in, probably in the second half of 2009.

Since the stock market usually leads economic indicators by six-to-nine months, right now is a good time to be looking at candidates for your investing dollar. But you should be cautious about pulling the trigger.  Watch construction activity in China – especially steel demand in the late spring – for the first signs of a rebound in coal prices.

When you think things are ready to take off, Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) and Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) – the largest U.S. producers – are worth a look. For those who like to play a basket of shares, the Market Vectors Coal exchange traded fund (KOL), or ETF, provides the desired diversification. All three securities are trading at discounts of at least 80% from their July highs, and currently trade at bargain basement multiples.

Nuclear Power: It Struggles in the U.S., but Thrives Abroad

Nuclear power is attractive to the energy industry because it produces electricity on a predictable, 24-hour basis – earning it the industry sobriquet of “base load” power. Coal and hydroelectric plants are the only other power sources that also rate that label. Such alternatives as wind, solar or biofuels do not.

During its term, the Bush administration tried to spark a “renaissance” in the construction of nuclear power plants.  And during his presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain stood firmly behind the industry’s hopes of building 45 new reactors by 2030.

Interest in new types of reactors seemed to hint at least at the beginnings of a new start. But President-elect Obama has been lukewarm on nuclear.  He acknowledges that nuclear is one of several viable components of the nation’s energy portfolio – the current 104-plant fleet provides 20% of America’s electricity – but has questioned its safety while emphasizing a need to diversify the nation’s energy mix with more wind, solar and other renewable sources.

"That’s sort of like my wife saying she’d support divorce under certain situations," says William Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s vice president of environment, technology, and public affairs.

In fact, the Barack Obama/Joe Biden New Energy for America Plan, while recognizing that nukes provide 70% of our non-carbon-generated electricity, says that “before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage and proliferation.”  It goes on to say that the team of President-elect Obama and incoming Vice President Joe Biden “do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site as a long-term repository for spent nuclear  designed for long-term storage.  In any case, the earliest the storage site could open would be 2017, and that was before Republicans lost control of the Senate.

With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., firmly opposed to nuclear waste storage in his home state – and with the Obama administration ready to hold the industry’s feet to the regulatory fire – any plans to expand the nuclear industry in the United States now face a high hurdle. 

But nuclear proponents are hardly impotent.  The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s most powerful lobbying group, helped craft the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with more than $12 billion in subsidies for nukes. 

Maintaining nuclear energy’s current 20% share of generation would require building three reactors every two years starting in 2016, based on U.S.