coal fired power plant essay

Navigation menu

Coal fired power plant, in other languages.

Coal fired power plants also known as coal fired power stations are facilities that burn coal to make steam in order to generate electricity . These stations, seen in Figure 1, provide ~40% of the world's electricity . [2] Countries such as South Africa use coal for 94% of their electricity and China and India use coal for 70-75% of their electricity needs, however the amount of coal China uses dwarfs most other countries (see the data visualization below ). [3] The use of coal provides access to electricity to those who previously didn't have it, which helps to increase quality of life and reduce poverty in those regions, however it produces large quantities of different pollutants which reduces air quality and contributes to climate change .

Burning huge amounts of coal

Coal plants require enormous amounts of coal. Shockingly: a 1000 MWe coal plant uses 9000 tonnes of coal per day, equivalent to an entire train load (90 cars with 100 tonnes in each!). [4] The amount of coal used during a full year would then require 365 trains, and if each is 3 km long then a single train carrying all of this coal would need to be about 1100 km long; about the same distance as driving from Calgary AB to Victoria BC. If this train were to pass by your house at 40 kilometers per hour , it would take more than a day to pass!

The conversion of this coal to the end goal of electricity is a multi-faceted process: [6]

• The coal must be unloaded from the train. Traditional ways of doing this require the use of cranes picking up the coal from the cars, however newer plants have the floor underneath the train tracks drop away, allowing the coal to be dropped into underground containment. Doing so doesn't even require the train to stop moving! [7] For a video of this please see here . Many coal plants are mine mouth which means the plant was put where the coal mine is, so the coal doesn't need to be transported by train.
• Once unloaded, the coal is then pulverized into a fine powder by a large grinder. This ensures nearly complete burning of the coal in order to maximize the heat given off and to minimize pollutants.
• The pulverized coal is then input to a boiler , where combustion occurs and the coal provides heat to the power plant. This heat is transferred to pipes containing high pressured water , which boils to steam .
• The steam then travels through a turbine , causing it to rotate extremely fast which in turn spins a generator , producing electricity. The electricity can then be input to the electrical grid for use by society.

Coal fired power plants follow the Rankine cycle in order to complete this process. Since they require plenty of water to be circulated in this cycle, coal power plants need to be located near a body of water. The process of coal fired plants can be seen below in Figure 3.

Environmental Impacts

Coal power plants have many associated environmental impacts on the local ecosystem .

Air pollution

The burning of coal releases many pollutants - oxides of nitrogen ( NOx ) and sulfur ( SOx ) - and particulate matter . They also emit greenhouse gases , such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ), which are known to contribute to global warming and climate change . To help stunt the emission of these, power plants require technology to reduce the output of these harmful molecules . [9]

Water Use/Pollution

Large quantities of water are often needed to remove impurities from coal, [10] this process is known as coal washing . For instance, in China, around one-fifth of the water used in the coal industry is used for this process. [11] This process helps reduce air pollution , as it eliminates around 50 % of the ash content in the coal. This results in less sulfur dioxide (SOx) being produced, along with less carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) due to higher thermal efficiencies . [12]

When power plants remove water from the environment , fish and other aquatic life can be affected, along with animals relying on these sources. [10] Pollutants also build up in the water that power plants use, so if this water is discharged back into the environment it can potentially harm wildlife there. [10]

The discharge of water from the power plants and coal washing requires monitoring and regulation. Visit the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for more information on this.

World Electricity Generation: Coal

The map below shows which primary energy different countries get the energy to generate their electricity from. Coal is seen in grey. Click on the region to zoom into a group of countries, then click on the country to see where its electricity comes from. Some notable countries include China, India, USA, Russia, Canada, and France.

For Further Reading

• Supercritical coal plant
• Coal formation
• Coal liquefaction
• Or explore a random page
• ↑ Wikimedia Commons [Online], Available: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Ferrybridge_%27C%27_Power_Station_-_geograph.org.uk_-_35089.jpg
• ↑ H. Ritchie and M. Roser, "Fossil Fuels", Our World in Data, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels . [Accessed: 11- May- 2020].
• ↑ Data Source: IEA (2014), "World energy balances", IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances (database). DOI: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1787/data-00512-en (Accessed February 2015)
• ↑ R. A. Hinrichs and M. Kleinbach, "Electricity: Circuits + Superconductors," in Energy: Its Use and the Environment , 4th ed. Toronto, Ont. Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2006, ch.10, sec.A, pp.320
• ↑ Callum Black on Geograph. (June 23 2015). Coal train [Online], Available: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/450234
• ↑ R. A. Hinrichs and M. Kleinbach, "Electromagnetism and the Generation of Electricity," in Energy: Its Use and the Environment , 4th ed. Toronto, Ont. Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2006, ch.11, sec.D, pp.376-377
• ↑ Discovery via user: Largest Dams, Coal Fired Power Plant - England [Online Video], Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEJKiUYjW1E
• ↑ Wikimedia Commons [Online]. Available: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Coal_fired_power_plant_diagram.svg/1280px-Coal_fired_power_plant_diagram.svg.png
• ↑ BCC Research, "Air Pollution Control for Coal-Fired Power Plants", BCC Publishing, 2013.
• ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 EPA Clean Energy. (June 10 2015). Coal [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/coal.html
• ↑ IEA. (June 22 2015). Why most coal avoids a bath [Online], Available: http://www.iea.org/ieaenergy/issue6/why-most-coal-avoids-a-bath.html
• ↑ AP 42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources, 5th ed. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010, pp. 11.10-1.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 27 July 2020

The future of coal in a carbon-constrained climate

• Michael Jakob   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5005-3563 1 ,
• Jan Christoph Steckel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5325-9214 1 , 2 ,
• Frank Jotzo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2856-847X 3 ,
• Benjamin K. Sovacool   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4794-9403 4 ,
• Laura Cornelsen 5 ,
• Rohit Chandra 6 ,
• Ottmar Edenhofer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6029-5208 1 , 2 , 7 ,
• Chris Holden 8 ,
• Andreas Löschel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3366-8053 9 , 10 ,
• Ted Nace 11 ,
• Nick Robins 12 ,
• Jens Suedekum 13 &
• Johannes Urpelainen 14  

Nature Climate Change volume  10 ,  pages 704–707 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

36k Accesses

83 Citations

574 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change mitigation
• Climate-change policy
• Political economy of energy
• Socioeconomic scenarios

Phasing out coal requires expanding the notion of a ‘just transition’ and a roadmap that specifies the sequence of coal plant retirement, the appropriate policy instruments as well as ways to include key stakeholders in the process.

Despite decades of knowledge about its contribution to climate change, coal combustion still accounts for 40% of global CO 2 emissions from energy use. The power sector must stop using coal without carbon capture and storage by approximately 2050 if the Paris Agreement climate goals are to be achieved 1 . This will not be easy. Globally, the coal mining industry alone employs about 8 million people and creates revenues of more than US$900 billion a year 2 . While growth in coal investments is slowing and COVID-19-induced electricity demand reductions have cut coal-fired electricity output in 2020, coal use is unlikely to decline substantially in the medium term. Reductions in the USA and Europe are offset by growth in China, India and other Asian countries 3 , 4 , thus locking in future demand (Fig. 1 ). African countries may follow next 5 .

Coal-fired power plants in the pipeline (planned, announced or under construction) as well as changes relative to 2015 (ref. 19 ). Percentage changes denote changes in the total pipeline between 2015–2019.

Still, the urgency of climate change action demands the world to reduce coal use without carbon capture and storage quickly, and cease it over coming decades 6 . Yet, focusing on the environmental and health related externalities 7 , 8 of coal combustion will likely not be sufficient to phase out coal. Rather, it will be crucial that the coal phase out is seen as fair and that the process corresponds to political realities. Policymakers need to understand in more detail who will be affected by a transition away from coal, how these societal groups can be effectively compensated and how powerful vested interests can be counterbalanced.

Expanding the notion of just transition

It is understood that a coal phase-out can only succeed if it takes into account social objectives and priorities. The necessity of a ‘just transition’ is widely acknowledged (Box 1 ). Such dialogue typically emphasizes employment creation but often fails to include considerations related to (i) regional economic development, (ii) effects of higher energy prices for consumers and energy-intensive industries and (iii) how just transition dynamics may cascade beyond individual countries 9 . Hence, what is needed is a just and feasible transition providing decent work and quality jobs as well as regional economic futures while at the same time limiting adverse impacts on consumers and energy-intensive industries.

Box 1 The just transition to date

The concept of ‘just transition’ goes back to the 1990s. It was coined by trade unions to support social assistance programs for workers who lost their jobs as a result of environmental policies 20 . In the climate policy discussion, its importance has been recognized in the preamble of the Paris Agreement, which calls for “[t]aking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs” 21 , and the Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration 22 adopted in 2018 at the twenty-fourth UN climate conference in Katowice, Poland. To date, there are a multitude of national commissions, policies, or task forces in place, including Canada, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, USA and Vietnam. A just transition is also backed by powerful coalitions and groups such as the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). We agree with calls to expand the notion of just transitions, and to also reflect the potential negative effects of energy transitions on households and consumers, industry and regional development 23 , 24 .

Regional economic futures

While the environmental and health effects of coal are well understood, policymakers in newly industrializing countries often highlight the importance of coal for industrial development in specific regions 10 . Planning for alternative regional economic futures to substitute for coal requires a clearer understanding of the upstream and downstream links of coal mining and coal-fired power generation to the broader economy. Such plans could include the provision of transport and communication infrastructure, investment in higher education to attract human capital and new business opportunities, as well as the relocation of government services.

Impacts on consumers and energy-intensive industries

Renewing energy supply systems can increase electricity system costs: for example, depreciated coal plants may produce electricity at lower costs than new alternative power generation assets. It is then a question of social equity to shield the poor from electricity price increases. This can be achieved by adjusting electricity tariffs, raising social spending or subsidizing energy efficiency, depending on the given institutional and political context.

Foregoing coal could also affect the competitiveness of industries such as steel, aluminium, chemicals and other important components of industrial strategy. This might raise the risk of ‘carbon leakage’; that is, the migration of energy-intensive industries to regions with laxer climate measures, thus undermining the benefits for the climate and making coal phase-outs politically more difficult. More fine-grained projections of leakage risks in different sectors under a wide range of scenarios are required to explore which policy instruments can effectively reduce leakage. Options include coordinated implementation of emission reductions among different countries, the free allocation of permits within emissions trading schemes, border carbon adjustments, carbon contracts for difference and mechanisms of technology transfer 11 .

Expanding the feasibility space for phasing out coal

The coal industry typically is a powerful stakeholder with vested interests in delaying coal phase-out. Strategies to overcome the influence of vested interests might include government payments for coal power plants that are being closed. In Germany, for example, the government agreed in early 2020 on a set of measures to phase out coal by 2038 with additional costs of €70–90 billion, including €4.35 billion to operators of (lignite) coal-fired power plants that, in turn, shut down their plants early; that is, before 2030. More cost-efficient alternatives that could be assessed include accelerated carbon pricing or industry-internal schemes whereby remaining power stations pay out plants that are retiring ahead of their end of economic life 12 . In addition, the interests of alternative energy producers can be leveraged to help build coalitions that create support for coal phase-out that partially offsets the opposition of those losing out 13 , 14 .

A phase-out roadmap in practice

A viable coal phase-out strategy will need to prevent new coal-fired power plants from being built. This prevents locking in long-lived assets and is usually politically easier to achieve than closing existing plants early. In many cases, expanding power supply through sources other than coal (that is, renewables or natural gas) is cost effective, even before considering the environmental and health costs of coal use. This will increasingly be the case as the cost of renewable energy technologies continues to fall. Nevertheless, there are factors that tend to favour continued investment in coal assets, including the security of supply in regions with abundant coal resources, the desire to protect jobs in the coal sector and in regional areas of coal production, dependence of public budgets on royalties from coal mining as well as political influence of owners of coal mines and power producers.

Coal phase-outs therefore require roadmaps based on a clear understanding of which plants are to be phased out when, which policies can be applied and how affected stakeholders can be included in the process.

Sequence phase-outs

The age profile of coal power plants differs greatly between countries. Industrialized countries typically built up a large part of their power infrastructure before 1990, whereas India, China and many other industrializing countries ramped up coal use in the last 15 to 30 years 1 (economic logic suggests that relatively old, and typically less efficient, plants often found in developed countries should be decommissioned first). Other factors to consider are the public health impacts of associated air pollution and water use in densely populated areas. A realistic sequence of power plant closure will also need to take into account political and institutional constraints.

A nuanced understanding of the associated political barriers as well as feasible no-lose options can help to identify countries and regions where policy action in the near term is more likely than in.

Choosing the right instruments

Coal producers and consumers need to understand the real costs of coal, including local health damages and climate consequences for the climate. Removing any existing coal subsidies would be a step to creating a level playing field for clean energy sources to compete. Some jurisdictions may want to impose an additional carbon cost on coal plants to accelerate coal phase-out. To be socially equitable and politically acceptable, a carbon price could raise funds in support of affected workers, communities and consumers. It may be usefully embedded within a broader reform to the tax system geared to assist low-income households 15 .

In addition, central banks and financial regulators need to include the climate and financial risks associated with coal assets in the prudential management of banks, insurers and institutional investors 16 . Transparent disclosure of exposure to financial risks of climate policy could provide an important motivation for investors to reallocate assets away from coal 17 . Financial investors increasingly decline to invest in coal-based assets already, because they are seen as high risk 18 .

Stakeholder involvement and communication

Efforts to phase out coal will only succeed if stakeholders are involved early on in the decision process to ensure democratic legitimacy. This is particularly important during times in which populist parties increasingly depict climate change mitigation as a project undertaken by the political elite against the interests of the broader population, and where well-founded concerns about economic prosperity dominate public discourse.

Different forms of public deliberation, such as stakeholder dialogues, just transition commissions and citizen assemblies, reflect public opinion and could be apt to further agreement between different interests. This raises the question of how participants are selected, in which form and frequency discussions take place, how scientific knowledge is used as an input and how the results of public deliberation are used by policymakers. Policymakers could adapt their communication strategies on coal phase-out for different audiences that highlight the key benefits that align with individual concerns; for instance, emphasizing the importance of coal phase-out for climate change mitigation for one social group and the more localized benefits of reduced air pollution for others.

How to phase out coal

To achieve internationally agreed climate targets, the world will need to phase out coal rapidly and immediately. This may be politically even more difficult in the altered political and economic landscape after the coronavirus pandemic. Roadmaps for coal phase-out, smart use of a combination of policy instruments and effective integration of powerful stakeholders into the process are key to success.

Edenhofer, O., Steckel, J. C., Jakob, M. & Bertram, C. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 024019 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Global Coal Mining Industry - Market Research Report (IBISWorld, 2019); https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-research-reports/global-coal-mining-industry/

Thurber, M. C. & Morse, R. K. in The Global Coal Market (eds Thurber, M. C. & Morse, R. K.) 3–34 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

Jewell, J., Vinichenko, V., Nacke, L. & Cherp, A. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 592–597 (2019).

Steckel, J. C., Hilaire, J., Jakob, M. & Edenhofer, O. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 83–88 (2020).

Luderer, G. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 626–633 (2018).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Li, M., Zhang, D., Li, C.-T., Selin, N. E. & Karplus, V. J. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 , 084006 (2019).

Muller, N. Z., Mendelsohn, R. & Nordhaus, W. Am. Econ. Rev. 101 , 1649–1675 (2011).

Sovacool, B. K., Hook, A., Martiskainen, M. & Baker, L. Glob. Environ. Chang. 58 , 101958 (2019).

Kalkuhl, M. et al. Nat. Energy 4 , 897–900 (2019).

Jakob, M., Steckel, J. C. & Edenhofer, O. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6 , 297–318 (2014).

Jotzo, F. & Mazouz, S. B. E. J. Econ. Anal. 48 , 71–81 (2015).

Google Scholar  

Kim, S. E., Urpelainen, J. & Yang, J. J. Public Policy 36 , 251–275 (2016).

Hess, D. J. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 57 , 101246 (2019).

Klenert, D. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 669–677 (2018).

First Meeting of the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) on January 24th in Paris. Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System (26 January 2018); https://www.ngfs.net/en/communique-de-presse/first-meeting-central-banks-and-supervisors-network-greening-financial-system-ngfs-january-24th-0

Guidelines on Reporting Climate-related Information (European Commission, 2019); https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/policy/190618-climate-related-information-reporting-guidelines_en.pdf

The Investor Agenda. 2018 Global Investor Statement to Governments on Climate Change (COP24 Presidency Office, Ministry of the Environment, 2018).

Global Coal Plant Tracker (Global Energy Monitor, 2020).

Smith, S. Just Transition: A Report for the OECD (OECD Publishing, 2017); https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/g20-climate/collapsecontents/Just-Transition-Centre-report-just-transition.pdf

Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).

Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration (COP24 Presidency Office, Ministry of the Environment, 2018); https://cop24.gov.pl/fileadmin/user_upload/Solidarity_and_Just_Transition_Silesia_Declaration_2_.pdf

Carley, S. & Konisky, D. M. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-0641-6 (2020).

Jenkins, K. E. H., Sovacool, B. K., Błachowicz, A. & Lauer, A. Geoforum (in the press); https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.05.012

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany

Michael Jakob, Jan Christoph Steckel & Ottmar Edenhofer

Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany

Jan Christoph Steckel & Ottmar Edenhofer

Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Frank Jotzo

Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK

Benjamin K. Sovacool

Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Laura Cornelsen

Center for Policy Research, New Delhi, India

Rohit Chandra

Department of Economics of Climate Change, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Ottmar Edenhofer

Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York, UK

Chris Holden

School of Business and Economics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Andreas Löschel

Fraunhofer Center for Economics of Materials, Halle, Germany

Global Energy Monitor, San Francisco, CA, USA

Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, UK

Nick Robins

Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany

Jens Suedekum

Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Washington D.C., WA, USA

Johannes Urpelainen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Michael Jakob or Jan Christoph Steckel .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jakob, M., Steckel, J.C., Jotzo, F. et al. The future of coal in a carbon-constrained climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10 , 704–707 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0866-1

Download citation

Published : 27 July 2020

Issue Date : August 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0866-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Limited impact of hydrogen co-firing on prolonging fossil-based power generation under low emissions scenarios.

• Shinichiro Fujimori

Nature Communications (2024)

Quantifying the spatiotemporal patterns and environmental impacts of surface coal mining in the Xilingol Steppe, Inner Mongolia

• Xiaoji Zeng

Regional Environmental Change (2024)

Insight into Energy Production and Consumption, Carbon Emissions and Agricultural Residues Resources Available for Energy and Environmental Benefits in China

Waste and Biomass Valorization (2024)

Coal-exit alliance must confront freeriding sectors to propel Paris-aligned momentum

• Stephen L. Bi
• Jessica Jewell

Nature Climate Change (2023)

Co-firing plants with retrofitted carbon capture and storage for power-sector emissions mitigation

• Jing-Li Fan
• Jingying Fu

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Coal-Fired Power Plant Retirements in the U.S.

We summarize the history of U.S. coal-fired plant retirements over the last decade, describe planned future retirements, and forecast the remaining operating life for every operating coal-fired generator. We summarize the technology and location trends that are correlated with the observed retirements. We then describe a theoretical model of the retirement decision coal generator owners face. We use retirements from the last decade to quantify the relationships in the model for retired generators. Our model predicts that three-quarters of coal generation capacity will retire in the next twenty years, with most of that retirement concentrated in the next five years. Policy has limited ability to affect retirement times. A $20 per MWh electricity subsidy extends the average life of a generator by six years. A $51 per ton carbon tax brings forward retirement dates by about two years. In all scenarios, a handful of electricity generators remain on the grid beyond our forecast horizon.

Thanks to Jim Stock and Tatyana Deryugina for helpful feedback. Kate Martella provided outstanding research assistance. This research was funded in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant no. G-2015-14101, “Pre-Doctoral Fellowship Program on Energy Economics,” awarded to the National Bureau of Economic Research. Holladay and Sims also gratefully acknowledge funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation grant no. G-2019-11399 and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Conferences

Mentioned in the news, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Switch language:

Lean and clean: why modern coal-fired power plants are better by design

New coal-fired power plant design prioritises operational efficiency and emissions reduction. Julian Turner looks at lessons learned from China, pioneering technology in Denmark, Germany and Japan, and asks if ‘clean coal’ has a meaningful role to play in the future global energy mix.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

Free Report

Delve into the renewable energy prospects for morocco.

• The 2020 target compared to what was achieved  
• The 2030 target and current progress  
• Energy strategy to 2050  
• Green hydrogen  
• Predictions for the way forward   

You will receive an email shortly. Please check for download the Report.

Go deeper with GlobalData

Clean Coal Technology: Efficient power generation with (pulverized ...

Cleaner coal through evolving technologies proves to be a sustainab..., premium insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

Related Company Profiles

General electric co, vattenfall ab.

In January, US President Barack Obama mounted the latest offensive in what Republicans have dubbed his ‘war on coal’ by halting new coal mining leases on federal land, home to roughly 40% of US coal reserves.

Yet, despite protests from ‘big coal’, the decision will have little impact on production of the fossil fuel in the short to medium-term. Companies can continue to mine reserves under lease, estimated at enough to sustain current levels of coal production from public land for 20 years.

“Even as our nation transitions to cleaner energy sources…we know that coal will continue to be an important domestic energy source in the years ahead,” states Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, proof that while the West’s love affair with coal may be on the wane thanks to tough emissions standards, cheap natural gas and slowing global demand, its reliance on the fossil fuel is most certainly not.

Global demand for coal is projected to increase 15% by 2040, yet burning it releases almost 14 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, the majority from power generation.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

“Do you realise we’ve got 250 years of coal?” Obama’s predecessor George W Bush said at the outset of his second term in office in 2005. “Coal has got environmental hazards to it, but I’m convinced technology can be developed so we can have zero-emissions coal-fired electricity plants.”

Ten years on, is this aspiration any nearer to becoming a reality, and how are modern power plant designers using structures and systems to maximise operational efficiency and reduce emissions?

Steaming ahead: ultra-supercritical boiler, turbine and generator design

At the heart of coal-fired electricity generation lies the steam cycle. Typically, pulverised coal is fed into a giant industrial furnace surrounded by boiler tubes filled with water. The burning coal heats the water to create steam, which is transferred at high-pressure to turbines linked to a generator.

As the generator spins, electrons are generated that are stepped up in voltage by transformers, while the turbine steam is condensed back into water and returned to the boiler for reheating.

In ultra-supercritical steam (USC) power plants, the extreme boiler temperature and pressure heat the water so that it becomes a ‘supercritical’ fluid that exhibits properties of liquid and gas phases.

In this state, supercritical steam is much more efficient at driving the giant turbines that spin the plant’s generators. The upfront cost of such technology is 20%−30% more expensive than a traditional subcritical unit, but that is offset by improved net thermal efficiency levels and reduced emissions.

High-efficiency low-emissions (HELE) solutions are proven to reduce both emissions and fuel costs by maximising the amount of power from the steam produced, yet the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that in 2011 around 75% of coal-fired units worldwide employed non-HELE technology.

The situation had barely improved three years later when an IEA study into coal-fired power plant design in China found that the global average efficiency of coal-fired power plants in operation was around 33%, significantly lower than the 45% possible using modern, ultra-supercritical technology.

Progress is undoubtedly being made, however. General Electric (GE) is pioneering ultra-supercritical technology at the RDK 8 coal-fired power plant in Karlsruhe, Germany with considerable success.

Operated by German utility EnBW, the plant achieves 47.5% net thermal efficiency while producing 912MW of electricity, making it one of the world’s most efficient hard coal-fired steam power plants.

Role models: cutting-edge power generation in Denmark and Japan

Nordjylland power station located in Northern Jutland, Denmark is touted by its owner Vattenfall as holding the world record for most efficient coal utilisation since Unit 3 was commissioned in 1998.

The 400MW, USC Unit 3 employs a 70m-high, once-through steam generator plus a double-reheat steam cycle and cold seawater for cooling, resulting in a net electrical efficiency of 47% (LHV basis). Its dual-use design allows it to use up to 91% of the energy content in the bituminous coals it burns.

The Isogo thermal power station near Yokohama, Japan houses two coal-fired units. Unit 2 operates at 600°/620°C reheat, achieving 45% efficiency while Unit 1 operates at a slightly lower temperature.

Combined, the facilities emit 50% less sulphur, 80% less nitrogen, 70% less particulate and 17% less carbon dioxide than the previous subcritical units using a regenerative activated coke dry-type control technology (ReACT) that captures multiple pollutants, while only using 1% of the water of conventional systems.

A 2015 report published in the coal industry journal Cornerstone cites Isogo as the world’s cleanest coal-fired power plant in terms of emissions intensity. The two units more than doubled the power generated at the site while lowering emissions to that of a natural gas-fired combined-cycle facility.

New frontiers: China and advanced ultra-supercritical technology

In South East Asia where energy demand is projected to spike by 80%, coal will likely be the single largest energy source. In the first nine months of last year alone, Chinese state-owned companies received initial or full approval to build 155 new coal power plants with a total capacity of 123GW.

The aforementioned 2014 IEA study, ‘Emissions Reduction through Upgrade of Coal-Fired Power Plants’, evaluated the efficiencies of two operational units in China’s Shandong and Jilin provinces.

In addition to guidance on retrofitting new technology to existing facilities, the report issued advice on improving efficiencies at the design phase − where there exists a reasonable degree of flexibility − using supercritical steam conditions, the inclusion of a second reheat stage on the steam turbine, and a reduction in condenser pressure, excess air ratio and in the stack gas exit temperature.

According to GE, a prime mover in air quality control systems (AQCS) in existing power plants, moving the average global efficiency rate of coal-fired power plants from 33% to 40% by deploying advanced solutions such as ultra-supercritical technology would cut annual CO2 emissions by two gigatonnes and contribute to containing the global warming within the 2°C scenario specified by the IEA.

GE is already looking into what happens when you bring steam temperatures up to 1,300°F (700°C) − advanced ultra-supercritical technology (AUSC) − which could achieve coal-fired efficiencies as high as 50%. Such high pressures and temperatures will require power plant designers to employ more advanced nickel or nickel-iron super-alloys, as well as overcome fabrication and welding challenges.

In 2014, Alstom and Southern Company announced a milestone in the development of AUSC, with steam loop temperatures maintained at 760°C for 17,000 hours at Plant Barry Unit 4 in Alabama, US.

By pushing the boundaries of power plant design in this manner, the fossil fuel industry will ensure that clean coal continues to play a pivotal role in the global energy mix to mid-century and beyond.

Sign up for our daily news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

More Relevant

First Westinghouse nuclear fuel at Bulgaria’s Kozloduy plant 

Mitsubishi power begins operations for third m701jac unit at thai power plant, ca01 module installed at lianjiang nuclear power plant, leading cyber security suppliers for the power sector, sign up to the newsletter: in brief, your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Future Power Technology : Power Technology Focus (monthly)

Thematic Take (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments Term Paper

Introduction, main reasons to support the argument, works cited.

There is one story about a man sitting on a barrel full of powder. He holds a candle in his hand guessing whether it will explode or not. The same deals with the current situation in the world. The fact is that the last several decades could be characterized by the increased popularity of environmental concerns and a great level of attention devoted to different aspects of human activity that might have a certain impact on our planet and environment. The rise of the level of interest to these issues is not accidental as now we can observe the gradual worsening of our environment and the appearance of numerous problems related to it. We are like that man as we try to guess whether the planet will be able to cope with all problems or not.

However, scientists, activists, and common people give great attention to the possible solutions to these very problems. One of the suggested ways is to give up using energy resources that harm the environment and coal is one of them. It is expected that if to close all coal-fired power plants the situation will improve significantly as they are very environmentally unfriendly. The given problem becomes so significant that numerous strategies could be explored to achieve this goal and help humanity to become more friendly to our planet by reducing the number of emissions and other harmful substances. Yet, the shutdown of coal-fired power plants is unjustified considering that there is no reliable alternative, we are not prepared for the possible economic domino effect; most notably, it does not constitute a solution for climate change.

The grounds of this problem could be traced back to the previous century when coal had become one of the main sources of energy. The rapid rise of the industrial sector peculiar to the 20th century preconditioned the increased need for power. That is why humanity managed to create thousands of coal-fired power plants to satisfy this very need and provide people with the desired energy. It is obvious that environmental concerns were less topical at that period and people did not think about the consequences of their actions. However, the further development of the industrial sector along with the constantly increasing need for energy resulted in the reconsideration of the approach to this very source of energy. Additionally, the rise of environmental concerns triggered numerous researches in the given sphere. Some of them constituted the pernicious impact it might have on the climate by great CO2 emissions, global warming, etc.

Additionally, because coal deposits are exhaustible, the further exploration of this very mineral might result in a serious crisis. However, there are opponents of the given perspective who state that the total rejection of coal is impossible as it will result in the collapse of the industrial sector. Additionally, the latest researches in the given sphere doubt the overwhelming negative effect coal-fired plants might have on climate and global warming (Mantel). These facts introduce the ground for vigorous discussions between the adherers and opponents of the idea of the prohibition of coal-fired plants. That is why the arguments against the rejection of coal are provided in the given paper and discussed to improve the comprehending of the issue.

Therefore, we are all striving for an ideal ecological planet. However, we should say that the EPA’s proposed regulations on coal-fired power plants will cause unemployment, thereby hinder our economy. It could be considered the first argument against the shutdown. Notably, the plan is still on stay, so as always historical examples of such policies come into play to direct us as to what we can expect. For instance, the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol established territorial-based regulations for developed countries to reduce emissions (Helm 4). It marked the UNFCCC’s first attempt to console the stubborn climate change peril. On paper this seemed impeccable; however, in reality, as with most climate change regulations, this led to businesses moving their production to underdeveloped countries where regulations were not so robust. Consequently, this means fewer jobs for people; nevertheless, for our economy, the domino effect is much graver. Fewer people will be able to pay taxes; this creates a financial deficit for the government; in return, this leads to less money invested in education, health programs, and law enforcement. Furthermore, almost identical projections were made for the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.

A recent study by National Economic Research Associates showed that Electricity prices would increase by at least 20% in 28 states while 41 states would witness increases of at least 10% (“The Pros and Cons of the Administration’s Clean Power Plan” 12). This was also reinforced by The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, a 10% increase in electricity prices would yield the loss of 1.2 million jobs (“Pros and Cons of Clean Power Plan “ 12). In comporting these studies with reality, we find that Americans will be losing jobs because when electricity prices increase, businesses’ capitals and profits will not comprise employees. It prompts a second economic domino effect in which not only rural coal-mining towns will suffer from unemployment and less disposable income, but agricultural and manufacturing industries will also yield their share of job losses (Febrizio). All things considered, this is not to say that our economic well-being is the antithesis of environmental health, but it does point out the fact that regulations are asymmetrical with our economic reality, which is often abandoned in governmental decisions. As such, announcements of plans and the signing of bills via propaganda tools do not constitute substantial solutions to the climate change crisis.

Furthermore, we currently do not have an alternative source of energy, and the EPA’s alternative of Natural gas cannot be an environmentally responsible decision. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2015 coal has generated 33% of electricity in the U.S, as much as natural gas (“What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?”). Currently, the EPA claims that natural gas is way cleaner than coal with a leak rate of 1.8 all while admitting that this is likely inaccurate and based on limited data (McKenna).

On the opposite side of the EPA’s claim, Anthony Ingraffea (a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board on hydraulic fracturing) disagrees when he says that according to the latest findings, natural gas could be considered the dirtiest source of energy from a climate change point of view (McKenna). It is also worth mentioning that the term ‘limited data’ is a reference to the EPA’s imprecise way of measuring emissions, the EPA key component for measuring emissions, emission factors, is based on limited measurements conducted in the early 1990s (Mckenna). Given these points, I cannot help but admit blaming of the coal industry for the crimes of all its fossil fuel siblings without actually holding the other industries accountable, by contrast, we underestimated their crimes towards the environment. Could it be industrial/political nepotism?

Lastly, the current motif around the coal-fired power plant debate is that it is part of a panacea for climate change. However, evidential consensus shows that the shutdown of U.S coal-fired power plants will not make significant changes to international carbon emissions because coal is still the most reliable and cheap source of energy worldwide. As per the International Energy Agency, China is accountable for half of the global coal usage (“Coal”). This compels us to deduce that climate change is not a one man’s show, but China and the U.S are lead actors. Moreover, the U.S is pursuing the shutdown of coal-fired power plants; however, 76% of its total coal exports went to European and Asian markets, as reported by the Energy Information Administration (“Most U.S. coal exports went to European and Asian markets in 2011″).

To further elaborate on this, Hans-Werner Sinn introduces the Green Paradox theory in his book Green Paradox; he argues that future carbon consumption reductions will have the effect of speeding up climate change (Sinn 54). If we were to apply this theory here, it would illustrate the issue in an original outlook that considers every side of the ongoing discussion concerning coal-fired power plants. On the one hand, it represents the environmentalism contradiction of the U.S pursuit for a complete shutdown of coal-fired power plants vs. its evidential account of carbon leakages in European and Asian countries. We can follow a line of thinking that the U.S has by no means exerted substantial and conscious efforts to solve the climate change issue, and as sedation for environmentalists’ protests, it declared the inefficient Clean Power Plan using the mainstream media platforms as cheerleaders.

On the other hand, some people believe that coal-fired power plants should be closed because it will result in a significant improvement in the environment. For reasons like coal creates too much pollution, there is no longer an economic need for it, and unemployed communities affected by the shutdowns can obtain jobs in the clean energy sector. Audibly, the coal-fired power plants’ argument is based on its contribution to climate change and in return its harmful environmental impacts. The fact is that the coal mining process results in habitat destruction. Moreover, certain ecosystems might be impacted by this very industry. Another problem is that coal dust might cause numerous problems with lungs and trigger cancer (Mantel). Additionally, this very position is supported by the fact that many environmentalist organizations assert that coal is responsible for the greatest share of greenhouse emissions in the U.S at 37% (Mantel). Besides, using these very arguments, the adherers of the idea of shutdowns justify their position and try to achieve their goal.

Nevertheless, we could say that these arguments are not strong enough and could easily be refuted. First of all, the closing of coal-fired plants will not help to solve the problem of global warming and climate change. Coal is a dirty source of energy; however, its extraction is much easier if to compare it with the natural gas one. Being a low-carbon alternative to coal, natural gas could not solve the problem. The fact is that scientists mainly speak about CO2 emission when the negative effect of methane which comes along with natural gas is ignored (McGylann). According to some ecologists, methane has “105 times more warming impact pound for pound than carbon dioxide” (McGylann).

It means that in case we give up using coal as the main source of energy and prefer to explore natural gas, the situation will become even much worse because of the methane emissions. It could also be proved by the World Bank analysis which shows that natural gas production is responsible for 20% of human-induced methane emissions (McGylann). Another significant factor is that methane pollutes not only air. Underground waters might also suffer from the negative effect caused by this very element. Contaminated water might trigger the evolution of such diseases like Cholera, Dysentery, etc. That is why even if we manage to close the majority of coal-fired power plants, the situation will hardly improve because of the complex character of natural gas extraction and the pernicious impact methane has on the environment.

Economic factors are another argument that is very often mentioned by all participants of debates around this very issue. The fact is that the stable economy is one of the keys to the further evolution of our society, increased well-being, and prosperity. At the same time, it also stimulates the industrial sector and vice versa. However, in case coal-fired power plants are closed, a collapse of the economy could be observed. Thousands of people will lose their jobs and be not able to maintain their families. Besides, adheres of the idea of mass shutdowns state that these unemployed people will be able to find jobs in the clean energy sector. However, this statement is far from reality. For instance, in Kentucky, an all-time low of 17.9% with a current number of 6,900 jobs is reached at the moment (Estep). In West Virginia’s employment decreased by 16%. Overall, the United States’ coal employment decreased by 12% to 65,971 employees (“Annual Coal Report”). It could be considered the consequences of shutdowns in the given sphere. Additionally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rates are very high at the moment and could be considered dangerous (“West Virginia has the Highest Unemployment Rate”).

It becomes obvious that this very sphere of industry provided people with workplaces and there are industrial regions that are dependent on the coal industry. That is why for generations people used to be coal workers and it was the only source of their income. Being deprived of an opportunity to work in this very sphere, these very workers are not able to find other jobs as they are not suitable, and especially those in the solar energy sector. Another problem is that the main alternative power plants are concentrated in certain regions, and workers have to move to obtain a job. It introduces a new challenge as not everyone could leave home because of several reasons. Finally, wages are much lower, and they could not satisfy the current demands of workers who used to work in the given industry. That is why we could conclude that in case coal-fired power plants are closed, workers will not be able to find appropriate jobs and their communities will be torn apart, doing great harm to local economies. Like so many others, I do not believe that we should close down coal-fired power plants when it has built fences that supported communal foundations as well as economic ones. Especially when there are no rooted solutions to the fall back that such a decision would cause.

Altogether, we could say that the increased importance of environmental concerns is one of the main features of the modern world. The blistering rise of the industrial sector preconditions the appearance of the great need for energy. That is why coal-fired power stations were created to satisfy this very need. However, the alteration in human mentality and appearance of environmental problems contributed to the shift of priorities towards the negative attitude to this very source of energy. Numerous concerns about global warming and climate change triggered the comprehensive investigation of the given issue. In this regard, there are numerous researches which proclaim the total rejection of this sort of power plants to be an efficient way to improve the current environmental situation. This statement could be doubted because of several important reasons.

First of all, it will result in the collapse of the industry as this sphere creates numerous workplaces and provides significant incomes to the budget. The second argument about the low efficiency of this measure is the absence of a real alternative to this very source of energy. At the moment we are not able to replace it. Finally, we also state that according to the latest research findings, the pernicious impact of coal-fired power plants and their unique role in global warming is not obvious. For this reason, we could conclude that the given measure is not wise as it will not guarantee the desired result. On the contrary, it could trigger the appearance of other, more complex problems related to the current state of the environment. In this regard, some other ways to improve the state of the environment should be suggested.

“Annual Coal Report.” U .S Energy Information Administration , 2016, Web.

“Coal.” International Energy Agency, Web.

Estep, Bill. “Coal jobs in Kentucky fall to lowest level in 118 years.” Herald Leader , 2016, Web.

Febrizio, Mark. “Lesson for EPA: Higher Energy Prices Harm People” Institute for Energy Research . 2015, Web.

Helm, Dieter. The Carbon Crunch: How We’re Getting Climate Change Wrong – and How to Fix It . Yale University Press, 2012.

Mantel, Barbara. “Coal Industry’s Future.” CQ Researcher . 2016, Web.

McGylann, Daniel. “Fracking Controversy.” CQ Researcher . 2011 , Web.

McKenna, Phil. “The EPA’s Natural Gas Problem.” Public Broadcasting Service , Web.

“Most U.S. coal exports went to European and Asian markets in 2011.” U.S Energy Information Administration , 2012, Web.

“The Pros and Cons of the Administration’s Clean Power Plan.” Congressional Digest, vol. 95, no.2, 2016, pp.10-31, Web.

Sinn, Hans-Werner. The Green Paradox: A Supply-Side Approach to Global Warming . MIT University Press, 2012.

“West Virginia Has Highest Unemployment Rate Among the States in August 2015.” Bureau of Labor Statistics , 2015, Web.

“What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?” U.S Energy Information Administration, 2016, Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, November 8). Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/

"Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." IvyPanda , 8 Nov. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments'. 8 November.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." November 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

1. IvyPanda . "Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." November 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Coal-Fired Power Plants and Counterarguments." November 8, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/coal-fired-power-plants-and-counterarguments/.

• Nuclear and Coal-Fired Power Generation
• Effectiveness of the Coal-Fired Plant
• Coal-Fired Power Took a Beating During the Pandemic
• The Advantages of Coal Gasification
• As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes
• “World on the Edge”: Managing the Causes of Climate Change
• How Carbon Capture Technology Works
• Combined-Cycle Gas Plant: The Nuclear Power Plant Replacement
• Waste Management and Hazardous Releases
• Green Computing: A Contribution to Save the Environment
• International Sustainable Development Policies
• "World Energy Hits a Turning Point" by Tom Randall
• Qatar's Climate Policy and Economic Issues
• Student Behaviors and Energy Consumption
• Masdar City: Project of a Modern Ecological City

Coal Fired Power Plant

• Easily combustible, and produces high energy upon combustion helping in locomotion and in the generation of electricity and various other forms of energy; • Widely and easily distributed all over the world; • Comparatively inexpensive due to large reserves and easy accessibility • Good availability • Inexpensive • Very large amounts of electricity can be generated in one place using coal , fairly cheaply. • A fossil-fuelled power station can be built almost anywhere, so long as you can get large quantities of fuel to it. Most coal fired power stations have dedicated rail links to supply the coal. Sounds good, huh! Think again! The important issue as of now is whether there are more advantages than disadvantages of using coal …show more content…

• Also, it ruins the natural habitats of animals. • A coal plant generates about 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year; this is one of the main causes of global warming. • A single coal plant creates 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings. • When people dig for coal, they cut down many trees. • A coal plant also creates 720 tons of carbon monoxide; which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease. • A 500-megawatt coal- fired plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water from nearby bodies of water. This is enough water to support approximately 250,000 people. • Cultivating coal is a very dangerous job – many men and women die each year in coal mine related failures and accidents. Some people have said that coal power is good, because coal power is reliable and affordable. It may be reliable and affordable, but in the future the damage that coal power would cause, would be much more expressive. Coal is cheap and abundant, with an estimate of over 300 years supply of economic coal deposits still accessible, which is why we are still using so much of it, despite the high levels of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions it produces. Here’s the catch! Will I consider my life, my children’s, and my grand children’s lives also as cheap as coal? In the US, studies have revealed that nearly 24,000 early

Practice 4A And ESOL 052: Practices

In the United States, 42 percent of the nation’s electricity is generated by burning coal as coal is cheap and plentiful.

Coal Ash Spills In North Carolina

We should invest in cleaner alternatives that will not only be better for us but the environment. Although coal is used for electricity, there are other ways to produce electricity like water power, wind generators, and solar energy. Water power, or hydropower is power that is derived from the weight of the water. Hydroelectric power plants use dams or rivers to store water to then release the water through turbines that spin it that produces electricity. Wind generators are like water power but instead of water its wind. Wind turbines converts the wind’s energy into electric energy. Solar energy is similar but the energy comes from the sun. Some people use solar energy for their homes so they save money and will not have to pay an electric bill. Instead of burning coal, there are other alternatives as stated

Summary: The Amazon Gold Rush And Environmental Mercury Contamination

We want instant gratification and coal fits the bill. I noted in my book review of Crude World that Peter Maass didn’t present a balanced picture of the oil industry; it was all bad. He was intended to highlight the negative aspect of our oil dependency. Big Coal is the same in that respect. It is hard to argue that coal hasn’t improved the lives of a great many people around the world, and we know a number of people who would argue that these improvements outweigh the negatives. Further, it is fair to say that the coal industry has come a long way in cleaning up their emission profile over the past few

Persuasive Speech On Texas Energy

When I go to my home where I grew up it is all electrical produced and the main producer of that electricity is from coal a fossil fuel. In that area coal is one of the primary exports of that area. (Administration,

The Use of Coal for Power Should Continue

• 15 Works Cited

Nowadays, coal is still one of the greatest used energy to generate power in so many countries. Using coal in electricity generation is 93% in South African, 87% in Poland, 79% in China, 78% in Australia, 45% in USA, 41% in Germany, 58% in Israel etc. (Coal & Electricity) From the data above, even the developed countries use coal to generate power as the main source. In many developed countries, energy generation is still based on coal as a long-term source. In recent years, although there is an increasing number of equipment using gas and wind to generate the power, it is still lower than the proportion of coal-fired power generation. The reason why most countries choose coal as a main source to generate electricity, is that there are many advantages in using coal to generate electricity. First of all, coal is the

War on Coal

Jason Hayes, communications director for the American Coal Council says “the industry over the past few decades had invested over $100 billion in cleaning up emissions and it’s already been effective. All of the important noxious pollutants have decreased markedly over the last 30 to 40 years. We’ve been doing all of this on top of dealing with everything else.” Coal may not be green, but it is a source of energy American needs. It is cheap and efficient. Without coal, America wouldn’t be anywhere near where it is today. The coal mined here isn’t just used for energy. America’s

Canada Energy Generation

The production of coal energy produces the most amount of carbon dioxide than any other method. It is a non-renewable energy source, and coal mines destroy most of the surrounding areas around it. With the recession going on, no one is buying into coal power plants at the moment which is an economy issue. (Center for Energy)

Galilee Basin Research Paper

A controversial topic commonly debated among society is the construction of coal mines. Although they potentially contain great economic promise and access to more resources, they also harm the surrounding environment and increase carbon dioxide emissions.

Persuasive Essay On Coal Power

Coal is the most carbon dioxide but also additionally contains different components that also contributes to pollution in the air that is rising at an alarming rate, Walke (2016)

Annotated Bibliography: Coal And The Environment

The article, “Coal and the Environment”, provides the readers will and understanding of how coal works and also how it is dangerous to our environment. Coal on its own is not dangerous to the environment but once the coal is burned, then pollutants are released into the air causing for less clean air. The government has taken a stand on the industries polluting the air we breathe in everyday with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. These two acts put restrictions on industries that allow for safer and cleaner air.

1: What Types Of Energy Resources Provide Most Of The World’S

Coal contains a lot of energy and is abundant. Next, the technological demands are low, as well as the cost. It is easy to manage and needs little purification before

America Coal's Future In Our Economy

Research suggests that coal is an energy source for the future because it is stable and reliable with abundant reserves. Coal is the most affordable and efficient fuel source used to produce power, and because of new technologies, coal can be extracted and used to produce energy more efficiently and cleaner for decades to

Coal Burning In Pennsylvania

Emissions from coal fired power plants contribute to global warming, ozone smog, acid rain, regional haze, and perhaps most consequential of all from a public health standpoint, fine particle pollution.

Why Is Solar Energy Better Than Coal

Another great factor that makes solar energy better than coal is it is renewable unlike coal which is non-renewable or limited. If you don’t know what renewable energy is, it is energy that comes from a limitless energy source. Solar energy is so renewable because it comes from the sun which is always giving off energy. Since solar energy comes from the sun it an unlimited energy source. While many countries and regions have access to coal not all do but nearly every town has access to sunlight. For those who do not have access to coal have struggled to make economic development. “Each day more solar energy falls to the Earth than the total amount of energy 6.1 billion inhabitants would consume in 27 years” (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). That means that the energy we get from the sun exceeds 35,000 times the amount of energy used by man.

Coal Mining Essay

Coal, a mineral I have discussed previously, is necessary to our everyday lives. Coal is an incredible source of energy; it heats our houses and buildings, and also fuels stoves. You may often wonder where this extremely useful mineral comes from. Coal does not just appear; it needs to be mined through a process which results in our being able to utilize it. Coal mining is fairly inexpensive, is carried out on a large scale and can be mined in either underground or surface mines.

Related Topics

• Fossil fuel
• Carbon dioxide

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Coal-fired Power Plants

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Clean Coal Technologies Follow Following
• Economics of coal-fired generation Follow Following
• Thermal Power Plants Follow Following
• Energy Follow Following
• Combined Cycle Power Plants Follow Following
• Economics And Technology Follow Following
• JIG AND FIXTURE DESIGN Follow Following
• General theory of Entropy Follow Following
• Heavy metal related health hazards due to coal based thermal power plants Follow Following
• Supercritical & Ultra-Supercritical Boiler Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Driven by China, Coal Plants Made a Comeback in 2023

The country, along with India, is still building power stations that run on coal. Elsewhere, retirements of older plants have slowed.

By Max Bearak

Global capacity to generate power from coal, one of the most polluting fossil fuels, grew in 2023, driven by a wave of new plants coming online in China that coincided with a slowing pace of retirements of older plants in the United States and Europe.

The findings came in an annual report by Global Energy Monitor , a nonprofit organization that tracks energy projects around the world.

Coal’s heavy greenhouse gas footprint has prompted calls for it to be rapidly phased out as a source of energy, and all of the world’s countries have broadly agreed to reduce their dependence on coal. But industrializing economies, particularly in Asian countries with inexpensive access to domestic coal reserves, have set longer horizons for their transitions.

China alone accounted for two-thirds of the world’s newly operating coal plants last year. Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Japan, Bangladesh, Pakistan and South Korea also inaugurated new plants, which typically operate for two to three decades.

A New Surge in Power Use Is Threatening U.S. Climate Goals

A boom in data centers and factories is straining electric grids and propping up fossil fuels.

One silver lining is that new coal plants are generally less polluting than older ones, but scientists, climate researchers and activists agree that moving away from not just coal, but all fossil fuels, has to happen as soon as possible to avoid the most dire consequences of global warming.

“Right now, coal’s future is a two-part story: What do we do about currently operating coal plants, and then, how do we make sure the last coal plant that will ever exist is one that’s already built,” said Flora Champenois, one of the authors of the report. “If it weren’t for the China boom, that’s pretty much where we’d already be.”

China, and, to a lesser extent, India, are still planning to build coal plants many years from now. In 2023, new coal plant construction hit an eight-year high in China. If China were to build all the others it has proposed, it would add the equivalent of one-third of its current operating fleet.

Today, China accounts for around 60 percent of the world’s coal use, followed by India and then the United States. India relies most intensively on coal, with 80 percent of its electricity generation derived from it.

The flip side of the growth in coal is a slowdown in plant retirements in Western economies. Fewer were decommissioned in 2023 than in any year for the past decade. Phasing out all operating coal plants by 2040 would require closing an average of about two coal plants per week.

Analysts said the slowdown in 2023 may have been temporary, as the United States, Britain and European Union countries have set various targets to close all their existing coal plants well before 2040. The International Energy Agency’s modeling suggests that, to align with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over preindustrial levels, rich countries should phase out coal by 2030 and it should be eliminated everywhere else by 2040.

“We had said that 2024 was the year coal would peak,” said Carlos Torres Diaz, a senior vice president at Rystad Energy. “But right now, I would say it’s not clear we’ll hit that. We’re near it, in any case.”

Western countries relied on coal for well over a century, which is why, in no small part, they account for the majority of historical greenhouse gas emissions.

In an attempt to balance financial responsibility for the energy transition, richer countries have pooled tens of billions of dollars in loans to some coal-reliant developing countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and South Africa to help them build out renewable energy so as to transition more quickly away from coal. For now, however, much of that money remains undisbursed as stakeholders iron out disagreements.

For many developing countries, coal has one major advantage: It’s cheap. Its price has also proved less volatile than oil and gas, the other major fossil fuels used in electricity production.

Bangladesh, for instance, had been building up its gas capacity. But fluctuations in price and availability, stemming largely from shocks related to the war in Ukraine, have prompted a rethink and a reinvestment in coal.

The same dynamic is, to some extent, true in China, analysts said. The pandemic’s toll on China’s economy has made its utilities more likely to opt for the cheapest fuel: coal.

China also leads the world in renewable energy expansion. That growth far outpaces coal’s growth, and in some cases is tied to it. China’s government says that much of the coal it uses or plans to use would serve as a fallback for times when renewable production dips and the grid requires more energy.

“While the data isn’t totally clear from China, it is possible that while there may be more coal plants there could also be lower utilization of them,” Mr. Diaz said. “But when it comes to coal, given that China is such an overwhelming part, whatever happens there really defines the global trend.”

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the last time the group found coal capacity to have grown. Coal capacity outside China grew in 2019, not coal capacity everywhere.

How we handle corrections

Max Bearak is a Times reporter who writes about global energy and climate policies and new approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. More about Max Bearak

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

Paris is becoming a city of bikes. Across China, people are snapping up $5,000 electric cars. Here’s a look at a few bright spots  for emission reductions.

In theory, online shopping can be more efficient  than driving to the store. But you may still want to think before you add to cart.

“Buying Time,” a new series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of recycling plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver .

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Coal and new gas power plants will have to meet climate pollution targets

The Conemaugh Generating Station in New Florence, Pa., is among the nation's coal-fired power plants that face tough new regulations to limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Gene J. Puskar/AP hide caption

The Conemaugh Generating Station in New Florence, Pa., is among the nation's coal-fired power plants that face tough new regulations to limit planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized rules on Thursday to limit the pollution from power plants that drives climate change.

Power plants are the second biggest source of planet-heating greenhouse gasses behind transportation, according to the EPA . Under the regulations, existing coal and new natural gas-fired power plants that run more than 40% of the time would have to eliminate 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions, the main driver of global warming. (Some power plants don't run continuously and are brought online when electricity demand is high.)

Existing coal power plants would have to meet that standard by 2039. The EPA is delaying a similar rule for existing natural gas-fired power plants, likely until after the November election, say environmentalists .

Talks for a plastic pollution treaty are stalling. Could the U.S. be doing more?

"EPA is finalizing four separate rules that reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants, protect communities from pollution and improve public health," said Michael Regan, EPA administrator, in a call with reporters.

In addition to the climate regulation, the agency issued rules to limit water pollution from coal plants, strengthen regulations on coal ash and limit mercury and other toxins from burning coal for electricity.

Environmentalists and industry react

The EPA labeled carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses a danger to public health and welfare 15 years ago . But legal challenges from fossil fuel interests and their allies delayed the finalization of rules to limit climate-warming gasses from the power sector.

Environmental groups generally welcomed the final rules.

"This is a big deal. This ends the age of unlimited carbon emissions from power plants," says Manish Bapna, president and chief executive of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Bapna predicts the new power plant rules will also "drive up investment, innovation, and good jobs in the clean energy economy of the future" and give industry the certainty it "needs to meet growing demand in the cleanest, cheapest, most reliable way possible."

But within that utility industry, there's less optimism and more warnings about the reliability of the U.S. power grid.

"The path outlined by the EPA today is unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable," wrote Jim Matheson, CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in a statement. The group's members get 63% of their electricity from burning fossil fuels .

Matheson argues the rules overstep EPA's authority, rely on technologies that are not ready to deploy and don't give existing coal and new gas power plants enough time to comply.

Environmental groups say that despite the industry's concerns, experience shows that the power sector is good at meeting new targets and maintaining a reliable grid.

"Every time EPA tightens pollution standards for various industry sectors, but definitely the power sector industry says the sky is going to fall and this is too expensive and we're not going to be able to keep the lights on," says Gudrun Thompson, senior attorney at Southern Environmental Law Center. "And then it just doesn't end up happening."

Land of the free, home of the inefficient: appliance standards as culture war target

The EPA included temporary exemptions in the new rule so that in an emergency, power plant operators can produce electricity for the grid without having to comply with the regulations.

Some of the EPA's justification for the rules rely on projections about how fast new technologies to reduce pollution develop, notably carbon capture and storage (CCS) on power plant smokestacks. CCS captures carbon dioxide to keep it out of the atmosphere and stores it, usually underground. That technology isn't fully proven , and it comes with controversies, such as building more pipelines through communities.

Still Ceres, a nonprofit group focused on market-based solutions to environmental problems, analyzed the EPA's nearly 50-year record of making such projections and found the agency has "a strong track record." The report finds new regulations end up driving innovation and cost-cutting.

The costs and benefits

The EPA's new rules aim to get the country closer to the Biden administration's climate goal of eliminating the country's greenhouse gasses by 2050. Other recent initiatives include rules that will require more cars to be electric, tighter energy efficiency standards for appliances and switching buildings from gas to electric .

If these power plant rules survive an expected legal challenge, they'll create extra costs for utilities and plant owners to install pollution controls. But the EPA finds those costs would largely be offset by government financial incentives and because technology tends to get cheaper over time.

And the projected climate and public health benefits far outweigh costs, the EPA says. The agency estimates the U.S. will save $370 billion over the next two decades. That includes up to 1.38 billion metric tons of avoided carbon pollution through 2047 – the equivalent to the annual emissions of 328 million gasoline cars.

Reducing climate pollution also eliminates other air pollution, such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The EPA estimates that in 2035 that will prevent 1,200 premature deaths, 360,000 cases of asthma attacks, avoid 48,000 school absences and 57,000 lost workdays.

Climate rules shaped by court battles

The legal basis for these new rules started with the Supreme Court's landmark 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision. It concluded that the EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Getting off fossil fuels is hard, but this city is doing it — building by building

In 2014 the Obama administration proposed its "Clean Power Plan" aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants 32%, from 2005 levels, by 2030. That plan faced legal challenges and never went into effect. Still the country met that goal well before 2030, as coal-fired power plants were replaced by natural gas plants that emit less climate pollution.

In 2019 former President Trump replaced the Obama-era Clean Power Plan with his much weaker Affordable Clean Energy rule. But then he lost the 2020 election to President Biden, who came into office with the most ambitious plan to address climate change of any major party candidate in U.S. history.

The Biden administration set a goal of eliminating climate pollution from the power sector by 2035. Scientists say that's what's needed to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels and avoid the worst effects of climate change. Global average temperatures have already risen about 1.2 degrees Celsius.

In 2022, the Supreme Court weighed in again and restricted the EPA's options for regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources.

So, instead, the EPA has created regulations governing individual power plants. The agency and environmental groups believe that will allow the rules to survive scrutiny from a court dominated by conservative justices.

But even if the rules survive a court challenge, a future administration could change it again. That means these regulations likely will be an issue in this year's presidential election campaign.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Clean-up of Indian coal-fired power plants ‘could have saved 720,000 lives’

Researchers say early deaths may have been avoided over 10-year period if technology installed

Research has estimated the health impacts from the coal-fired power plants that operate across India.

Six hundred coal power plants generate more than 70% of India’s electricity. Despite regulations passed in 2015, fewer than 5% of these plants operate with modern systems to clean up air pollutants from their chimneys. In China, 95% of coal-fired power plants were fitted with clean-up technologies by 2013.

Dr Asif Qureshi of the Indian Institute of Technology in Hyderabad and his team used a computer simulation of air pollution across India to test what would have happened if new technologies had been fitted to the power plants. They looked at two different technologies and found that controlling sulphur was the most effective single step, but applying both technologies together yielded the greatest gains.

As many as 720,000 early deaths could have been avoided over a 10-year period if the power plants had been cleaned up in 2010. Particle pollution would have reduced by up to 11% across the country. The research team found that people living around power plants would have experienced the greatest benefit, up to a 28% reduction in particle pollution, leading to about a 17% reduction in early deaths.

Installation and running costs are often cited as a reason to delay. Qureshi’s team therefore compared the cost of clean-up systems to the cost of the lives lost.

The capital and operating cost were estimated to be between $19.5bn and $32.8bn (about £16-26bn) a year. The benefits depend on the monetary value assigned to a human life. Using a range of international values the researchers calculated a benefit of between $18bn and as much as $604bn US dollars (about £14-481bn).

Qureshi said: “Even at this screening level there appears to be a strong case to implement clean-up technologies. If the industry or the policymakers could buy into this way of looking at the problem, maybe pollution control can be accelerated.”

Prof Maureen Cropper of the University of Maryland in the US led an earlier study on the impacts of planned coal power stations in India. Rather than focus on power plants that were already built, Cropper’s team looked at future options.

Cropper said: “There are large health co-benefits from switching to renewable energy from coal-fired power plants. Not building the future coal capacity that was planned in India in 2019 would avoid at least 844,000 premature deaths over the lives of these plants.”

• Fossil fuels
• Pollutionwatch

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Coal-fired generators still Philippines’ top source of electricity

MANILA, Philippines — Coal-fired power plants remain the leading source of energy in the Philippines although others such as renewable energy increased their contribution to the generation capacity of the power grid, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).

Data from the agency showed the country’s installed on-grid capacity stood at 28,291 megawatts (MW) in 2023, a slight increase of 0.11 percent from 28,258 MW the year before.

Coal supplied 43.9 percent of the energy mix with 12,406 MW, although this represented a 0.17-percent decrease from 12,428 MW previously.

Renewables came second with 8,417 MW, an increase of 1.85 percent from 8,264 MW. It is equivalent to a share of 29.7 percent of the mix.

READ: Renewables on pace to overtake coal as top power source by 2025

Among the renewable sources of electricity, solar power plants registered an increase of 8.03 percent to 1,653 MW.

Meanwhile, the installed capacity of hydropower plants increased by 1.44 percent to reach 3,799 MW.

Capacity from geothermal facilities was unchanged at 1,952 MW.

Renewable energy ranked 2nd

Biomass plants also sustained a decrease—4.25 percent—to end with 585 MW.

Oil-based power plants were at the third spot with 3,737 MW, down by 2.52 percent from 3,834 MW.

Also, natural gas plants’ aggregate capacity was unchanged at 3,732 MW.

Oil and gas facilities each held a share of 13.2 percent of the power mix.

READ: Napocor backs offgrid renewable power dev’t

The DOE excluded energy storage systems in tallying the installed capacity in on-grid areas but said their total capacity hit 469 MW, surging by 143 percent from 193 MW.

Further, power plants not connected to the power grids or those servicing remote areas registered an installed capacity of 684.67 MW in the previous year, a growth of 1.63 percent from 673.68 MW.

Oil-based power plants continued to dominate the off-grid power generation mix with 612.362 MW or 89.4 percent of the total.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Renewable facilities were a distant second with 57.304 MW or an 8.4 percent share while coal plants had 15 MW or a 2.2 -percent share of the mix.

Curated business news

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

• Climate modelling
• Extreme weather
• Health and Security
• Temperature
• China energy
• Oil and gas
• Other technologies
• China Policy
• International policy
• Other national policy
• Rest of world policy
• UN climate talks
• Country profiles
• Guest posts
• Infographics
• Media analysis
• State of the climate
• Translations
• Daily Brief
• China Briefing
• Comments Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Global emissions
• Rest of world emissions
• UK emissions
• EU emissions
• Global South Climate Database
• Newsletters
• COP21 Paris
• COP22 Marrakech
• COP24 Katowice
• COP25 Madrid
• COP26 Glasgow
• COP27 Sharm el-Sheikh
• COP28 Dubai
• Privacy Policy
• Attribution
• Geoengineering
• Food and farming
• Plants and forests
• Marine life
• Ocean acidification
• Ocean warming
• Sea level rise
• Human security
• Public health
• Public opinion
• Risk and adaptation
• Science communication
• Carbon budgets
• Climate sensitivity
• GHGs and aerosols
• Global temperature
• Negative emissions
• Rest of world temperature
• Tipping points
• UK temperature
• Thank you for subscribing

Social Channels

Search archive.

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below. By entering your email address you agree for your data to be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy .

• China responsible for 95% of new coal power construction in 2023, report says

Molly Lempriere

China accounted for 95% of the world’s new coal power construction activity in 2023, according to the latest annual report from Global Energy Monitor (GEM).

Construction began on 70 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity in China, up four-fold since 2019, says GEM’s annual report on the global coal power industry.

This compares with less than 4GW of new coal power construction starting in the rest of the world – the lowest since 2014.

Outside China, only 32 countries have new coal projects at pre-construction phases of development and just seven have plants under construction.

While global coal power capacity – both overall and outside China – grew in 2023, GEM says this is likely to be a “blip” that will be offset by accelerating coal retirements in the next few years in the US and Europe.

Other key findings of the report include that construction of coal-fired power plants globally – excluding China – declined for the second year in a row. However, coal power plant retirements were also at the lowest level since 2011. 

‘Pivotal juncture’ for China

In China, 47.4GW of coal power capacity came online in 2023, GEM says. This increase accounted for two-thirds of the global rise in operating coal power capacity, which climbed 2% to 2,130GW.

China’s 70.2GW of new construction getting underway in 2023 represents 19-times more than the rest of the world’s 3.7GW. As the figure below highlights, the country’s trajectory (red line) is diverging significantly from the rest of the world (orange line). 

The level of new construction starting in China is nearly quadruple what it was in 2019, when the country hit a nine-year annual low of entirely new coal power stations starting. 

This is the fourth year in a row that the amount of new coal construction starting has increased in China. This is out of line with President Xi Jinping’s 2021 pledge to “ strictly control ” new coal power capacity, GEM states. 

In early 2022, China’s National Energy Administration’s 14th five‐year plan for a “ modern energy system ” stated that 30GW of coal power would be retired by 2025.

However, when counting larger coal units with capacity of at least 30 megawatts, less than 9GW of power plants have been shut down in the last three years, and few others have plans to retire, GEM notes. 

If China is to meet this 30GW retirement target, it “needs to take immediate action”, GEM adds.

In a statement, Qi Qin, China analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air , said:

“The recent surge in coal power development in China starkly contrasts with the global trend, putting China’s 2025 climate targets at risk. At this pivotal juncture, it is crucial for China to impose stricter controls on coal power projects and expedite the transition towards renewable energy to realign with its climate commitments.”

Collectively, China, India, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Laos, Turkey, Russia, Pakistan and Vietnam account for 95% of global pre-construction capacity, according to the GEM report.

The 5% remaining is distributed among 21 countries, the tracker finds. Of these, 11 have one project and are on the brink of achieving the “no new coal” milestone, it adds. 

The tracker identifies 20.9GW of entirely new coal power proposals outside of China in 2023. This was led by India, which saw 11.4GW of new coal capacity proposed, more than any year since 2016. This was in part due to the revival of several stalled projects in the country, GEM explains. 

Kazakhstan also saw 4.6GW of new proposals and Indonesia saw 2.5GW. Some 4.1GW of previously shelved or cancelled capacity is now considered “proposed” again.

Another handful of countries – Russia, the Philippines, Botswana and Nigeria – also saw revived proposals and construction restarting in 2023. 

Retirements slow 

Globally, a total of 69.5GW of coal power came online in 2023, while 21.1GW was retired, GEM finds. This led to the highest net increase in global operating coal capacity since 2016, with a 48.4GW jump. 

New capacity also came online in Indonesia (5.9GW), India (5.5GW), Vietnam (2.6GW), Japan (2.5GW), Bangladesh (1.9GW), Pakistan (1.7GW), South Korea (1GW), Greece (0.7GW) and Zimbabwe (0.3GW). 

In total during 2023, the tracker found 22.1GW came online and 17.4GW was retired outside of China. This resulted in a 4.7GW net increase in the world’s coal fleet operating outside China. Globally, coal power capacity reached 2,130GW in 2023, up from 2% a year earlier. 

The US contributed nearly half of coal power retirements, GEM says, with 9.7GW shuttering in 2023. However, this is a drop in retirements from 14.7GW in 2022, and a peak of 21.7GW in 2015. 

Elsewhere, the EU and UK represented nearly a quarter of retirements, with 3.1GW closing in the UK, 0.6GW in Italy and 0.5GW in Poland. There is now just one operating coal-fired power plant in the UK, with the Ratcliffe-on-Soar set to close in September 2024. 

Overall, global coal power plant retirements were at their lowest level since 2011, as the figure below shows.

Outside of China, the number of coal-fired power plants starting construction declined for the second consecutive year, hitting its lowest level since data collection began in 2015, GEM notes. 

Less than 4GW of new projects began construction outside of China in 2023, far below the average of 16GW between 2015 and 2022. Just seven countries started construction, with one plant each in India, Laos, Nigeria, Pakistan and Russia, as well as three plants in Indonesia.

Construction has not started on any coal plants in Latin America since 2016, and none has started in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), European or Middle Eastern countries since 2019, GEM says. 

Nigeria’s Ugboba power station , located at the mine-mouth of the Idowu Falola Coal Mines in the Aniocha North local government area of Delta state, is the first known construction of a coal power plant in Africa since 2019, the report says. 

The G7 – which accounts for 15% (310GW) of the world’s operating coal capacity, down from 32% (443GW) in 2015 – has no new coal capacity under construction. However, there is still one proposed coal power plant in Japan and two in the US. 

Both of the proposed sites in the US, the 0.4GW CONSOL Project in Pennsylvania and the newly announced 0.4GW Susitna power station in Alaska, are expected to use carbon capture and storage technologies (CCS). 

GEM says that these technologies are “effectively uncertain and expensive distractions from the urgent need to phase out coal”.

The G20 is home to 92% of the world’s operating coal capacity (1,968GW) and 88% of pre-construction coal capacity (336GW). Brazil, the current G20 chair , saw its pipeline of pre-construction capacity fall in 2023, but still has two prospective projects remaining – the last pre-construction coal power plants in Latin America. 

No new coal nations

Overall, coal capacity reached an all time high in 2023, GEM’s tracker says. 

Operating coal capacity outside China grew for the first time since 2019, as less coal capacity retired than in any other single year in more than a decade, as the figure below shows.

The world’s operating coal power capacity is up 11% since 2015, when governments agreed to keep the global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and aim to limit warming to 1.5C under the Paris Agreement . 

Outside of China, there are still 113GW of coal power projects under construction. While this is only slightly up from the previous year’s level of 110GW, it still highlights that the coal sector is not in line with the International Energy Agency ’s (IEA) 1.5C scenario, GEM says. 

Across all IEA scenarios that meet international climate goals there is a rapid decline in global coal emissions. 

Globally, pre-construction capacity rose 6% in 2023, “crystallising the importance of calls to stop proposing and breaking ground on new coal plants”, GEM’s report says.

Only 15% (317GW) of currently operating coal power capacity has a commitment to retire in line with Paris Agreement goals, it adds. 

Phasing out unabated coal generation by 2040 – in line with the IEA’s 1.5C pathway – would require an average of 126GW of retirements every year for the next 17 years, GEM notes. This is the equivalent of two coal power plants per week. 

Even steeper cuts would be needed to account for the 578GW of coal power plants also under construction and in pre-construction phases of development, GEM says.

There were 12 new countries that committed to developing no new coal generation in 2023, by joining the Powering Past Coal Alliance . This brings the total number of countries up to 101 that have either formally declared they will have no new coal or have abandoned any coal plans they have had over the last decade, GEM notes. 

Since 2015, there has been a 68% reduction in global pre-construction capacity, GEM found. New construction starts are now at their lowest level outside of China, since data collection began. 

GEM’s report suggests that coal power projects that utilise CCS and those used to power industrial activities may be “a last frontier” for new coal proposals. 

For example, Zimbabwe’s 1.9GW of new coal capacity proposed in 2023 is made up of two projects, the Prestige power station and the Gweru power station , designed to power smelters for extracting chromium from ore.

Zimbabwe is one of one six countries, beyond China and India, to have increased its total planned capacity over the past year, along with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Zimbabwe, the US and the Philippines.

At COP28 , 130 countries signalled their intent to phase out unabated coal power and stop investing in new unabated coal-fired power plants within this decade, by signing the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge. 

In addition, the final global stocktake agreement at COP28 reiterated the pledge from COP26 to phase down unabated coal power, but still does not define what “ unabated ” means. Additionally, wording from earlier drafts on ending permitting of new coal power was omitted in the final text.

“Coal power is at the edge of a precipice, facing political and civil opposition and increasingly uncompetitive economics,” GEM’s report states.

In a statement, Flora Champenois, coal programme director for GEM said:

“Coal’s fortunes this year are an anomaly, as all signs point to reversing course from this accelerated expansion. But countries that have coal plants to retire need to do so more quickly, and countries that have plans for new coal plants must make sure these are never built. Otherwise we can forget about meeting our goals in the Paris Agreement and reaping the benefits that a swift transition to clean energy will bring.”

Analysis: UK emissions in 2023 fell to lowest level since 1879

Q&A: Why defining the ‘phaseout’ of ‘unabated’ fossil fuels is so important at COP28

Guest post: How quickly does the world need to ‘phase down’ all fossil fuels?

Fossil fuels: Is the world on track for moving past coal, oil and gas production?

Expert analysis direct to your inbox.

Get a round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email. Find out more about our newsletters here .