Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on September 27, 2012

Bookmark and Share

Coal is Still King

Coal is Still King thumbnail

Coal: India’s plans for coal-fired power plants soar — study[emphasis added]:

India is poised to contend with China as the globe’s top consumer of coal, with 455 power plants preparing to come online, a prominent environmental research group has concluded.

The coal plants in India’s pipeline — almost 100 more than China is preparing to build — would deliver 519,396 megawatts of installed generating capacity. That is only slightly less than pending new capacity in China, which remains the undisputed king of coal consumption.

The research found 1,231 new coal plants with a total installed capacity of more than 1.4 million MW proposed worldwide. Beyond the biggest users — China, India and the United States — the assessment finds a heavy coal demand building up in Russia, Vietnam, Turkey and South Africa. The United States, with 79 coal plants in the pipeline, ranks fourth in this category.

Wow, that sounds like a lot of new coal-fired electricity, doesn’t it? Yes, it is, and the numbers are even more unsettling than one might surmise…

To provide a broad basis for comparison, let’s look at the US electricity sector[1] and extrapolate from there. In 2010, the US electric power sector had an installed capacity, a.k.a. a “nameplate capacity”, of 342,296 MW for coal-fired generation, which produced 1,799 billion kWh of electricity, consumed 971,322,000 short tons of coal, emitted 1,828 million metric tons of CO2, and (based on less recent data) required the withdrawal of 25 gallons of water for each kWh generated, or a total of about 45 trillion gallons of water.

The planned coal-fired electricity generation has a nameplate capacity of over 1.4 million MW, or 4.1 times the total existing US capacity as of 2010.

Scaling up the US numbers to the size of the planned additions (by multiplying by 4.1) gives us yearly figures of 7,376 billion kWh of electricity generated, 4 billion short tons of coal consumed, 7,495 million metric tons of CO2 emitted, and 185 trillion gallons of water withdrawn, all yearly figures.

Worldwide CO2 emissions are 34 billion metric tons per year, which means this additional generating capacity will add 22% to current worldwide yearly emissions, which are, to put it mildly, far too high. It’s also about 130% of the US’ total CO2 emissions for 2010 from all sources and sectors, not just coal and not just electricity, which were about 5,700 million metric tons.

Assuming an average lifespan of 50 years for the individual coal plants, we have a grand(iose) total of 200 billion short tons of coal consumed, 374,750 million metric tons of CO2 emitted, and 9,250 trillion gallons of water withdrawn. That emissions total will push up the atmospheric CO2 level (very) roughly 23 parts per million higher than it would be in the absence of these new plants.[2]

Given that some of the new power plants will certainly be in service longer than 50 years, and none of them are built yet, this means we’ll be emitting CO2 from some of these plants well beyond the year 2060, surely into the 2080′s.

Once again, let me stress that this is additional coal consumption, water withdrawal, and CO2 emissions, on top of the consumption and emissions associated with other electricity generation, transportation, building energy use, etc. And I haven’t even touched on non-CO2 issues, like methane emissions and landscape destruction from coal mining, and mercury pollution.

And, of course, there’s the least convenient truth of all, that nasty business of CO2′s hideously long atmospheric lifetime, which extends the reach of these new coal plants well into the lifetime of multiple generations of our descendants, unless we can manage a large-scale roll out of an effective carbon recovery technology.

This is the point where people leap into the comment section and beat me up for not being realistic. Surely I can’t expect all of that planned coal capacity to be built, they’ll say. And, in fact, I don’t expect it to all be built, but not because we’ll realize what a colossally stupid thing it would be to do that to ourselves and our descendants, but because we’ll run into serious limitations in coal production and water supplies before we can erect all those coal plants and put them into service. What portion of that 1.4 million MW of new coal plants do you think we’ll actually build? Two thirds? Half? Make your guess and scale the numbers I calculated above, and you still get a daunting result.

The point of all this back-of-the-envelope (calculator applet?) number crunching, should it not be painfully obvious by now, is that:

  • The planned coal plant additions are a huge story that gets very little attention, even on greenie web sites. Lately we’ve all been transfixed by the Arctic news, which is understandable and likely even a good thing, to the extent that it helped spread the word. But new coal plants are so far off our radar screen that I only knew about the article above because it popped up in one of my Google alerts, and not any of the dozens of sites I track via RSS feeds.
  • The sheer scale of the planned coal plant additions is not just terrifying, but it becomes more terrifying the more you endeavor to put it into context, as I tried to do in this post.
  • These new coal plants, assuming that at least a small portion of them are actually built and run for decades, make our global target of reducing CO2 emissions and thereby, eventually, the atmospheric level of CO2 vastly more difficult. Once again, everything I’ve described above is electricity only, and doesn’t include the rapidly expanding use of private motor vehicles in China and India, for example.
  • If we don’t make a serious, focused, global effort to turn away from coal we’re far more likely to see global annual CO2 emissions rise to 40 or 45 billion metric tons a year from its current level of 34 long before it drops to 30.


[1] I’ve used numbers just for the US electricity sector, as opposed to all electricity generation, as that is probably more representative of the large-scale build out of coal fired generation around the world that the original article and the WRI study mention. I’ve also ignored the possibility that any significant portion of the new coal plants will utilize CCS (carbon capture and storage).

[2] One ppm of atmospheric CO2 is about 7.81 metric tons of CO2. But since (very) roughly half of our emissions are removed by natural processes, like being absorbed by the ocean, I assumed a ratio of 16 billion metric tons of CO2 per ppm increase.

8 Comments on "Coal is Still King"

  1. BillT on Thu, 27th Sep 2012 2:46 pm 

    Unfortunately, the title is correct…

  2. Arthur on Thu, 27th Sep 2012 3:38 pm 

    Yep, the stinking truth is that peak oil occured ca 2007, peak coal however somewhere between 2025-2050, hence King Coal, as Heinberg predicted in his book blackout.

    Realized/projected world coal consumption 1990-2030:

  3. Kenz300 on Thu, 27th Sep 2012 5:56 pm 

    Coal fired powered plants require huge amounts of water to produce electricity.

    Water will become a restriction that many of these proposed power plants can not over come.

    Wind and solar require no water to generated electricity. In a water scarce world wind and solar will become a bigger part of the energy mix.

  4. Max Reid on Thu, 27th Sep 2012 8:27 pm 

    Thanks to our Green friends who opposed the nuclear, now the Coal is the King.

    As per bp stats, the World’s Oil production was 3995.6 MTOE (Million Tons Oil Equivalent) while that of Coal was 3955.5 MTOE.

    In 2012, Coal production will exceed Oil Production. However in consumption Coal was somewhat behind Oil since Biofuels were added to Oil.

    India has lot of power cuts and during this time, the business starts Diesel fired generators which are very expensive. To prevent future power cuts, they are building lot of coal fired plants.

    Its natural. Unless we build a lot of nuclear plants, pollution will increase by leaps and bounds and we can soon see the Arctic in Blue Color.

  5. Mike in Calif. on Thu, 27th Sep 2012 11:56 pm 

    The Easter Islanders were not alone in denuding their forests. Throughout the Fertile Crescent it happened again and again, the ancient Greeks had problems with bare hillsides, the English nearly exhausted their forests just prior to coal’s rise.

    I’ve said it before. So long as there is some semblence of global economy hobbling along, these resources WILL be burned. “Global Warming” will play second fiddle to immediate needs and no amount of activism will change it. No government will deliberately choose primitivism and starvation as a national strategy. Like it or not, for better or worse, anything that can burn will burn.

    We’ve seen it before. In Africa, despite encroaching desertification, the last surviving vegetation is burned. During the recent Balkan wars, fences, furniture and framing was burned when people were cut off from the abundant forests of that region.

    One’s energies are better spent in preparing than in trying to “save the Earth” which, in the scale of things, is in far less danger than we.

  6. SOS on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 2:29 pm 

    I stopped reading this junk when I got to his suggestion we extrapolate. Extrapolation is used to create fear. Scared fools will agree to most anything. Al Gore knows that. Have you seen his comedy film. Do you lack the critical thinking skills to see it for what it is: manipulation of emotions to make himself rich. It’s also called propaganda. The Nazis were genius at this and able to kill millions of Jews because of propaganda skillfuly crafted like Al’s.

  7. Eduardo Vargas on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 6:23 pm 

    The good news is that all of these power plants have not yet been constructed and are planned to be constructed over the next decades- Of what I could infer from reading this.
    We desperately need-whether we are in India, China, the United States, or anywhere in the world-to create some type of massive grassroots organization that demands to put an end to this madness and demands the plans of new coal fired power plants to be cancelled. For one the price of renewable energy is coming down and if solar panels become so cheap, coal might become obsolete. We would have to shut down those power plants no matter if they have completed their life cycle or not. We cannot allow for these coal barons and economists continue to supply the life of dirty power plants simply because it makes ”economic sense”.

  8. Kenz300 on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 2:40 pm 

    The oil, coal and nuclear industries will continue to provide energy into the future. They are fighting to limit the competition from any alternatives.

    Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.

    Investments in alternative energy sources now surpasses those in fossil fuel energy generation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *