Is Coal Still King?
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 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4 billion short tons of coal consumed, 7,495 million metric tons of CO2 emitted, and 185 trillion gallons of water withdrawn, all yearly figures.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.
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.
 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).
 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.
Image: Coal Fired Power Plant via Shutterstock
Other Posts by Lou Grinzo
The Energy Collective
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- a b
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Steven Cohen
- Dick DeBlasio
- Senator Pete Domenici
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- Kirsty Gogan
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Rebecca Lutzy
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Willem Post
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner