New Global Assessment Reveals Nearly 1,200 Proposed Coal-Fired Power Plants
Submitted by Ailun Yang on November 20, 2012
WRI's new analysis shows that 1,199 new coal-fired power plants are being proposed globally. Photo credit: Flickr/Mike_tnCoal-fired power plants are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions—one that could be increasing significantly globally, according to new analysis from the World Resources Institute.
Several months ago, WRI began compiling and analyzing information about proposed new coal-fired plants in order to assess potential future risks to the global climate. We released our findings today in the Global Coal Risk Assessment working paper. Our research shows that 1,199 new coal-fired plants with a total installed capacity of 1,401,268 megawatts (MW) are being proposed globally. If all of these projects are built, it would add new coal power capacity that is almost four times the current capacity of all coal-fired plants in the United States.
View the locations of proposed coal-fired power plants by country in our interactive map below.
Coal in the Developing World
Our analysis finds that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants across 59 countries. Most of these proposed plants are in developing nations—mainly China and India. These two countries account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacity. New coal-fired plants are also proposed in some developing countries where there’s currently limited or no domestic coal production, such as Cambodia and Senegal. The United States ranks seventh out of all countries, with 36 proposed plants with a capacity of more than 20,000 MW.
Not all of these projects will necessarily be approved and developed—the report only looks at proposed new plants. However, this research shows a significant—and troubling—interest in coal development globally.
A Crucial Decade for Energy Choices
Energy is a universal need, and new energy development is critical in the developing world in order to lift people out of poverty and empower them to enjoy a higher quality of life. However, the choice of energy sources is a tough one, as developing countries must seek low-cost options. Coal-fired plants are often considered such an option, even though strong evidence of coal’s toll on the climate, environment, and human health suggests otherwise.
Take China: The country created an economic miracle by relying on coal as its primary energy source. However, China has been paying a huge price for its coal dependence in the form of increasing public health concerns, deteriorating ecosystems, poor air quality, more carbon pollution, and growing social tensions. While the Chinese government announced a target to cap coal consumption at 3.9 billion tons by 2015 and introduced ambitious energy efficiency and renewable energy policies, the country still has a long way to go to wean itself off coal.
Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its annual World Energy Outlook, finding that coal demand could rise by 21 percent by 2035. The IEA points out that the future of coal depends largely on policy decisions as well as the price of other energy sources, including natural gas.
Fortunately, cleaner energy technologies are becoming increasingly competitive and easily accessible. Many developing countries have come to understand the importance of cleaner energy sources for the long-term sustainability of their development and have put policies in place to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy. For example, a significant portion of India’s new installed power generation capacity will come from renewable energy sources in order to meet its national target of 15 percent renewable energy by 2020.
The next decade will be crucial for countries—especially developing nations—to make the right energy choices. We hope this working paper can inspire discussions around what should be done to avoid planetary risks while ensuring economic growth.
- Read the full report, Global Coal Risk Assessment: Data Analysis and Market Research.
14 Comments
I have no comments; I just
I have no comments; I just would like to see the report.
Hi Susanne, Thanks for
Hi Susanne, Thanks for reading! You can download and read the full report here: http://www.wri.org/publication/global-coal-risk-assessment
In my opinion We need to
In my opinion
We need to replace the fossil fuel power plants, the primary source of GHG. Now!
At a scale required to accomplish this task :
Ethanol starves people : not a viable option.
Fracking releases methane : not a viable option.
Cellulose Bio Fuel Uses Food Land : not a viable option
Solar uses food land : Not a viable option
Wind is Intermittent : Not a viable option
All Human and Agricultural Organic Waste can be converted to hydrogen, through exposure intense radiation!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/DennisearlBaker/2012-a-breakthrough...
The Radioactive Materials exist now, and the Organic waste is renewable daily.
Ending the practice of dumping sewage into our water sources.
Air, Water, Food and Energy issues, receive significant positive impacts .
Reducing illness / health care costs as well !
Dennis Baker
* Creston Avenue
Penticton BC V2A1P9
cell phone 250-462-3796
Phone / Fax 778-476-2633
Hi Gillian, Thanks for the
Hi Gillian,
Thanks for the comment — we appreciate that you see us a reliable resource for accurate and objective information. We hope that you will continue to view us as a trusted resource. We also plan to update this database as new information becomes available.
Three reasons why we decided to include all proposed coal-fired plants in our database without judging the likelihood of them being built:
1) For most of the 59 countries where coal-fired plants are being proposed, most of the projects are being pursued or there is not enough publicly available information for us to judge the possibility. In only a handful of countries (namely, the United States, Australia, and a couple of western European countries), we observed the phenomena of "proposed projects no longer being actively pursued.”
2) With the change of external situations, some seemingly "dead" projects can come back to life. The best example is Japan, where some shelved proposals for coal-fired plants are being revived after the nuclear phase-out decision. In Europe nowadays, there are also more talks about coal-fired plants when gas prices soar and carbon prices fall.
3) It is ultimately up to the power companies who put forward these proposals to withdraw their applications. We do hope our report could encourage them to provide more clarity in terms of the status of their proposals.
We welcome further feedback on this project, so we can continue to provide accurate, high-quality information.
Until fusion comes along
Until fusion comes along (yeah, I know, 25 years from NOW), seems the best solution is nuclear. But not your grandfather's nuclear. Not Light or Heavy Water Uranium cycle reactors, but Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs, pronounced "lifters"). LFTRs have several marvelous things goig for then.
1: . They have HIGH inherent safety.
2: . They have effectively NO proliferabilty.
3: . They use Thorium which is about 4 times as common as natural Uranium.
4: . They use up ~100% of Thorium's available energy in a safe thermal spectrum reactor, LWRs use up about 0.5% of natural Uranium's.
5: . They produce very small amounts of long lived radioactive wastes, no need for Yukka Mountain.
6: . Valuable fission products can be extracted for medical uses continuously while the reactor is running.
I'm sorry to say that your
I'm sorry to say that your report looks like a dodgy exaggeration launched in time for the Doha talks. It damages your credibility and I will be a bit suspicious of anything you say in future.
Instead of just adding up every possible project you could find, you should have gone the extra step and eliminated the ones that are not likely to be built. For example, you list nine plants for Australia, but coal generation fell 10% last year as plants are closed or mothballed. The chance of ANY new coal plants starting in Australia (apart from a hybrid coal/solar plant under consideration) is close to zero.
The Green movement needs reliable data and WRI has the resources to provide it. Perhaps as you continue work on this database you will include assessment of likelihood for every project.
Hi Gillian, Thanks for the
Hi Gillian,
Thanks for the comment — we appreciate that you see us a reliable resource for accurate and objective information. We hope that you will continue to view us as a trusted resource. We also plan to update this database as new information becomes available.
Three reasons why we decided to include all proposed coal-fired plants in our database without judging the likelihood of them being built:
1) For most of the 59 countries where coal-fired plants are being proposed, most of the projects are being pursued or there is not enough publicly available information for us to judge the possibility. In only a handful of countries (namely, the United States, Australia, and a couple of western European countries), we observed the phenomena of “proposed projects no longer being actively pursued.”
2) With the change of external situations, some seemingly “dead” projects can come back to life. The best example is Japan, where some shelved proposals for coal-fired plants are being revived after the nuclear phase-out decision. In Europe nowadays, there are also more talks about coal-fired plants when gas prices soar and carbon prices fall.
3) It is ultimately up to the power companies who put forward these proposals to withdraw their applications. We do hope our report could encourage them to provide more clarity in terms of the status of their proposals.
We welcome further feedback on this project, so we can continue to provide accurate, high-quality information
Hello, Your site is an
Hello,
Your site is an important actor mapped in my PhD research about environmental movements on the Internet.
Please, can you answer a short questionnaire for my research project on “Environmental Networks and the Management of Nature”? (just 3 minutes)
Here the survey in ENGLISH : https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YKNR6Y7
Thank you very much!
Best wishes,
Débora de Carvalho Pereira
deborapereira.blog.br
School of Information Science of the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Hi Debora, Thanks for
Hi Debora, Thanks for reading. I completed your survey–hope it helps!
No easy answer to the energy
No easy answer to the energy conundrum. World Renwables potential even if fully developed will only meet a small part of demand. World population is exploding, water, energy, and mineral resources depleting fast - all this based on the economic theories developed over the past three centuries - economic development based of expanding the production, and consumption base.
The old economic theories were developed at a time when new continents were being opened up, technologies being developed and natural systems harnessed - world resources seemed inexhaustible, and population growth a must to increase production, competition, and economic growth.
As with any other natural phenomenon life-cycle is nearing its end - are politicians, economists, and the people in general ready to listen to that, more importantly, tone down consumption, institute strict population control, and start educating people to do with less. It would mean not building any more roads, airports, railway and shipping, going back to subsistence economics to reduce consumption to a minimum until the world stabilises to a slower pace - even then, resource depletion will be pushed back a little longer.
One of the greatest cause for energy use today is the internet/communication revolution - whilst bringing people closer, has hooked the world in an irreversible loop, sowing the seeds of self-destruct.
Yeah right: look how well the
Yeah right: look how well the USA coped with "almost a hurricane" Sandy. Tens of billions of dollars of damage from just one storm.
Thanks for reading! Perhaps
Thanks for reading! Perhaps you’d like to read some of our blog coverage of Hurricane Sandy: http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/11/listening-hurricane-sandy-climate-c...
Good news. These plants will
Good news. These plants will help achieve the economic growth for more countries to become more resilient in tbe face of weather-related hazards.
for how long???
for how long???
Post new comment