Global coal demand keeps increasing - per the IEA / Bloomberg

[SC Maintenance]

Not surprising to me. The world needs more energy and renewables take too much up front capital and are unreliable due to weather dependency. Nuclear costs too much up front and takes too long, at least in the west.

I don't see it changing for a while. Consider the inflection point in 2020, and what happened then to use more electricity.

 

[MrHorspwer]

The world needs more energy and renewables take too much up front capital and are unreliable due to weather dependency.

Wrong assumption. In 2024, 5 times more capacity was added in wind and solar versus capacity added in coal.

Coal is growing at 1% per year. Renewables are growing at 15% per year.

In 2024, 44,000 MW of coal generation was added (36,000 of those MW were from China and India).

Also in 2024, 159,000 MW of solar generation was added. Wind added 68,000. Nuclear added 10,000 MW.

(source: https://globalenergymonitor.org/ [But who needs data when you can guess?])

The backstory from your graphic isn't that coal capacity is increasing (it is barely increasing), it's that it's not decreasing, which was the IEA's original prediction. It's not decreasing largely because of production demand from data centers that fuel AI, which is a relatively new source in demand that wasn't considered in these IEA predictions.

 

[NibbanaBanana]

The more intermittent sources of energy the higher the energy costs. Seems like the EU is on the verge of a breakup due to this. Every report I read says energy costs in the EU are skyrocketing, forcing businesses to leave. Germany is burning more and more coal after closing it's excellent carbon free nuclear plants.

 

[OVERKILL]

Wrong assumption. In 2024, 5 times more capacity was added in wind and solar versus capacity added in coal.

Coal is growing at 1% per year. Renewables are growing at 15% per year.

In 2024, 44,000 MW of coal generation was added (36,000 of those MW were from China and India).

Also in 2024, 159,000 MW of solar generation was added. Wind added 68,000. Nuclear added 10,000 MW.

(source: https://globalenergymonitor.org/ [But who needs data when you can guess?])

The backstory from your graphic isn't that coal capacity is increasing (it is barely increasing), it's that it's not decreasing, which was the IEA's original prediction. It's not decreasing largely because of production demand from data centers that fuel AI, which is a relatively new source in demand that wasn't considered in these IEA predictions.

Yes, VRE is still at a higher rate of uptake than coal. Most coal capacity is established coal capacity and the transition from coal to gas (the main driver of emissions reduction in the US and Alberta for example) is definitely not helping the coal uptake rate.

That said, much of that coal capacity that has been added has been for the production of VRE. China's solar industry is dominated by mine-to-mouth coal, as I've posted on previously. They aren't installing PV fields to run PV manufacturing facilities.

Also, comparing nameplate capacity is misleading. 44,000MW of coal, at say 90% CF, would generate ~347TWh, while 159,000MW of PV, depending on where it is located, could produce anywhere from 167TWh to 279TWh. So the energy production of the coal capacity could be anywhere from 1.2 to 2.1x greater than the PV, which means, proportionally, electricity generated by coal grew more than that of PV, despite 3.6x as much PV nameplate capacity being installed.

 

[fsdork]

Wrong assumption. In 2024, 5 times more capacity was added in wind and solar versus capacity added in coal.

Coal is growing at 1% per year. Renewables are growing at 15% per year.

In 2024, 44,000 MW of coal generation was added (36,000 of those MW were from China and India).

Also in 2024, 159,000 MW of solar generation was added. Wind added 68,000. Nuclear added 10,000 MW.

(source: https://globalenergymonitor.org/ [But who needs data when you can guess?])

The backstory from your graphic isn't that coal capacity is increasing (it is barely increasing), it's that it's not decreasing, which was the IEA's original prediction. It's not decreasing largely because of production demand from data centers that fuel AI, which is a relatively new source in demand that wasn't considered in these IEA predictions.

Doesn't the use of MW ratings rather than MWh highlight the reliability concerns around many renewable sources? I am a fan of renewables where they make sense, but just because a wind or solar farm can crank out a ton of wattage at the best moment of the best day, doesn't mean it can consistently support 24/7/365 needs without some help.

 

[dnewton3]

Folks, let's keep the geo-politics out of the conversation, please.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

The more intermittent sources of energy the higher the energy costs. Seems like the EU is on the verge of a breakup due to this. Every report I read says energy costs in the EU are skyrocketing, forcing businesses to leave. Germany is burning more and more coal after closing it's excellent carbon free nuclear plants.

Remember they lost access to cheap Russian gas 3 yrs ago.

 

[k1xv]

With world wide populations expanding and everyone seeking to improve their standard of living, the human impact on the environment will not abate. I believe in the theories of Malthus, that population growth leads to a decline in conditions,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

 

[SC Maintenance]

Wrong assumption. In 2024, 5 times more capacity was added in wind and solar versus capacity added in coal.

Coal is growing at 1% per year. Renewables are growing at 15% per year.

In 2024, 44,000 MW of coal generation was added (36,000 of those MW were from China and India).

Also in 2024, 159,000 MW of solar generation was added. Wind added 68,000. Nuclear added 10,000 MW.

(source: https://globalenergymonitor.org/ [But who needs data when you can guess?])

The backstory from your graphic isn't that coal capacity is increasing (it is barely increasing), it's that it's not decreasing, which was the IEA's original prediction. It's not decreasing largely because of production demand from data centers that fuel AI, which is a relatively new source in demand that wasn't considered in these IEA predictions.

Yours is actually the wrong assumption and numbers. Your talking additional capacity, but there is a huge amount of surplus coal capacity globally, so it just needed to be turned back on. Much here has been turned to nat gas, but here and in other places much has sat idle.

So just because there adding less coal capacity than renewables, is not indicative of how much coal is used. As you can see in the chart, coal bottomed at 7200M tons. but is now at 8700M tons, so 21% increase with no sign of it slowing.

As for your 1% vs 5% growth - you have a source? A 1% increase of a much bigger number might actually be contradictory also.

Hard to get base load out of solar. Only realistic replacement of coal is Nuclear.

 

[PandaBear]

People seem to forget that many countries are entering or recently entered middle class recently: Vietnam, Mexico, India, etc. They may not just jump into nuclear or they may not have enough natural gas (or pipeline) to nearby gasfield.

So what do they do? Build coal plants!

 

[4WD]

Yes, VRE is still at a higher rate of uptake than coal. Most coal capacity is established coal capacity and the transition from coal to gas (the main driver of emissions reduction in the US and Alberta for example) is definitely not helping the coal uptake rate.

That said, much of that coal capacity that has been added has been for the production of VRE. China's solar industry is dominated by mine-to-mouth coal, as I've posted on previously. They aren't installing PV fields to run PV manufacturing facilities.

Also, comparing nameplate capacity is misleading. 44,000MW of coal, at say 90% CF, would generate ~347TWh, while 159,000MW of PV, depending on where it is located, could produce anywhere from 167TWh to 279TWh. So the energy production of the coal capacity could be anywhere from 1.2 to 2.1x greater than the PV, which means, proportionally, electricity generated by coal grew more than that of PV, despite 3.6x as much PV nameplate capacity being installed.

With so many new PV farms being installed around me - would be interesting to see the “claims” on output vs (year on year) actual after 5 years. (If that’s available) …

 

[Shannow]

Per the MW versus MWh...it's real. I think the oft quoted in my locale is that it's about 45% renewables....but.....that's nameplate rating, and for things that work 20-30% of the time, it's important.

A 1,000 MW of thermal can be forced from the market easily, while still being required to run the peaks and overnight. To REPLACE 1,000 MW of thermal, over an everage 24 hour period, you need 4,000MW of nameplate rating or 5,000MW of renewables plus storage. So 1 wind tower out my window is categorically the cheapest MW into the grid, to have it when I want it gets incredibly expensive...and that's only an average 24 hour period, we had a fortnight last year where 7,000MW of installed wind was running around 50MW output. The remaining coal stations ran literally flat out for a fortnight.

 

[Shannow]

Which gets to the next point....if 7,000MW of winds was running a a percent, you reach the point where you need 7,000MW of gas to back it in wind droughts....yet another huge cost.

I'll show a particular day in Oz a few years ago the area between the dotted red line and the hard red is the amount of wind and solar that they had to turn off so that thermal could be there for the peak....demonstrably, for a brief period, the whole market could have been fed with renewables, but they had to curtail it to manage the peak....clearly, that segment of energy needed to be stored, and moved to a better time (sacrificing 20% of it)....and clearly if it WAS moved, although there was enough to run the NEM briefly, there's not enough to fill the whole market for 24 hours.

Edit...the little pink brick is the total of big batteries in Oz....I put them separate, while the original chart had them as the two slivers at the bottom, morning and evening peaks.,