Old King Coal at COP28: Uninvited Guest or Star of the Show?

By Tilak DoshiPeter A. Coclanis

December 19, 2023

Last Friday, just two days after the Dubai COP28 meeting ended, a report published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) stated that global coal demand will set another new record this year. Although coal use in the West is falling, demand in developing economies “remains very strong, increasing by 8% in India and by 5% in China in 2023 due to rising demand for electricity and weak hydropower output.” 

Perhaps the best preamble to COP28 was delivered by India’s Power Minister, R. K. Singh. On November 6th, he stated “There is going to be pressure on nations at COP-28 to reduce coal usage. We are not going to do this… we are not going to compromise on availability of power for our growth, even if it requires that we add coal-based capacity”. India plans an additional 30 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fueled power generating capacity in addition to the existing 50 GW and plants already under construction. It is also set to increase coal production by 60% by 2030, from its current level of 1 billion tons, to ensure ample supply for its thermal power plants.

This insistence on affordable coal-based power for economic growth is not unique to India. Other large developing countries such as China, Indonesia, South Africa and Vietnam all have similar plans to ramp up coal power plant construction despite policy “promises” to curtail fossil fuels made at UN climate forums since the “Paris Agreement” of 2015. Despite the “net zero by 2050” mantra ceaselessly trumpeted in the Western legacy media, the insistence by the developed countries that poorer countries reduce their “carbon footprint” to “save the planet” is bound to be disappointed.

Economic planners in developing countries are under an existential compulsion to improve the standards of living of their citizens. To believe that poorer countries will forego fossil fuels requisite to their hopes of a more prosperous future because “we are all in this together” can only be described as fantastical.  

King Coal in History

No country ever has reached “developed country” status without relying on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). Modern economic growth, commencing in the late eighteenth century and “picking up steam,” as it were, in the centuries thereafter, drastically improved material well-being the world over. With the onset of the Industrial Revolution, coal rapidly emerged as the source of human flourishing like never seen before in human history. Coal greatly improved productivity in transport and manufacturing, which proved crucial to raising income and living standards over increasing swaths of the world. Per capita GDP in the U.S. rose 20-fold over the past two centuries to 2018 and 14-fold globally, in lock step with the increased use of coal followed by oil and natural gas.

Coal transformed economic life first in northwest Europe, then in the U.S., and later in other parts of the world. In the U.S., between 1870 and 1920, during the country’s will to power, as it were, coal production grew 16-fold. By the 1880s it had become the leading source of energy in the country and remained so until the middle of the twentieth century when it was superseded by oil. By 1900, the U.S. had also become the richest and most powerful country in the world. Even in 2022, after a century and a half of intense mining, the U.S. remains the world’s 4th largest producer of coal. The U.S. also retains the largest coal reserves in the world.

Quite simply, we are still in the age of fossil fuels, including coal. They currently provide over 80% of world consumption of primary energy, with most of the rest accounted by nuclear energy and hydropower. This is despite the trillions of dollars spent on subsidizing “renewable energy”, primarily wind and solar power, in Europe and the U.S. Coal still provides over a quarter of global primary energy consumption; it accounts for almost half (47%) of Asia’s energy supply. In contrast, wind and solar provided less than 5% of the world’s primary energy supply last year.

The Global South Opts for Coal

The demonization of fossils fuels in general, and coal in particular, by environmental groups and organized lobbies of the climate-industrial complex has been an established feature of past COP conferences. Threats of an impending global environmental catastrophe allegedly caused by fossil fuel emissions dominate the legacy media. To avoid climate Armageddon, the IEA asserts that an immediate and drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels is necessary.

The “High Ambition Coalition”, an informal 15-nation bloc within the UN primarily consisting of EU countries and the UK, is campaigning for a global commitment to phase out new coal production. The group has already published a statement demanding the “urgent phase out of coal-fired power generation” ahead of the COP28 climate summit. Just prior to the Dubai COP28, France, backed by the U.S., announced its plan to seek an agreement to halt all private financing for coal-based power plants during the UN climate conference.

Developing nations are having none of it, increasingly pushing back against the West’s radical anti-fossil fuels campaign. The divide between an evangelizing West and leading developing countries, especially in Asia, which heavily depend on coal for affordable power and energy security, played a disruptive role in the Dubai summit.

Coal is a dense energy source, and it is cheap, versatile and readily transportable. To illustrate coal’s energy density, a Tesla battery that weighs over 500kg and takes 25-50 tons (i.e. thousand kgs) of minerals to be mined, processed, and transported, can store the same energy as a mere 30kg sack of coal. Unlike oil and natural gas, it is considered a “non-political” fuel given that it is the world’s most abundant energy resource. Coal deposits are spread widely, if unevenly, around the world. Its biggest exporters, in rank, are Indonesia, Australia, Russia, the U.S., Colombia, and Canada. China and India, the world’s two largest consumers of coal and among its largest producers, depend heavily on it for their energy, and hence national, security.

Coal is commonly vilified for being the dirtiest of fossil fuel. But coal-based power generation is to the contrary a success story of scientific progress. Key pollutants from coal combustion in power generation plants have fallen dramatically with technological improvements over the past several decades with the development of high-efficiency, low-emission plants. These have dramatically reduced emissions of pollutants that adversely affect human health, including carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide (by 98%), oxides of nitrogen (83%), ground-level ozone and particulate matter (99.8%). Carbon dioxide, contrary to common perception, is not a pollutant.

India has come out clearly with its pro-coal stance as we have seen. Last week, South African officials confirmed that the country will miss its 2030 carbon emissions targets under the Paris climate agreement, as the country plans to run eight coal-fired power plants for longer than planned as a matter of necessity. This is so despite the approval a $1 billion loan for South Africa by the World Bank last month to help it address an energy crisis that peaked this year with the country’s worst electricity blackouts.

Likewise, Indonesia will continue to build new coal power plants despite earlier blandishments of a $20 billion financial package by a group of rich countries to help the country wean itself off its coal dependence. In October, it emerged that Vietnam, despite its Paris Agreement “commitment” of carbon emission reductions, may double the amount of coal-fired electric generation capacity by 2030 under a draft power development plan submitted to the prime minister for approval.

China, the world’s coal heavyweight, continues its building spree of coal power plants with over 50 GW of new capacity just in the first half of this year. It permitted two new coal power plants per week in 2022 and has six times more coal-fired power plants under construction currently than the rest of the world combined.

Germany, the world’s leader in green energy ambitions, provides the best lesson in abject irony.  When faced with the prospect of entering the winter of 2022-2023 without sufficient energy supplies (after having shut its nuclear power plants and losing its access to piped Russian natural gas by invoking sanctions against Russia which was followed by the sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline), the country retreated to coal power generation. According to a Twitter (now called “X”) thread by Doomberg, Germany’s has moved back to coal “with the speed and efficiency of the British evacuation of Dunkirk.” According to the IEA, Germany’s “significant reversal” drove European coal consumption for power up 9% in 2022.

Much maligned coal continues to support human flourishing. Its use in the developing countries will continue to grow in the decades to come. Meanwhile, we will see just how “temporary” is Germany’s existential move back to coal this winter. Old King Coal was the elephant in every COP28 meeting room and conference hall.

Tilak Doshi is a London-based energy economist and Forbes contributor.  

Peter A. Coclanis is Albert R. Newsome Distinguished Professor of History and Director of the Global Research Institute at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

4.9 29 votes
Article Rating
31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Coeur de Lion
December 22, 2023 11:50 pm

And Britain’s Lord Deben who’s in charge of the Climate Change Committee wet his pants when UK kept open a tiny coke mine for steel production.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
December 23, 2023 12:54 am

Lord Deben, or John Gummer to give him his original name, was found to be useless when he was a member of the government back in the 1980/90s he has not lost his innate capacity to be hopeless.

Ian_e
Reply to  Rod Evans
December 23, 2023 5:24 am

But the money keeps rolling in – all a big coincidence of course.

December 23, 2023 1:17 am

Paul Homewood has a must read post about what a move to heat pumps will do to electricity demand in the UK. The comments are also very worth reading.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/12/22/the-impact-of-heat-pumps-on-electricity-demand/

His posts are so valuable because the UK is turning into a test case, all fully on view, real time and historical stats readily available to anyone. The UK has is in the process of demonstrating that you can eliminate coal, but if you want to have a usable electricity supply you cannot also eliminate gas.

What its about to demonstrate is that you also cannot move everyone to heat pumps and EVs while trying to eliminate gas, because, as Paul shows, this is going to at least double demand.

The scale of the problem is becoming clearer all the time. UK peak demand is around 45GW. At the moment, and for the three winter months, solar delivers close to nothing. They have 28GW of wind installed, and that varies in output between 21GW and less than 0.5GW.

Paul says:

If we assume then that the heat pumps are in use for 14 hours a day, that gives average hourly electricity demand of 2.1 KWh. This assumes that the heat pump runs at a constant power rating. In practice, the system would have to work harder in the early evening as temperatures drop.

There are about 24 million homes with gas and oil boilers, so a peak demand of 2.1 KW amounts to 50 GW for the country as a whole. To that we can add demand from offices, shops etc, which currently use gas and oil.

Along with demand from EVs, the UK would need well over 100 GW of capacity to meet peak demand.

As the comments point out, “well over’ is probably correct. This estimate of an extra 50GW is based solely on heat pumps, but there will be EV charging as well. The EV and heat pump demand is entirely incremental, so well north of 100GW seems likely. Still, lets accept it. How much wind would you need to meet it?

UK wind output has dips varying between a few hours, the most extreme ones, of under 0.5GW, which mostly last for a few hours. You could conceivably deal with these with storage batteries. But it also has several periods a year of a week or ten days with well under 5GW output. Be optimistic, lets estimate from the historical record that you can always count on 10% of faceplate and cover the lower episodes with storage. Still, you now have to install enough to that 10% of faceplate will cover peak 100GW demand.

You will have to install 1,000GW. Up from the present 28GW. Its plainly impossible even for a modern industrial society like the UK whose demand is relatively stable and not growing. Its even more obviously impossible if you are a rapidly growing economy like India or China, still less if you are a developing economy. Of course they will not commit to eliminating coal use. Neither they nor the UK can do it.

What will happen in the UK is one of two things. Suppose they keep on keeping on with the mandatory switch to EVs and heat pumps. One possibility, they install enough gas generation to deliver the 100GW+. Then things work more or less, but its not Net Zero, its not even materially reducing fossil fuel use.

Second possibility, they try to get rid of the gas as well. In that case you will have enough repeated nationwide blackouts that essentially it will be a country without an electricity supply. Without functioning EVs or heat pumps either. People in the country installing generators. No idea what the people in terraced housing and flats do. And you have an electoral revolt as it gets clear that this is where the political class is taking the country.

Note in closing by the way. The UK is now proposing to place quotas on suppliers of home heating boilers, similar to those on car manufacturers. They work the same way, as a manufacturer at least x% of units must be heat pumps, or not more than y% conventional. Sell more conventional than this percentage, and you are fined so much for each one over the limit. This is how the car regulation works. Starting next month its 15,000 sterling for every ICE car that goes over quota, and max percent of ICE as of Jan 1 will be 78%. This falls to 20% in 2030.

So they are doing the same thing in both cases: trying to force people to EVs or heat pumps by imposing a tax on the production of alternatives.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
December 23, 2023 7:00 am

As I commented at Paul’s site, the current price per kWh of electricity in the UK is 27p whilst gas is 7p (both inclusive of VAT) so the government is wanting people to pay almost FOUR times as much to heat their houses with a heat pump which will never make it as warm as a house heated with gas.

Hence the stampede to install heat pumps – NOT

Crispin in Val Quentin
Reply to  Dave Andrews
December 27, 2023 7:27 am

Dave

The point of a heat pump is to have a multiplier through cleverness. When it is about 10 C outside a heat pump using 1 kW input delivers about 10 kW of heat.

This drops to 6-fold at 2 or 3 degrees and goes down to 1:1 at about -25 C for standard models and -40 for Canadian top line equipment.

Obviously the multiplier depends on the winter average temperature. Suppose on an annual basis it is 4. One unit of electric power divided by 4 is ~7 pence per kW of heat. Gas burned in a modern furnace delivers maybe 92% of the energy on an LHV basis. So the cost of delivered heat is 7 / 0.92 = ~8 pence. [all hardware ignored]

All things considered the UK is a pretty good place to use heat pumps. In South Africa they are widely used for water heaters in homes with an efficiency factor of about 300%.

New working fluids are being developed all the time.

That said, I hear a lot of complaints about geothermal units where they bury pipes in your front yard. It seems a hybrid system is going to be best. As our homes is in Val Quentin we have to consider the cost of electricity which went up 10-fold in 5 years due to politicking. It used to be CAD0.029 per KWH only a few years ago. Then came the coal-banners…

Crispin actually in Tucson

William Howard
Reply to  michel
December 23, 2023 7:30 am

And then there is AI which will add another 20% to the demand side

Reply to  William Howard
December 23, 2023 7:47 am

. . . not to mention the absolute insanity of electrical power WASTED for “mining” crypto currencies.

There are more than 10,000 (yes, ten thousand!) cryptocurrencies currently in circulation.
https://explodingtopics.com/blog/number-of-cryptocurrencies

James Snook
December 23, 2023 1:20 am

There was a report some months ago of homes in a village in India that was 20 miles from the power grid being equipped with solar panels and batteries by the Government. The ‘)switch on’ was attended by government ministers and git much press coverage, but the the wealthier inhabitants immediatlely bought AC units and electric cookers etc and surprise, suprise, it all came tumbling down.

After demonstrations demanding ‘real electricity’ a connection to the grid was quietly installed.

India won’t budge on its sensible plans to fuel improvements for its huge population with chol.

tilak doshi
Reply to  James Snook
December 23, 2023 2:57 am

Yes, the example cited (in the village of Dharnai) is a great illustration. I wrote on it some time ago:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tilakdoshi/2023/05/23/environmental-ngos-in-the-global-south-saviors-of-humanity-or-predatory-special-interests/

December 23, 2023 2:30 am

The one I want to hear from is Nick Stokes. Tell us, in the UK situation, to meet 100GW peak demand in winter, how much faceplate wind turbines would you suggest installing? You should assume that additional wind behaves the same way current wind parc does, the weather doesn’t change, same pattern of calms.

You should assume there is no gas, no emergency diesel, just wind and solar.

If you are proposing storage, say how much and what kind.

Lets hear it!

Reply to  michel
December 23, 2023 7:41 am

He serves a purpose or we would just be a Nick and a nail from being an echo chamber. Come on “ man” ( in our dear leaders words)It’s Christmas. Besides we need sparring partners to stay tuned up.

And seriously I do believe Nick is sincere in his scientific pursuit.

Richard Greene
Reply to  michel
December 23, 2023 9:22 am

10 yard penalty for inviting NS here

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 25, 2023 7:24 am

And loss of down.

December 23, 2023 4:28 am

“Germany’s has moved back to coal “with the speed and efficiency of the British evacuation of Dunkirk.”

LOL!

Meanwhile a military campaign to capture a Coke Plant in Ukraine wend sideways when the army pointed out that is different coke, Chief!

Scissor
Reply to  bonbon
December 23, 2023 1:52 pm

Hunter Biden withdraws his support.

Reply to  Scissor
December 25, 2023 10:57 am

. . . but still wants a 10% cut for “the Big Guy”.

Crispin in Val Quentin
Reply to  Scissor
December 27, 2023 7:29 am

He should have pulled out sooner.

Editor
December 23, 2023 5:42 am

Excellent and timely article.

William Howard
December 23, 2023 7:27 am

Mr Lomborg, from a Swedish NGO, notes that each year 4 million people die from a lack of access to fossil fuels – heating and cooking with parasite infested dung – don’t hear much about these people from the climatistas

December 23, 2023 7:42 am

Thus, the Paris Climate Accord enters the dustbin of history.

kakatoa
Reply to  ToldYouSo
December 26, 2023 4:40 am

The Accord is still standing-

Nothing To See Here – Climate Scepticism (cliscep.com)

….”It then lists various worthy sounding actions. But that reference to the Paris Agreement is critically important. Here’s why – scroll down to paragraph 38. It says that The Conference:

‘Recalls Article 4, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement, which provides that developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets, and that developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.’

Get that? Paragraph 28 says that parties must take account of the Paris Agreement and the Paris Agreement – as specifically stated here in paragraph 38 – states that developing countries are merely ‘encouraged’ to move to emission cuts ‘over time’. And, so there’s no misunderstanding, paragraph 39 ‘Reaffirms Article 4.4′ i.e. developing countries are under no obligation to cut their emissions. Yet developing countries are the source of about 60% of global emissions.”…

December 23, 2023 8:02 am

Even though it’s virtually impossible to “ clean up” the CO 2 from coal burning( which we and 3/4 of the world don’t give a rat’s ass about anyway); we can actually clean up a fair amount of the particulate matter etc from coal burning an efficient complete burn is what one wants anyway. Modern coal and wood stoves use simple and effective “ thermal devices “and chambers to do this.

Remember before the “ enemy” ( of civilization )discovered plant food they were attacking the “ dirtiness” of coal burning. Then they must have discovered that oh wait looks like most of what one sees coming out of the stack is water vapor / condensate. But then they stumbled on to the new boogy man of co2 induced run away greenhouse catastrophe.

Crispin in Val Quentin
Reply to  John Oliver
December 27, 2023 7:42 am

John O

Most of the emissions from coal that are objectionable were PM and NOx. SO2 was dealt with long ago and power stations make a profit removing it for sale to acid companies.

The PM was in two forms: carbonaceous particles created by pushing the power generated and lofted ash. Better burning solved the former and bags+electrostatics solved the latter. Thermal NOx is managed by controlling the combustion temperature. Fuel NOx is destroyed by holding the hot gas above 820 C for 1/4 of a second before the heat exchanger.

Complaints about coal emissions have largely vanished black the greens are trying to associate “dirty” with “CO2”.

One of the most efficient ways to burn coal for heating is in the home using a modern stove such as the Polish Szafir or the even better original design from Kyrgyzstan.

Richard Greene
December 23, 2023 9:15 am

I have to read a Doshi article carefully before deciding to recommend it on my blog

This one failed the test

The first error is implying coal was the star of the show. False. Nuclear energy was the star of the show and it is intended to replace coal,

The second error is claiming hydrocarbon fuels were “over 80%” of global primary energy consumption when the correct number is 92% excluding traditional biofuels. which some people call green and others do not.

The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Global primary energy consumption — 92% hydrocarbon fuels

The actual stars of the COP28 party were the hecklers who slept through the past 27 parties. The people from India included, Especially that Arab guy who stated there was no science behind CAGW and Nut Zero,

Over 7/8 of the world’s population lives in nations who would like green slush fund handouts but could not care less about CO2 emissions. That fact started to come out at COP28 for the first time. Not just China, India and Russia. Most of the 195 nations in the world.

Over 100,000 people there. Some trying to make nuclear power deals. Some trying to make oil deals. Othere just looking for free food and cheap hookers.

There was not even a good new anti-CO2 slogan announced after the COP meeting, like Boiling Oceans or Code red Emergency

I’m really annoyed they did not use my COP28 slogan contest submission:

Climate Change Will Kill Your Dog.

Reply to  Richard Greene
December 23, 2023 7:21 pm

Nuclear power will never ‘replace’ coal until coal is scarce enough to be more expensive than nuclear. The best option, to my mind, is to build nuclear where feasible as baseload and keep coal as a peaker fuel – that way the supplies of coal will last far longer and should help bring the current cost of nuclear down.
Coal was the star of COPfest 28 by its unacknowledged growth – it was the elephant in the room.

Crispin in Val Quentin
Reply to  Richard Greene
December 27, 2023 7:44 am

Richard

Ooh I like that. You got my wife’s attention for the first time. Dogs matter!

Kit P
December 23, 2023 10:56 am

PRB is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

No, not a beer. Powder River Basin where coal is king and bigger than the failed states of UK and Germany.

Natural gas is a waste product of shale oil. It is replacing coal in some US power plants. It is easier to ship than LNG.

And thank you for asking; my stock in a US coal company is still paying dividends so I can buy diesel fuel for my big ass motor home.

Bob
December 23, 2023 2:27 pm

Very nice. A hundred years from now I’m sure we will be using less fossil fuel or maybe using it differently. In the meantime fossil fuel and nuclear are by far our best choice. Wind and solar aren’t in the running. No more government mandates, no more subsidies, no more tax preferences and no more regulatory forgiveness.

Kevin Kilty
December 23, 2023 2:51 pm

As a follow-up to Michel’s excellent comment and the general theme of this essay, if one had been a thinking person, and yet also worried about CO2 emission (but I contradict myself), then one might have begun replacing older coal stations with AUSC (advanced ultrasupercritical) coal plants some time back. In the U.S. our coal fleet has a cobined efficiency of about 35% while AUSC can reach 48% with a near-term goal of 50%. Many utilities are realizing they can’t run wind+solar grid and instead of planned coal retirements are making a cheap switch to open-cycle gas — efficiency depends on balacing demands but could be 20-25%. CCGT is 50% efficient but my point is that if one had thought about this clearly we could have made as big a reduction in CO2 as we have and now have a modern fleet of cheap energy producers, a broader collection of energy sources, to provide time to get a nascent nuclear industry going.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
December 23, 2023 7:27 pm

As you point out the opponents of fossil fuels and coal in particular are not thinking at all; it’s an irrational (and artificially cultivated) fear that’s driving these people. There are quite a few ways of dealing with the by-products of fossil fuel use but standing on a soapbox and screaming that it must all stop this instant or else has never been among them.