Essay by Eric Worrall
Sustainability Magazine laments despite the success of green energy, the world is burning a lot of coal.
Coal Use Hits All-Time High Despite Renewable Energy Boom
By James Darley
October 24, 2025A report from the World Resources Institute shows global coal consumption reached record levels in 2024, threatening 1.5°C warming target as emissions rise
Global coal consumption reached a record high in 2024, according to the World Resources Institute’s annual State of Climate Action report published this week.
The increase occurred despite rapid expansion of renewable energy capacity worldwide.
While coal’s share of electricity generation declined as clean energy surged, overall power demand grew sufficiently to push total coal use to unprecedented levels.
The findings cast doubt on whether countries can meet their climate commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement.
…
“The message on this is crystal clear. We simply will not limit warming to 1.5C if coal use keeps breaking records.”
…India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, celebrated surpassing one billion tonnes of coal production this year.
Read more: https://sustainabilitymag.com/news/coal-use-hits-all-time-high-despite-renewable-energy-boom
…
The World Resources State of Climate Action 2025 report is available here, though you need to supply a lot of personal details to download a copy.
It seems pretty obvious what is happening – coal is still be used by manufacturing intensive economies. All green energy policies in places like Europe have done is to relocate manufacturing jobs to India and China. As global energy intensity rises, some of the slack is being taken up by gas, hence the gas boom.
The AI boom is also driving a surge of energy use. Even tech companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft, once champions of green energy, have been forced to embrace high carbon energy to compete with Asia.
One thing is clear, coal is and will continue to be the backbone underpinning the global manufacturing economy. All green politicians have achieved to date is to push manufacturing jobs out of their countries, into more coal friendly jurisdictions like India and China.
Coal is and will continue to be used until centuries from now when it all finally runs out.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I like my biomass fuel very well aged.
Such a shame progress in science, whether environmental or exploration is subjected like everything else to people who know very little if anything about science.
Or market economics. No business with an uncertain, unplannable and unadaptable output to respond to demand, with erratic revenue and cash-flow is viable without Government intervention to regulate prices to over-charge consumers, and transfer money from taxpayers to shareholders.
That is Socialism, and Socialists have no clue about economics.
Modi is a triple double dealer on the world stage or backstage as it were.
For sure. To rise to the top of a nation of 1.5 billion people you need to be good at the game.
Eric,
The IPCC 1.5 C increase by 2050 is arbitrary
Also, there is no world average temperature
In some areas temps are increasing and some other areas temps are decreasing.
CO2 is a life-giving Gas; We Are in a CO2 Famine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
.
Per Lindzen, if CO2 ppm were doubled its effect would be 0.5 C, even after accounting for increased water vapor ppm.
CO2 in atmosphere was about 280 ppm during the Little Ice Age.
Plants are on a starvation diet even with CO2 at 430 ppm, in 2025
The CO2 ppm difference, 430 – 280 = 150 ppm is almost entirely due to increased use of fossil fuel, which have been providing about 80% of the world’s primary energy consumption for the past 50 years, even with building highly subsidized wind and solar systems.
Current CO2 ppm needs to at least double or triple, as proven in laboratories and commercial greenhouses.
Unfortunately, not enough fossil fuel is left over to make that CO2 increase happen.
Natural cycles drive our climate.
The current temperatures are higher than in 1900 by about 1.5 C, but less than 0.5 C of that can be attributed to CO2. The rest is due to:
1) Long-term cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
2) Earth surface changes, due to increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
3) Urban heat islands, such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus. Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
4) Fossil fuel use
5) Permafrost methane, CH4, which converts to CO2
.
CO2 ppm increase from 1979 to 2023 was 421/336 = 1.25, greening increase about 12%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increase from 1900 to 2023 was 421/296 = 1.42, greening increase about 19%
It’s the economy, stupid. It’s always about the economy no matter how you try to frame it. If ‘saving the world’ requires certain populations to commit economic suicide you have to have a damn good reason and incremental warming that started before fossil fuel use and varied throughout history isn’t it.
it’s not JUST economic suicide, and people paying 20$ for a steak are figuring that out.
Safe, clean and reliable …
Little known fact … March 26, 2020 …
Twelve U.S. states generate more than 30% of their electricity from nuclear power
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43256
In the United States, nuclear power plants generate approximately 18% of the country’s total electricity. This includes about 30% of the world’s nuclear electricity generation.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43256
And to date, there have been no mushroom clouds or babies born with extra heads …
My baby was born with an extra head, but it got better. (h/t to Monty Python.)
Reality.
I downloaded the document. This website is used over and over again in the report for data on fuels and electricity production.
Ember. 2025. “Yearly Electricity Data.” https://ember-energy.org/data/yearly-electricity-data.
It has a very nice data explorer page:
https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/
This allows you to see graphs like the one I attached.
It shows the complete futility of European and North American efforts to phase out coal.
Don’t you worry, Chinese coal holds 40% less carbon.. 😉
The CO2 emissions of China
And the CCP won’t let its CO2 out of China.
The reasons for this increase and the continued adherence to the other fossil fuels is simple: they are dependable, still relatively abundant, versatile, and inexpensive. Consumers, businesses, and industries want energy sources that can deliver across the entire economy from agriculture to transportation, heating, manufacturing, electricity, etc. They don’t want to be held semi-captive by renewable pipe dreams that not only often can’t meet basic power demands but also are showing little success in combating the mythological climate crisis.
COAL… Energy from the sun, with the added advantage of built in storage allowing 24/7 energy delivery…
The original solar storage batteries.
Bonus: releases carbon sequestered millions of years ago from the Earth’s plant-friendly, CO2 rich atmosphere, back whence it came to feed and renew and sustain increased plant growth and green the World.
That makes coal the prime, green, sustainable, renewable energy source.
“The increase occurred despite rapid expansion of renewable energy capacity worldwide.”
Despite or because? Intrrmittency means for every MW of “renewable” a MW of fossil fuel is needed to back it up.
NEW MINE-MOUTH COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
It is very easy for coal to compete with wind and solar
In the US, Utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, 50% subsidies
The 11 c/kWh is for various measures required by wind and solar; power plant-to-landfill cost basis.
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
.
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW (three x 600 MW); turnkey-cost $10 b; life 50 y; CF 0.9; no direct subsidies.
Payments to bank, $5 b at 6% for 50 y; $316 million/y x 50 = $15.8 b
Payments to Owner, $5 b at 10% for 50 y; $504 million/y x 50 = $21.2 b
Lifetime production, base-loaded, 1800 x 8766 x 0.9 x 50 = 710,046,000 MWh
.
Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed, at mine-mouth $15/US ton, 8600 Btu/lb, plant efficiency 40%, Btu/ton = 2000 x 8600 = 17.2 million
Lifetime coal use = 710,046,000,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton = 353 million US ton
Lifetime coal cost = $5.3 billion
.
The Owner can deduct interest on borrowed money, and can depreciate the entire plant over 50 y, or less, which helps him achieve his 10% return on investment.
Those are general government subsidies, indirectly charged to taxpayers and/or added to government debt.
.
Other costs:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Year 1 Cost
O&M = $0.02/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 y x 1000 kWh/MWh = $0.284 b
Coal = $15/US ton x 353 million US ton/50 y = 0.106 b
Bank/Owner = (15.8, Bank + 21.2, Owner)/50 y= 0.740 b
Total = 1.130 b
Revenue = $0.08/kWh x 710,046,000 MWh/50 x 1000 kWh/MWh = $1.136 b
Total revenue equals total cost at about 8 c/kWh
Banks and Owners get 0.74/1.136 = 65% of the project revenues
For lower electricity cost/kWh, borrow more money, say 70%
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant
And Indian oil. Don’t forget Indian oil. The title of article at which hyperlink under «Narendra Modi» points is IndianOil & ADNOC Gas: The Future of LNG in India.