By Vijay Jayaraj
Much of the global energy conversation still pretends that coal is on its way out. The pretense may be comforting to activists, investors, and policymakers who built their plans for a transition to so-called clean energy that never acknowledged the limitations of solar and wind power. However, the newest work by Lars Schernikau and Portia Roberts, The Coal Reality That Western Policy Ignores, shows the opposite: Coal is not being replaced, but rather being layered on top of everything else.
The data reveal that global coal consumption is accelerating. The appetite for reliable, baseload power drove usage to an unprecedented high of approximately 9 billion tons in 2025.
This volume represents more coal mined and burned than at any time in history, far outstripping levels recorded before the multi-trillion-dollar Western net-zero campaign. In 2025, China alone brought on-line 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired generation – enough to power 60 million households.
The Iran war’s disruption to supplies of liquefied natural gas has further boosted demand for coal as nations switched fuels for electricity production. This strategic imperative drove a massive surge in coal shipments across the Pacific. Bangladesh, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam immediately increased coal imports to avoid blackouts, with China and India leading the shift.
While alternative energy installations have expanded, coal utilization has grown right alongside them. The two asset classes are not locked in a zero-sum game but are growing to meet a voracious demand for electricity and industrial production.
The world’s proven reserves of coal – deposits that can be extracted economically utilizing current technologies – possess an operational runway of 130 to 150 years at today’s consumption rates. Taking into account remaining geological reserves, Earth holds enough anthracite and bituminous coal for many hundreds of years.
Schernikau and Roberts also remind readers that coal sits at the center of food security. Roughly a quarter of the world depends on fertilizers made with coal-derived ammonia. Abandon coal too quickly and you risk not only blackouts but also food production and, ultimately, lives.
This return to dependable solid fuels coincides with a long-overdue collapse of the pseudoscientific architecture that sustained for decades the narrative of a fabricated climate crisis. For years, scenarios of extreme weather based on flawed climate models were systematically weaponized by activist bureaucrats to demand the dismantling of a hydrocarbon economy.
The most prominent of these fabrications was Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5), alongside its companion RCP 7.0. The international modeling consensus has formally abandoned these deceptions, confirming that RCP 8.5 is officially “implausible.” The apocalyptic scenarios used to terrorize the public and coerce financial markets were never rooted in real-world data.
The institutional framework designed to starve conventional energy sectors of investment capital is unraveling before our eyes. The corporate campaign for Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) compliance has had a severe global retrenchment. Global investment consortia, led by institutional giants like BlackRock, have quietly dismantled or significantly downgraded strict climate mandates. International banking groups and global aviation associations have canceled or rolled back aggressive net-zero timelines.
The fantasy of a rapid, painless transition away from hydrocarbons has run headfirst into physical laws and geopolitical necessities. Weather-dependent power technologies cannot run steel mills, operate heavy manufacturing, or secure domestic food supplies. The climate establishment can keep writing obituaries for coal, but the market keeps resurrecting it because there is no substitute for its scale, reliability, and availability.
Stop pretending that every rise in renewables implies a fall in coal. Stop using extreme scenarios to frighten the public into accepting policy mandates that do not fit the needs of growing economies. And stop telling developing nations that they must sacrifice dependable power in the name of predictive models that no longer command trust.
Originally published at PJ Media, July 15th, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Tags: China, coal, ESG, India, Vijay Jayaraj
I still remember the dramatic photos of great clouds of “smoke” belching from the “smokestacks” of coal plants. It was all a big lie, and part of the War on Coal. What we were seeing was actually water vapor, but people didn’t know that, or didn’t care. The effect was based on emotion, not logic, and that was by design.
And it was always back lit photos of colling towers that were used to show how polluting CO2 is.
I took this up with the BBC and the response was they were just using stock photos and had no control over the lighting
Dumb excuse, they certainly could have had one of their “journalists” drive to a site and take an honest photo. I bet there were more accurate stock photos available too but of course they’d pick the one that looks the most hellish.
yep
I remember once being shown a dark cloud coming out of a cooling tower by a Greenpiss climate twerp..
I had to explain to him that it was actually a nuclear power plant cooling tower..
.. he still didn’t understand. !
It’s funny you should mention this. I took a tour of a very modern coal-fired plant couple of years ago, and the plant manager told me that they don’t schedule tours if at all possible when they know that water vapor will be highly visible condensing out the stack. Pereception is sometimes far more meaningful than a truthful explanation.
In my various training courses (mandatory) it is always emphasized that perception is more important than reality.
— “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.
There is a simple solution to visible condensate from a stack. Use waste heat to reduce relative humidity at the top of the stack to about 90%.
The result is a plume that forms like a cloud separated from the stack. It turns something that some regard as ugly into a serenely calming sight – fluffy, almost white cloud some distance from the stack.
Cooling towers not so easy but they are not as high or as visible.
At least in the UK we’ve got plenty of coal for the next century after Net Zero has bankrupted us.
—–
Meanwhile the climate doom religion rolls on with a new UK energy minister even more mad than mad miliband.
Madder than Miliband? Impossibe, surely?
There is no shortage of Net Zero fanatics in the UK Labour Party.
This new one is going to have drilling in the North Sea on her plate.
Mad Megaband I guess.
What is missing in the UK approach?
Energy Security and Climate Realism
The pretence in our case is that everything is fine, gridwise…
Grid operator accused of cover-up over blackout threat
Tories allege bosses ordered control-room staff to hide information and not keep permanent records – Telegraph
Who better to investigate than…
Grid operator to investigate claims of cover-up amid blackout fears
Law firm to examine ‘serious allegations’ that employees were instructed to hide system failures – Telegraph
Our supply is far from secure and all we get are barefaced lies and obfuscation.
As for climate realism, the new head of DESNZ is a zealot like her predecessor – but with added zeal… Start at 6:20
I often ask myself, where do all these mentally ill people come from?
Fahnbulleh is the daughter of a Liberian National Security advisor.
in 1986, Fahnbulleh’s father, Henry Boimah Fahnbulleh, was creating his own opposition group to President Doe, named the Front for Popular Democracy in Liberia…
He went into exile in… the UK. Funny, I had thought Liberia was an American idea.
Liberia was an American idea…too bad it didn’t work out. How did he end up in the UK?
It’s a soft touch.
Not much in Africa has worked out to the good.
The FPDL?
Splitters !!
Not to be confused with the Liberian Popular Front for Democracy.
Whatever happened to the LPFD?
Thank you for the perspective.
And when the number of “homes that can be powered” by coal are discussed, they are real numbers.
Unlike the bald-faced LIE that “renewables” in any quantity can “power” any amount of homes, since they can’t do so 24/7/365 as can fossil fuels and nuclear (and hydro where available). Renewables have to have 100% backup; coal does not.
Remember when London banned coal? Because the pollution killed hundreds of residents? And WUWT wants to bring it back?
London has not banned coal. I use it every winter in the fireplace. You know, to keep warm…
https://thecoalshop.co.uk/smokeless-fuel/
Where do you get your information, AI?
Wrong choice as concept-try “BD”- for brain dead.
Wazza gets his info from The Guardian.
Issues of which can be found in all public libraries.
(In either the “Comics” section or the “Fiction” section, or often both.)
From the back side of a large well fed bull ?
😉
Around here, a lot of people burn eucalypt timber for heating… there’ plenty of it about. 🙂
Love the smell of wood smoke on a crisp winter morning 🙂
smells like – eucalypts.
Remember when anti-coalers had brains?
Me neither.
You mean in 1306 or in 1956?
It was particulate carbon (aka smoke) mixing with the prevalent English fog that created SMOG, which is a health hazard. Much like the USA Clean Air Act addressed SMOG.
It was only banned for “traditional coal burning” which translates to personal consumption in cities and some towns for heating and cooking and has nothing to do with coal fired steam turbine electrical generators, which as you well know have eliminated that problem (and others).
Funny thing is, it was not banned for ships or industrial applications (such as generators or steel).
Top Energy Department Mandarin Showers Praise on “Inspiration” Ed Miliband
The Permanent Secretary at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Jonathan Brearley, can barely contain his excitement at the arrival of Miatta Fahnbulleh to the department, or his admiration for Ed Miliband. What are the impartiality requirements again?
Guido Fawkes
Brearley ex CEO of Ofgem (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) is away with the fairies!
“The net zero mandate……underlines that net zero is the best option not only from a climate perspective, but to ensure a low cost energy future”
Ofgem’s net zero mandate “sends a clear message we must end our historic dependency on fossil fuels”
How much coal does it take to build a wind turbine or solar panel? What happens when they need replacement?
Good (embarrassing for the other side) questions.
And not just for the power but also to make the steel.
https://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-for-cokesteel.php
(If they want them to be truly “green”, maybe they should switch from using steel to bamboo?)
“The Coal Reality That Western Policy Ignores, shows the opposite: Coal is not being replaced, but rather being layered on top of everything else.”
This all happened before. It was our response to the so-called energy crisis of the 1960s to 1980 or thereabouts. We thought the age of coal was over, with petroleum liquids taking over things like even electricity generation, but then disruptions to global petroleum markets made us realize the enormous coal resources of the U.S. and that these were a low cost resource.
I remember in 2005/2006 here in Texas, Governor Rick Perry was about to help usher in 11 (eleven) new coal power plants. See: https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2006/08/17/3686/txu-to-build-new-plants/ This proposed activity was concomitant with the coming onslaught of the left’s madness against all sensible things, especially coal/CO2. I believe none of the coal plants were ever built. Coal almost single-handedly brought the world to its greatest prosperity.
Global population in 1950 was about 2.45 billion; now pushing 8 billion. Coal was integral to that growth. God told man, Genesis 1:28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
And God gave us Fossil Fuels to be able to execute His plan.
I can’t find any YouTubes of any of the numerous gods saying that.
(not saying it didn’t happen, but sheesh, there’s even YouTubes of BigFoots, Yowies, Sashquash, etc)
Shades of USAID. Politicians today are adept at hiding funds to be spent on their initiatives that don’t help their constituents. Since I don’t trust voting anywhere in the world today the UK is stuck with this madness.
Ooops ….. wrong thread.
Only wealthier countries are pursuing favorable weather conditions to support electricity generation by wind turbines and solar panels.
Shockingly, Pew Research Center shows about 70% of the 8 billion on this planet, or almost 6 billion, are living on less than $10/day and have yet to join the industrial revolution!
For those is poorer developing countries, using abundant coal for the generation of continuous and uninterruptable electricity is best for their country’s’ economic development.
“The world’s proven reserves of coal – deposits that can be extracted economically utilizing current technologies – possess an operational runway of 130 to 150 years at today’s consumption rates.”
This is the issue that is often overlooked by the AGW skeptics. Whilst I am also an AGW skeptic, I try to look at the broader picture of future energy use.
As Ronald Stein mentioned in his post above, “Shockingly, Pew Research Center shows about 70% of the 8 billion on this planet, or almost 6 billion, are living on less than $10/day and have yet to join the industrial revolution!”
If one is concerned about the future prosperity and wellbeing of the world population, then we should plan for an energy consumption which is far, far greater than today’s consumption rate.
Relying only on fossil fuels would result in a future catastrophe resulting from energy costs which would be much higher than today’s costs, because of the increasing scarity of fossil fuels in far less than 150 years, assuming world poverty is addressed.
This is why we should begin the development of alternative and renewable energy sources right now, because it is clear that such development is a long process, involving lots of inefficiences and hazards that have to be addressed.
I consider the current ‘net zero’ policy of mandates and subsidies merely a stimulant to encourage research and experimentation into alternative sources of energy. What doesn’t work efficiently will (or at least should) eventually be discarded.
You are right that any energy transition is going to take a long time-many decades and include all forms of energy generation that should compete naturally without subsidies.
Presently, coal at scale with modern HELE plants is the cheapest generator of base load electricity, gas is great for backup as is hydro, whilst nuclear is gaining ground as a safe reliable long-term producer. Wind and solar are increasingly efficient, but are less productive and unreliable than fossil fuels, and need critical backup, that can’t presently be provided using batteries for more than a few hours- certainly not days!.
Essentially, we need better technology and further costly research if we want to replace fossil fuels. Thus, Net Zero is a loser from all reasonable perspectives and need to be cancelled ASAP before it de-industrialises economies and prevents the ability of nations to undertake required energy research and have the industrial capacity to make new technology.
“Wind and solar are increasingly efficient, but are less productive and unreliable than fossil fuels, and need critical backup, that can’t presently be provided using batteries for more than a few hours- certainly not days!.”
I’m not in favour of using large tracts of land for windmills and solar panels, and the additional requirement for long-distance power lines.
However, the roofs of buildings are essentially free spaces. Imagine a new home designed to maximize the the production of solar energy by integrating the construction of the house with the installation of solar tiles or solar panels which cover the entire roof area, apart from the solar hot water heater.
An average all-electric Australian home, with a solar hot water heater, consumes between 11 and 15 kWh of electricity per day. 60KWh of sodium-ion battery storage would provide 4-5 full days of power supply for the home, when the sun doesn’t shine. A bit more than a few hours!
Notice how Vijay’s posts get ever more assertive as we “deniers” take the “wind ” out of the thermometer-readers’ “sales”. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
I would compare the climate alarmist cult with a skunk, even after they leave you still have to deal with the stench.
Once again Vijay Jayaraj brings to the forefront where the real energy demand lies and what’s best to fulfill it, and it’s not from heavily-subsidized renewables. I wonder how many of the mainstream media will publicize such information and how many governments will act on its realities and recommendations.