Our global addiction to coal is killing us and irreparably
damaging our planet. Each year, hundreds of
thousands of people die due to coal pollution. Millions
more around the world suffer from asthma attacks, heart
attacks, hospitalizations and lost workdays.1 Those who
resist coal are faced with violence and repression.
Up to 1200 new coal-fired power plants are planned
around the world. If all of these plants were built, it would
lock in decades of hazardous emissions into our air and
water and would continue coal’s heavy toll on human
health. On top of that, the greenhouse gas emissions
from these plants would put us a path of catastrophic
climate change, causing global temperatures to rise by
over 5 degrees Celsius by 2100.2
A burgeoning global movement is pressuring
governments and institutions to take action to end our
reliance on coal. In the European Union, 109 proposed
coal-fired power plants have been defeated. Last year,
the Chinese government banned the construction
permitting of new coal plants in the three key economic
regions surrounding the cities of Beijing, Shanghai and
Guangzhou, housing 30% of China’s current coal-fired
power generation capacity. US groups have defeated 179
new coal-fired power plants, and more than 165 existing
plants are slated for retirement.
International financial institutions, such as the World Bank,
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
and the European Investment Bank, have adopted policies
restricting or eliminating support for coal plants. The
US and several European countries have also enacted
bans on financing coal overseas except in limited
circumstances.
While the movement to stop coal is growing, the coal
industry is relentless in its push to mine and burn more
coal. We must join together to put an end to coal.
COAL FACTSHEET #1
THE DIRTY FACTS ABOUT COAL Impacts of Coal on Health & the Environment
Coal in PerspectiveCoal’s share of world energy generation: 41%
Coal’s share of energy-related CO2 emissions: 72%
Percentage of fossil fuel reserves that must be left in
the ground to avoid catastrophic
climate change: 72%
Global coal production (2012): 7,830 million tonnes
Projected growth in demand through 2018: 2.3
Top
Exporters:
Indonesia,
Australia,
Russia, USA
Top
importers:
China, Japan,
India, South
Korea
Top
Consumers:
China, USA,
India, Japan,
Russia, South
Africa
1. MININGLarge tracts of forest and other productive lands are
often cleared and communities are displaced for coal
mines. To expose coal seams, water may be pumped
out of the ground, lowering the water table and reducing
the amount of water available for agriculture, domestic
use and wildlife. Excavated rock is piled up in enormous
waste dumps adjacent to the mines. Heavy metals and
minerals trapped in the waste rock are mobilised once
exposed to air and water and can contaminate surface
and groundwater.
Communities that live near mines
suffer from air and water pollution.
They face reduced life expectancies
and increased rates of lung cancer
and heart, respiratory and kidney
disease. Pregnant women have a
higher risk of having children of
low birth weight. Miners face great
physical risk due to accidents,
explosions and mine collapses. In
China, roughly 4000-6000 workers
die from underground mining
accidents each year.3 Miners are also
directly exposed to toxic fumes, coal
dust and toxic metals, increasing
their risk for fatal lung diseases such
as pneumoconiosis and silicosis.
2. PREPARATION/WASHINGAfter coal is mined, it is often prepared for combustion in
coal preparation plants. Coal is usually crushed, washed
with water and other chemicals to reduce impurities
such as clay, sulfur and heavy metals, and dried. Some
chemicals used to “wash” coal are known carcinogens;
others are linked to lung and heart damage. The resulting
wastewater, known as coal slurry, is typically stored in
slurry ponds, which can leak and contaminate surface
and groundwater.
3. TRANSPORTThe transport of coal by train, truck, ship or barge is often
overlooked as a potential health threat to communities
living along transport corridors. Coal trains, trucks and
barges emit coal dust, sometimes at intense levels,
increasing the rate of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.4 Before and after transport, coal is often
stockpiled, releasing more coal dust. Residents living
near the world’s largest coal port in Newcastle, Australia
suffer from particulate emissions that regularly cause air
pollution exceeding national health standards. Exposure
to fine particulates increases the risk of premature death,
heart attacks and asthma attacks.
4. COMBUSTION
Coal is the deadliest electricity source on the planet,
killing up to 280,000 people per 1000 terawatt hours of
electricity generated.5 By contrast,
wind kills 150 people and rooftop
solar 440 people per 1000 terawatt
hours. The burning of coal emits
hazardous air pollutants that can
spread for hundreds of kilometres.
Pollutants include particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
carbon dioxide, mercury and arsenic.6
Some of these pollutants react in the
atmosphere to form ozone and more
fine particulates. Exposure to these
pollutants can damage people’s
cardiovascular, respiratory and
nervous systems, increasing the risk
of lung cancer, stroke, heart disease,
chronic respiratory diseases and
lethal respiratory infections. Children,
the elderly, pregnant women, and people with already
compromised health suffer most. The emission of sulfates
and nitrates also leads to acid rain, which damages
streams, forests, crops and soils.
Fine particulate matter pollution is the greatest
environmental health risk globally, and a leading
environmental cause of cancer.7 Particle pollution was
responsible for an estimated 3 million premature deaths
in 2010. Coal-fired power plants are one of the largest
sources of each of the key pollutants contributing to fine
particle pollution globally.
Coal plants consume vast amounts of water for cooling
and steam production. A typical 1000 MW coal plant uses
enough water in one year to meet the basic water needs
of 500,000 people. Massive coal expansion is planned
in China, India and Russia where 63% of the population
already suffer from water scarcity.8
Impacts of the Coal Life Cycle
Globally, over
350,000 people
die prematurely
each year due to
air pollution from
coal-fired power
plants and millions
more suffer
serious illnesses.
At each stage of its life cycle, coal pollutes the air we breathe, the water we drink and
the land that we depend on. This section briefly describes the impacts of coal mining,
preparation, transport and combustion.
2 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 1
E N D C O A L | 3
ASH LANDFILL
ASHLANDF
1. MINING
2. PREPARATION
3. TRANSPORT 4. COMBUSTIONCoal dust increases heart and lung disease.
Water withdrawals for cooling systems can cause water scarcity and kill aquatic life.
Leaching of heavy metals and other toxics pollute water and increase rates of cancer, birth defects and neurological damage. Spills harm humans and ecosystems.
Thermal water releases kill aquatic life.
Heavy metals and other toxics contaminate water. Rivers and streams are polluted, harming communities and wildlife. Coal washing consumes fresh water.
Destroys forests, uproots communities.
Leaching of heavy metals and other toxics contaminates water, harming communities and wildlife. Coal washing consumes fresh water.
Mountaintop removal, surface and underground
Air pollution damages heart, lungs and nervous systems.
CO2 causes global warming. Pollutants include nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, ozone, heavy
metals and carbon dioxide.
To end our dependence on coal, it is critical to invest in
clean and sustainable energy options. The first step is to
reduce our overall demand for energy and to implement
energy efficiency measures. The International Energy
Agency recommends that countries target reducing
energy use from new space and water heating; installing
more efficient lighting and new appliances; improving the
efficiency of new industrial motors; and setting standards
for new road vehicles.9
Renewable energy, which generates little or no pollution
and greenhouse gases, has become increasingly
competitive with conventional energy sources. The
increase in economic competitiveness is paving the
way for greater adoption. Since 2008, the price of solar
panels has dropped by 75%.10 According to Deutsche
Bank, 19 regional markets worldwide have now achieved
“grid parity,” where PV solar panels can match or beat
local electricity prices without subsidies. This includes
Chile, Australia and Germany for residential power and
Mexico and China for industrial markets.11
Some experts predict that fossil fuel use will peak by
2030 because fossil fuels will be unable to compete with
renewables economically.12 While the cost of fossil fuels will
continue to rise in a carbon-constrained world, the costs of
renewables will continue to decline. A Harvard University
study estimated that the external costs of the coal life cycle
in the US are between a third to a half a trillion dollars
annually. If the full costs of coal were reflected in coal’s
price, it would double or triple the price of electricity from
coal. This would end coal generation more rapidly.
Rather than locking in a dependency on dirty coal for
generations to come, governments and utilities should
invest in clean, renewable energy.
Coal combustion generates waste contaminated with
toxic chemicals and heavy metals, such as arsenic,
cadmium, selenium, lead and mercury. Coal combustion
waste may be stored in waste ponds or landfills,
which are often unlined. Contaminants may leach into
ground and surface water that people depend on for
drinking. This can increase rates of cancer, birth defects,
reproductive problems and neurological damage. Power
plants dump more toxins into rivers and streams than
any other industry in the United States, and toxic waste
from power plants is the second largest source of waste
in the US, behind municipal waste. In February 2014,
over 140,000 tons of coal ash and wastewater from a
retired coal plant spilled into the Dan River in North
Carolina, blackening the waters with a toxic sludge and
contaminating drinking water supplies.
While air pollution control equipment reduces emissions
of toxins to the atmosphere, it transfers the toxins to solid
or liquid waste streams. This ash is stored in waste ponds
or landfills which leach sulfur dioxide and heavy metals
into surface and groundwater.
Coal combustion is the single largest source of
greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and accounts for
72% of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity
sector. This is warming our planet with devastating
impacts to human health and the environment. The coal
industry proposes that it can build power stations that
will capture carbon dioxide and store it underground.
However, the technological and economic viability of
carbon capture and storage is unproven and is unlikely to
be viable for decades to come, if ever.
ENDNOTES1 Erica Burt, Peter Orris, Susan Buchanan, “Scientific Evidence of Health Effects from Coal Use in
Energy Generation”, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, 2013, p.52 If all the proposed coal-fired power plants were built by 2025, the net increase in coal-fired
generation capacity would exceed the increase in the Current Policies Scenario in the IEA World Energy Outlook 2012, which is estimated by the IEA to be consistent with median long-term temperature increase of 5.3oC by 2100.
3 Paul R. Epstein, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Kevin Eckerle, et al. 2011. “Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal,” Volume 1219: Ecological Economics Reviews, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219: 73–98.
4 Ibid, p. 84.5 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/6 Burt, Orris, and Buchanan, ibid, p.3.7 International Agency for Research on Cancer, 17 October 2013, http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-
centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf8 “The Unquenchable Thirst of an Expanding Coal Industry,” The Guardian, April 1, 2014.9 “Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map,” World Energy Outlook Special Report, International
Energy Agency, June 10, 2013, p. 47.10 Morgan Bazilian, Ijeoma Onyeji, Michael Liebreich et al. “Reconsidering the Economics of
Photovoltaic Power,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance, May 2012, p.5.11 “Global solar dominance in sight as science trumps fossil fuels,” The Telegraph, April 25, 2014.12 “‘Peak Fossil Fuels’ Is Closer Than You Think: BNEF,” Bloomberg, April 24, 2013.
Investing in Clean Energy
4 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 1
RESOURCES
Coal Activist Resource Centre: endcoal.org
Greenpeace International: greenpeace.org/coal
Sierra Club: sierraclub.org/coal
Union of Concerned Scientists: ucsusa.org/clean_energy/
International Renewable Energy Agency: irena.org
ENDCOAL.ORG
Coal is the single biggest contributor to human-
caused climate change. Coal-fired power
stations are responsible for 37% of carbon
dioxide emissions worldwide1 and 72% of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from the electricity sector, with
the energy sector contributing to 41% of overall
GHG emissions worldwide.2 If the global demand for
coal increases, and 1200 new coal plants currently
planned around the world are built3, the GHG
emissions would put us on a path to a six degrees
Celsius increase in global temperatures by 2100. The
globally accepted limit is 2°C beyond pre-industrial
levels. Any increase in temperature beyond two
degrees would push us towards climate catastrophe,
causing massive extinctions and making human life
unbearable.
But there is hope. Some governments and multilateral
banks are beginning to recognise that the cost of
coal generation is unacceptable and are rejecting
financing for new coal projects. Citizens around the
world are uniting to oppose new coal plants and
propose better solutions for meeting energy needs.
A lot more work, action and pressure is required to
stop proposed coal projects from going ahead, and
for governments to adopt a binding international
climate deal that mitigates climate change. One
thing is clear: if we are to avoid runaway climate
change, we must end coal.
COAL FACTSHEET #2
Towards Climate CatastropheThe Contribution of Coal to Climate Change
ELECTRICITY-RELATED CO2
EMISSIONS BY FUEL
Natural Gas21%
Oil7%
Other 1%
Coal72%
CO2 EMISSIONS
BY SECTOR
Electricity41%
Roadtransport
16%Other
transport6%
Industry20%
Residential6%
Othersectors
10%
Graph 1
CO2 emissions by sector, electricity related CO2 emissions by fuel 4
Reaching 400 ppm – Early in 2013, we reached CO2 levels of 400 parts per million in the atmosphere which is a level
unseen for three million years.15 Given the devastating effects of climate change that we are already seeing in the form
of extreme weather events, melting ice caps, and sea level rise, passing 400 ppm is ominous. The goal of stabilising
at 450 ppm – still well above the ‘safe’ limit of 350 ppm – now looks impossible.
If all 1200 planned coal plants are built, this
expansion would see global temperatures rise by
at least 4°C and eventually to over 6°C by 210011
(see graph 2). A rise of 4°C would trigger extreme
heat waves, declining global food stocks and a sea-
level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people.12
Eminent climate scientist, Professor Kevin Anderson,
says that “a 4 degrees C future is incompatible
with an organized global community, is likely to be
beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority
of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not
being stable.”13 In other words, the effect will be
catastrophic.
In its latest report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
world’s most authoritative scientific body on climate change, states that total
human-caused GHG emissions were the highest in human history from 2000 to
2010 and reached 49 (±4.5) gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
in 2010. The IPCC also states that annual GHG emissions grew on average by
one gigatonne carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2eq) (2.2%) per year from 2000
to 2010 compared to 0.4 GtCO2eq (1.3%) per year from 1970 to 2000. The global
economic crisis in 2007/2008 only temporarily reduced emissions.5
This dramatic increase in GHG emissions is largely attributed to an increase in
fossil fuel use – and most notably coal consumption worldwide. Cumulative CO2
emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement production and flaring from 1750
to 1970 were 420 (±35) GtCO2; in 2010, that total had tripled to 1300 (±110) GtCO
2.6
It was coal that fueled the industrial revolution in Western Europe and then in the US, which led to the rise of the
modern economy, and the associated increase in GHG emissions. However, during the first decade of this century, the
demand shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific market, notably Asia, exacerbating the problem of energy-related GHG
emissions because the Pacific market doubled its coal consumption.8 China and India accounted for almost 95% of
global coal demand growth between 2000 and 2011.9
China’s coal consumption, in particular, has reached four billion tonnes and represents 50% of the global total.10 China
now accounts for 25% of global CO2 emissions. A considerable amount of Chinese and other middle income country
emissions are embedded in locally manufactured products that are exported (i.e. consumed) in the developed world: in
effect, emissions have been shifted from the developed world to the developing world through global manufacturing shifts.
2 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 2
Coal has been the fastest-growing primary energy
source in the world in the past decade:
between 2001 and 2010, world
consumption of coal increased by 45%.7
2DS
6DS
0
50
100
150
200
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
EJ
GLOBAL COAL DEMAND
Hist orical
Projections
Graph 2: Increase in global coal demand in relation to increase in temperatures 14
The golden decade of coal and record breaking global temperatures
Coal expansion increases temperatures by 4-6°C
Over the last few years, governments have begun taking steps to
halt financing for new coal plants, more tightly regulate pollution
from existing plants and shut down old plants. In 2013, the
governments of the United States, United Kingdom and five Nordic
countries announced that they would end the public financing of
new overseas coal plants, except in rare cases. The World Bank,
European Investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development made similar announcements. The Chinese
government has enacted measures to restrict coal use in 12 of China’s
34 provinces. President Obama has announced new regulations
that have effectively ruled out any new coal plants in the US and
will likely require the retirement of a significant proportion of the
US’s coal fleet. Grassroots activists have also started a movement
to pressure universities and institutional investors to divest from
fossil fuels and communities from all over the world are resisting the
expansion.
Building new coal plants would lock in decades of CO2 emissions.
The average coal plant operates for roughly 40-60 years. Once
emitted, CO2 persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.19
To avoid catastrophic climate change, we must immediately stop
building new coal plants, shut down existing coal plants, and
massively invest in renewable energy.
In December 2010, 167 countries agreed at the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention in Cancun, Mexico, to limit
the increase in average global temperatures to below 2°C from pre-industrial levels. To achieve this, scientists say that
between 50-80% of global fossil fuel reserves must remain underground.16 This means that the vast majority of coal
reserves cannot be exploited (see Graph 3 below). Switching away from coal as an electricity source globally is therefore
an essential step to achieve the level of required emissions reductions.17
E N D C O A L | 3
Oil982 GtCO
2
2°C budget1050 GtCO
2
Gas690 GtCO
2
Coal2,191 GtCO
2
FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES3,863 GtC0
2
Graph 3: Fossil fuel reserves and 2 degrees Celsius 18
Most fossil fuel reserves must remain underground
Shifting from coal
Delaying change only costs moreEarly action is needed to avoid costly and
wasted expenditure in coal infrastructure.
The Fifth Assessment report from the IPCC
estimates that annual investments in fossil
fuel power plants over 2010-2029 have
to decline by an average of US$30 billion
and annual investments in extraction of
fossil fuels have to decline by an average of
US$110 billion.20 The report also states that
the economic cost of taking strong mitigation
measures now, as compared to inaction,
would equate to a reduction in consumer
spending globally of 1-4 percent in 2030
and 2-6 percent in 2050.21 Meanwhile, the
US Council of Economic Advisors released
a report in July 2014 saying that delaying
climate policies to the point where average
global temperatures rise 3°C above pre-
industrial levels could increase economic
damages by approximately 0.9% of global
output. For the US, 0.9% of GDP in 2014
amounts to US$150 billion. On the other
hand, new regulations on coal plants in the
US are estimated to have a public health
benefit of between US$55-93 billion.22
ENDNOTES
1 http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2012.xlsx and http://www.whrc.org/news/pressroom/pdf/WI_WHRC_Policy_Brief_Forest_CarbonEmissions_finalreportReduced.pdf
2 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/02/19120885/understanding-co2-emissions-global-energy-sector
3 http://endcoal.org/plant-tracker4 Foster, V and Bedrosyan, D. 2014. Understanding CO
2 emissions
from the global energy sector. Live wire knowledge note series; No. 5. Washington DC; World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/02/19120885/understanding-co2-emissions-global-energy-sector
5 IPCC WG3 AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, Pg 5. http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf
6 ibid7 International Energy Agency. Tracking Clean Energy Progress:
IEA Input into the Clean Energy Ministerial 2013. Pg 46. Link: http://www.iea.org/publications/tcep_web.pdf
8 IEA, Pg 189 IEA pg 4910 Gresswell, M. 2014. The Resurgence of Coal. Presentation:
World Coal Association, Canberra, 26 May 2014. Slides 4 & 5. http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/building-on-21st-century-coal-workshop/
11 Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2012 – Market Trends and Projections to 2017, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2012
12 “Turn Down the Heat. Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided,” World Bank, 2012.
13 Prof. Kevin Anderson of the Tyndal Institute quoted in : Roberts, D. The Brutal logic of climate change in The Grist, 6 December 2011. http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/
14 IEA. Pg 4615 On May 9th 2013 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration reported CO2 levels of 400.03 parts per million
(ppm)16 Various: Malte Meinshausen et al. 2009. Greenhouse-gas
emission targets for limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius in Nature 08017, Vol 458, 30 April 2009, Pg 1158. Carbon Tracker and Grantham Institute. 2013. Unburnable carbon 2013: Wasted carbon and stranded assets, p. 4.
17 “New unabated coal is not compatible with keeping global warming below 2°C, Statement by leading climate and energy scientists, November 2013, p.3
18 http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/nocoal2c.pdf19 IPCC AR5, op cit20 IPCC AR5 op cit, Pg 2021 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/04/21/ipcc-
chair-delaying-climate-action-raises-risks-costs22 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/29/3464918/climate-
economy-white-house-report/
RESOURCES
Point of No Return: The massive climate threats we must avoid, Greenpeace International, January 2013, http://bit.ly/1rmktL1
Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map, International Energy Agency, June 2013, http://bit.ly/1xwZOWE
New unabated coal is not compatible with keeping global warming below 2°C, Statement by leading climate and energy scientists, November 2013, http://www.europeanclimate.org/documents/nocoal2c.pdf
“Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” Bill McKibben, Rolling Stone, July 19, 2012, http://rol.st/1zo0W0Z
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Working Group 3 Assessment Report 5- Summary for Policy Makers, http://bit.ly/15k1wnK
ENDCOAL.ORG
4 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 2
To end our dependence on coal, it is critical to invest in energy options that are not carbon intensive or polluting.
Renewable energy options such as solar, wind, micro hydro and geothermal energy are superior to coal in meeting the
world’s energy needs as they emit little or no carbon dioxide. The price of renewable energy has dropped dramatically
over the past decade and in many places is cost-competitive with coal and other traditional energy sources. In 2012,
42% of new generating capacity worldwide came from renewable sources (excluding large hydro). New technologies
such as carbon capture and storage only further perpetuate our dependence on coal, and are expensive and unviable.
Coal dependence is dangerous, polluting and pushing us all on a path from which there may be no easy return.
One of our planet’s scarcest natural resources - safe,
affordable and accessible water - is under threat from
the coal industry. Vast amounts of freshwater are
consumed and polluted during coal mining, transport and
power generation. A typical 1000 MW coal plant in India
uses enough water in one year to meet the basic water
needs of nearly 700,000 people. Globally, coal plants
consume about 8% of our total water demand. The coal
industry’s thirst for water is particularly concerning given
that some of the largest coal producing and consuming
countries, including India, China, Australia and South
Africa, already face water stress and are currently planning
enormous build-outs of their coal industries.
Coal is also a major polluter. Every stage of the coal life
cycle pollutes water with heavy metals and other tox-
ins at levels that significantly harm humans and wildlife.
Exposure to this toxic stew has increased the rates of hu-
man birth defects, disease and premature deaths. The im-
pacts on wildlife are similar. Often colourless and out of
public view, the contaminants from the coal life cycle are
an invisible menace to our health and environment.
Part 1: A Vast Consumer of Water
MINING AND PREPARATION
During mining operations, enormous amounts of ground-
water are drained from aquifers so mining companies can
access coal seams. Surface mines withdraw roughly 10,000
litres of groundwater per tonne of coal. Underground mines
extract about 462 litres of groundwater per tonne of coal.
The amount of dewatering varies greatly depending on the
depth of the coal seam and local hydrology and geology.1 A
series of proposed mega-mines in Australia’s Galilee Basin
is projected to extract 1.3 billion litres of water – over 2
1/2 times the amount of water in the Sydney Harbour. This
extraction will drastically lower the water table, rendering
local wells unusable and impacting nearby rivers.2
After coal is mined, it is typically washed with water or
chemicals to remove sulphur and other impurities. The
US Department of Energy estimates that coal mining and
washing in the US uses 260-980 million litres per day.3
These amounts would satisfy the basic water needs of 5 to
20 million people (assuming 50 litres of water per person
per day). The strain on water resources can be significant
since mines are often located in arid regions. Mining also
causes severe and long-term pollution of water resources,
which can trigger water scarcity even in water-rich coun-
tries. This is detailed in Part 2 of this factsheet.
COAL FACTSHEET #3
The 2008 Kingston coal ash spill in Tennessee, USA dumped 3.8 billion litres of coal ash slurry into the Emory River. Photo: Dot Griffith
INSATIABLE THIRSTHow Coal Consumes and Contaminates Our Water
2 | C O A L A N D W A T E R F A C T S H E E T
THIRSTY COOLING SYSTEMS
The amount of water withdrawn from freshwater sources
and consumed by coal plants varies significantly depend-
ing on the type of cooling system used and the location of coal plants. Coal plants with once-through cooling sys-
tems withdraw tremendous amounts of water with disas-
trous impacts to aquatic life. The process of sucking in
vast amounts of water destroys an estimated 2 billion fish,
crabs and shrimp and 528 billion fish eggs and larvae each
year in the US as aquatic life is rammed against screens or
sucked into cooling systems.
While most of the water withdrawn is discharged back into
the original water sources, it is usually discharged at tem-
peratures 5.6-11°C hotter than when it was withdrawn. This
“thermal water” kills aquatic life and ecosystems, which
are extremely sensitive to small variations in temperature
change.5
Coal plants with closed-loop or recirculating cooling sys-
tems withdraw far less, but consume more, water than
plants with once-through cooling systems. These systems
usually use large cooling towers to let ambient air cool
the water. However, millions of litres of water can be lost
through evaporation and must be replaced.
Less than six percent of coal plants worldwide have dry
cooling systems, using air instead of water for cooling.
These power plants use 75% less water than plants with
recirculating cooling systems. However, dry cooling sys-
tems are expensive and energy-intensive. Power plants
with dry cooling must burn more coal for operation, de-
creasing their efficiency and increasing CO2 emissions by
up to six percent.6
ESCALATING WATER CONFLICTS
Situating coal mines and power plants in arid regions
around the world has sparked serious conflicts over water.
From 2001-2010, farmers in the Vidarbha region of central
India fell deeply into debt as the government liberalised
COMBUSTION
Coal-fired power plants consume the vast majority of water
used by the coal industry. Plants built inland require even
larger amounts of freshwater. Coal plants are increasing
the strain on freshwater resources at a time when climate
change is already starting to affect water supplies around
the world.
During the combustion process, coal is burned to boil wa-
ter and convert it into steam. The steam is used to turn
turbines, which power generators to produce electricity.
Different types of cooling systems are used to cool the
steam and condense it back into water. Almost all of the
water consumed by coal-fired power plants is used for
cooling systems.
Consumption vs. Withdrawal
To understand how coal plants use water,
it is important to distinguish between the
consumption and withdrawal of water. A typical
500 MW coal plant withdraws an Olympic-sized
swimming pool amount of water every 3.5
minutes.4 Water withdrawals for once-through
cooling are discharged back into the original
water source at higher temperatures. Water
consumed by coal plants is not returned to the
original source and is no longer available for
use as drinking water, for aquaculture or food
production by downstream communities. The
water may be contaminated by pollutants during
the combustion process and stored in ash ponds
or have evaporated during cooling processes.
Graph 1
Water Consumption for a 1000 MW Coal Plant
E N D C O A L | 3
its economy, scaled back support for small farmers and
prioritised the allocation of water for energy generation,
mostly coal, over agriculture. The intense financial burden
triggered over 6000 farmer suicides. Despite this tragedy,
71 thermal plants, which would consume two billion cubic
metres of water annually, are in various stages of approval
in Vidarbha.
India is steamrolling ahead with plans to construct hun-
dreds of coal plants despite projections that national water
demand will exceed supply within 30 years. The proposed
coal plants would consume 2500-2800 million cubic me-
ters of water per year.8 This would meet the basic water
needs of people living in India’s six largest cities – Mumbai,
Delhi, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad and Chennai (as-
suming 135 litres of water per day for urban dwellers).
The Chinese government plans to build 14 large-scale
coal mining bases and 16 new coal power generation bas-
es, predominately in western provinces, despite projec-
tions that China will face serious water scarcity by 2030.
Greenpeace estimates that these coal power bases will
consume 10 billion m3 of water annually (or roughly 1/6
of the annual volume of the Yellow River). Currently, water
resources per capita in these parched areas are only 1/10th
of the national average. Coal development would con-
sume a significant amount of water that is now allocated
for drinking, agriculture and wildlife.
In South Africa, coal expansion will exacerbate problems
with water scarcity. There is already a projected 17% gap
between water supply and demand. With 13 new coal
plants proposed, this will only worsen the situation. Coal
mining expansion is also water-intensive and will pollute
scarce fresh water supplies.9 Coal expansion in the pris-
tine, water-sensitive area of the Waterberg, in the north of
the country, is a massive threat as the water is guaranteed
for use by the coal industry, with no assurances for other
uses such as agriculture.
The siting of coal operations in regions of water scarci-
ty can affect their economic viability. If coal plants do not
have enough water to operate, they can be forced to shut
down. Hot weather may also warm water supplies used for
cooling, reducing the electricity production of coal plants
when it is needed most. These declines in production can
cut into revenues and make it difficult for companies to
service their debt.
(That’s enough to fill
over 12,000 Olympic swimming pools.)
The Tradeoffs of Coal Generation
Irrigation: 7,000 hectares
of agricultural land
1000 MW Coal Plant in India:
30-35 million cubic metres of water
equal to equal to
Basic Water Needs:670,000 urban
residents
4 | C O A L A N D W A T E R F A C T S H E E T
PART 2: How The Coal Life Cycle Pollutes Our Water
MINING
Surface mining dramatically alters natural water flow, in-
creasing flooding and jeopardising the safety of down-
stream communities. When open pit mines are construct-
ed, trees and other vegetation are cleared from large
tracts of land. Enormous amounts of earth are excavated
and piled in mounds next to mines. When it rains, ero-
sion clogs and pollutes
streams, wetlands and
rivers with tonnes of
sediment. Rivers can
become so choked
with sediment that they
can no longer be used
for fishing or transport.
An estimated 3840 km
of streams have been
buried by mountaintop
removal mining in the
Appalachia region of
the United States. The
effects of these valley
fills are irreversible.
Communities living
near mountaintop removal mining have suffered from in-
creased rates of lung cancer and heart, respiratory and
kidney disease due to their exposure to contaminated
water. Researchers found that 4432 people in this region
died prematurely from 1999-2005,
largely due to drinking contaminat-
ed water.10 Communities also expe-
rienced a 26 percent higher rate of
birth defects.11
Acid mine drainage is one of the most
serious impacts of coal mining. When
water interacts with rock exposed
by mining, naturally occurring heavy
metals such as aluminium, arsenic
and mercury are released into the en-
vironment. Acid mine drainage con-
taminates ground and surface water,
destroying aquatic ecosystems and
water supplies that communities depend on for drinking
and agriculture. These impacts can occur long after a mine
has been abandoned, and perhaps indefinitely.
A South African Water Ministry official publicly called acid
mine drainage “the greatest environmental challenge
ever.”12 South Africa has nearly 6000 abandoned mines.
Some estimate that nearly 200 million litres of acid mine
drainage per day threaten to pollute the Vaal River basin.13
Since the impacts of acid mine drainage occur long after
a mine has been abandoned, the liability and high clean-
up costs typically fall on local governments and taxpayers.
PREPARATION
After it is mined, coal is typically washed with water or oth-
er chemicals to remove impurities such as sulphur, ash and
rock. This process requires large amounts of water and
can strain groundwater aquifers. The resulting wastewater
is stored in slurry ponds. Some slurry pond dams are larg-
er than the Hoover Dam, storing billions of litres of highly
toxic wastewater.14 Coal slurry contains high quantities of
heavy metals and organic compounds, which can cause
cancer and harm the development of foetuses. Most slurry
ponds are unlined, allowing chemicals to leach into ground
and surface water.
Dams that impound slurry ponds are often built quickly
without adequate protections to ensure their safety and
structural integrity. When coal slurry dams fail, they can
spill millions of litres of toxic coal sludge, poisoning land
and contaminating rivers and streams. In October 2013,
an earthen dam broke, releasing 670 million litres of coal
slurry into tributaries of Canada’s Athabasca River. The
spill contained high concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
mercury and lead, forcing the government to warn com-
munities not to use the river water until the slurry passed
downstream.15
TRANSPORT
BNSF Railway estimates that almost
300 kilograms of coal dust can escape
from each car in a loaded coal train
over a 600-kilometre journey. The coal
dust contaminates air and can lead to
black lung disease in humans. Coal
dust can also contaminate waterways
during rail transport, and through leaks
in damaged coal barges and during the
loading and unloading of barges.
COMBUSTION
Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of tox-
ic water pollution in the US, considering the toxicity of
the pollutants emitted. Wastewater from coal plants con-
tains a number of heavy metals and other toxins, which
harm and kill aquatic life and contaminate drinking water
supplies.16
Coal plants in the
US generate 127
million metric tonnes
of waste annually
– enough to fill a
football stadium
over 60 times.
Acid mine drainage destroys aquatic
ecosystems and contaminates water
supplies
E N D C O A L | 5
Coal plants generate millions of tonnes of heavy-metal
contaminated waste each year. This waste is laced with
arsenic, boron, cadmium, lead, mercury, selenium and
other heavy metals. Coal combustion waste is usual-
ly stored in dry landfills or mixed with water and stored
in unlined pits impounded by earthen dams. The use of
unlined pits increases the risk of pollutants leaching into
surface and groundwater and contaminating drinking wa-
ter supplies.
Dry storage is a better alternative to wet storage. In dry
storage the ash is put into a big landfill. The site must be
covered in order to minimise the risk of toxic dust blowing
off and water contamination from rainwater mixing with the
coal ash. If the bottom of the landfill is not lined with strong
impervious material, heavy metals are likely to leach into
the groundwater.
Air pollution control systems significantly increase the
amount of wastewater generated by coal plants by trans-
ferring pollutants from the air to water. This wastewater
often contaminates groundwater and surface water with
heavy metals at concentrations that harm wildlife and hu-
man health.17
ASH POND
How a Coal Plant Pollutes Water
ASH LANDFILL
Water withdrawals for cooling systems can cause water scarcity
and kill aquatic life.
Thermal water releases kill aquatic life.
Wet ash from boiler and air pollution control filters.
Ash pond spills harm people and destroy ecosystems
Leaching of heavy metals and other toxics pollute water and increase rates of cancer,
birth defects and neurological damage.
If no air pollution controls, sulphur dioxide emissions lead to acid rain, harming plants and wildlife. Mercury
emissions contaminate water, harming wildlife and human foetuses.
6 | C O A L A N D W A T E R F A C T S H E E T
IMPACTS OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE
The toxins contained in coal combustion waste can injure
all of the major human organ systems, harm the develop-
ment of foetuses and children, cause cancer, and increase
mortality. In the US, toxics have leached from coal ash
waste and contaminated drinking water in over 100 com-
munities. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
found that, in some cases, the level of toxics leaching from
coal ash is hundreds to thousands of times greater than
federal drinking water standards. The agency also esti-
mates that people living within one mile of an unlined coal
ash pond have a 1 in 50 risk of getting cancer from drinking
water from contaminated wells. This is over 2,000 times
higher than what the EPA considers acceptable.
The impact of coal pollution on aquatic biodiversity has
been severe. Coal ash pollution has been documented to
cause deformities in fish and amphibians, reduce repro-
ductive rates and wipe out entire populations. Coal com-
bustion waste has caused an estimated US$2.32 billion in
damages to fish and wildlife in the US. Highly toxic seleni-
um is largely responsible for the damages.
The most dramatic impact of coal ash ponds occurs when
they fail. The largest catastrophic failure of a US coal
ash pond dam occurred in December 2008 in Kingston,
Tennessee, dumping nearly 3.8 billion litres of coal ash
slurry into the Emory River. Homes were destroyed and
families were relocated as their lands were smothered
with a toxic sludge. The political power of the coal indus-
try thwarted attempts to regulate coal combustion waste
until recently. 18
MERCURY
Burning coal releases toxic mercury into the air that then
rains down into rivers and streams. This poison then accu-
mulates in the food chain, eventually making its way into
our bodies when we eat contaminated fish. Mercury is a
powerful neurotoxin that can damage the brain and ner-
vous system. Mercury is of special concern to women who
are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, since ex-
posure to mercury can cause developmental problems,
learning disabilities, and delayed onset of walking and
talking in babies and infants.
ENDNOTES
1 J Meldrum et al. 2013. “Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates,” Environmental Research Letters, 8: 015031.
2 “Draining the Life-blood: Groundwater Impacts of Coal Mining in the Galilee Basin,” Hydrocology Environmental Consulting, 23 September 2013, p. 5.
3 US Department of Energy (DOE). 2006. “Energy Demands on Water Resources: Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water.” Washington, DC, p. 20.
4 “Coal Impacts on Water,” Greenpeace, 21 March 2014, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/coal/Water-impacts/
5 “Treading Water: How States Can Minimize the Impact of Power Plants on Aquatic Life,” Grace Communications Foundation, Sierra Club, Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance and River Network, 2013, pp. 4-5.
6 Union of Concerned Scientists website, “How It Works: Water for Power Plant Cooling,” http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/energy-and-water-use/water-energy-electricity-cooling-power-plant.html.
7 Grace Boyle, Jai Krishna R, Lauri Myllyvirta and Owen Pascoe. “Endangered Waters: Impacts of coal-fired power plants on water supply,” Greenpeace India Society, August 2012, p. 5.
8 Boyle et al (2012), p. 3. 9 Melita Steele. “Water Hungry Coal: Burning South Africa’s Water to Produce
Electricity,” Greenpeace Africa, 2012, p. 4.10 Michael Hendryx and Melissa Ahern. Mortality in Appalachian coal mining regions:
the value of statistical life lost. Public Health Reports 2009; 124(4): 541–550.11 Melissa M. Ahern, Michael Hendryx, Jamison Conley, Evan Fedorko, Alan Ducatman
and Keith J. Zullig. The association between mountaintop mining and birth defects among live births in central Appalachia, 1996–2003. Environmental Research, August 2011; 111(6): 838–846.
12 http://programme.worldwaterweek.org/sites/default/files/marius_keet_stockholm.pdf13 Steele (2012), p. 15.14 “Brushy Fork Coal Sludge Impoundment,” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/
Brushy_Fork_coal_sludge_impoundment15 “Cleanup of coal slurry spill into Athabasca ordered by province,” The Canadian
Press, November 19, 2013.16 “The unquenchable thirst of an expanding coal industry,” The Guardian, April 1, 2014.17 Steele (2012), p. 14.18 Gottlieb (2010), pp. vi-20.
RESOURCES
Coal Activist Resource Centre:
endcoal.org
Waterkeeper Alliance:
waterkeeper.org
World Resources Centre:
wri.org/aquaduct
Greenpeace:
http://grnpc.org/IgHhy
Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://bit.ly/1xQuhCR
ENDCOAL.ORG
Dirty coal is desperately trying to clean up its image. Coal proponents
are trying to buy their way into a clean energy future by promoting
“high efficiency, low emissions” coal plants. The coal industry has even
attempted to extract funding from climate finance mechanisms, such as the
Clean Development Mechanism, for more efficient coal plants.
It is time to stop this deception.
Coal-fired power plants produce the dirtiest electricity on the planet. They
poison our air and water and emit far more carbon pollution than any other
electricity source. While pollution control equipment can reduce toxic air
emissions, they do not eliminate all of the pollution. Instead, they transfer
much of the toxic air pollutants to liquid and solid waste streams.
Often, companies and governments prioritise profits over public health and
choose not to install the full suite of available pollution control equipment.
In these cases, toxic pollution still goes into the air, leading to premature
deaths and increased rates of disease.
Coal plants are responsible for 72% of electricity-related greenhouse gas
emissions. Even the most efficient coal plants generate twice as much
carbon pollution as gas-fired power plants and over 20-80 times more
than renewable energy systems.1,2 Technology to capture and store carbon
dioxide is expensive and largely unproven.
Moreover, if you consider the social and environmental costs of coal mining,
preparation and transport, coal generation can never be considered “clean.”
This factsheet describes the technologies used to control pollution and
improve the efficiencies of coal plants.
“Clean Coal” is a Dirty LieCoal fired power station Hunter Valley, NSW. Credit: Greenpeace/Sewell
COAL FACTSHEET #4
Lifetime Impacts of a Typical 550-MW Supercritical Coal Plant with Pollution Controls• 150 million tonnes of CO
2
• 470,000 tonnes of methane
• 7800 kg of lead
• 760 kg of mercury
• 54,000 tonnes NOx
• 64,000 tonnes SOx
• 12,000 tonnes particulates
• 4,000 tonnes of CO
• 15,000 kg of N2O
• 440,000 kg NH3
• 24,000 kg of SF6
• withdraws 420 million m3 of
water from mostly freshwater
sources
• consumes 220 million m3
of water
• discharges 206 million m3
of wastewater back into rivers
Source: “Life Cycle Analysis: Supercritical Pulverized Coal (SCPC) Power Plant.” US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, US DOE/NETL-403–110609, September 30, 2010. We assumed a .70 plant capacity factor and a 50-year lifespan.
2 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 4
The Dirt on “Clean Coal” Technologies
For decades, the coal industry has used the term “clean
coal” to promote its latest technology. Currently, “clean
coal” refers to: 1) plants that burn coal more efficiently;
2) the use of pollution control technologies to capture
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and other
pollutants; and/or 3) technologies to capture carbon dioxide
emissions, known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).
1) IMPROVING EFFICIENCYThe coal industry is promoting the construction of “high
efficiency” plants, which generate more electricity per
kilogram of coal burned. Today, nearly 75% of operating
coal plants are considered subcritical, with plant
efficiencies between 33 and 37% (i.e. between 33% and
37% of the energy in the coal is converted into electricity).
• Supercritical plants, which produce steam at pressures
above the critical pressure of water, can achieve
efficiencies of 42-43%. This “new” technology was first
introduced into commercial service in the 1970s. India
and China have issued national directives to employ
supercritical technology in all new coal plants to reduce
fuel costs.
• Ultra-supercritical (USC) plants can achieve efficiencies
of up to 45% through the use of higher temperature
and pressure.
• Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants
can supposedly achieve efficiencies of up to 50%. In
an IGCC plant, coal gas is used in a combined cycle
gas turbine to reduce heat loss. Few IGCC plants have
been constructed because of their higher capital and
operating costs and more complex technical design.3
• Circulating fluidised bed combustion (CFBC) power
plants burn coal with air in a circulating bed of limestone.
This reduces sulphur dioxide emissions but not
emissions of other pollutants. CFBC is advantageous
because it can burn a variety of fuels, but they are less
efficient than other coal plants.
Supercritical plants reduce CO2 emissions by only 15-20%
compared to subcritical plants. As a result, they still emit
far more CO2 and hazardous pollutants than any other
electricity generation source. In addition, their higher
construction costs have deterred many poorer nations
from adopting these technologies. In 2011, half of all new
coal plants were built with subcritical technology.
2) AIR POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIESAir pollution control technologies can control the release
of many hazardous pollutants into the atmosphere.
However, after these pollutants are captured, they are
often stored in unlined waste ponds or ash dumps.
They can then leach into surface and ground water,
contaminating water supplies on which people and
wildlife depend. In addition, there are currently no
pollution control technologies to eliminate ultra hazardous
pollutants, such as dioxins and furans.
Air pollution controls are expensive, adding hundreds of
millions of dollars to the cost of a coal plant. They can
raise the cost of generation to around 9 US cents per
kilowatt-hour. Pollution controls reduce the efficiency of
coal plants, requiring more coal to be burned per unit of
electricity generated. Project developers often do not
install all available pollution controls to cut costs. Coal
operators sometimes shut off existing pollution controls
to reduce operating costs. In these cases, corporate
profits come at the expense of public health and the
environment.
The following section describes common air pollutants
from coal-fired power plants and technologies used to
control them.
THE CARBON INTENSITY OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Co
al,
sub
crit
ica
l
Co
al,
sup
erc
riti
cal
Co
al,
IGC
C
Na
tura
l Ga
s
So
lar
PV
Ge
oth
erm
al
So
lar
CS
P
Bio
ma
ss
Win
d
12 18 22 45 48
469
838863
1060
All types of coal plants still emit more CO
2 than any
other electricity source.
Gra
ms
of
carb
on
dio
xid
e e
qu
iva
len
t p
er
kilo
wa
tt-h
ou
r
Source: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, Annex II: Methodology, 2011; Whitaker, M. et al (2012). “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Coal-Fired Electricity Generation.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16: S53–S72.
E N D C O A L | 3
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Exposure to fine particulates (less than 1/30th the width
of a human hair) increases rates of heart attack, stroke
and respiratory disease. Fabric filters, or baghouses, are
often used to control the direct emission of particulates.
Baghouses can capture 99.9% of total particulates and 99.0-
99.8% of fine particulates. For a typical 600-MW coal plant,
this system costs about $100 million. If one or two of the
bags break, emissions of particulates can increase 20-fold.
Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) can also be used to
capture particulates. An ESP can capture over 99% of
total particulates and 80-95% of fine particulates. The best
controls include both fabric filters and ESP to achieve even
higher removal of particulates.
While these systems capture the direct emissions of fine
particulates, they do not capture fine particulates which
form in the atmosphere through the reaction of nitrogen
oxides and sulphur dioxide. These fine particulates are of
particular concern to public health.
Sulphur Dioxide
Sulphur dioxide emissions can cause acid rain and lead
to the formation of fine particulates, which increase
cancer and respiratory disease. Two methods to reduce
sulphur emissions are switching to low-sulphur coal
and capturing emissions after combustion. The primary
method of controlling sulphur dioxide emissions is flue gas
desulphurisation, also known as scrubbing or FGD. FGD
may use wet, spray-dry or dry scrubbers.
In the wet scrubber process, exhaust gases are sprayed
with vast amounts of water and lime. The International
Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that wet scrubbers may use
up to 50 tonnes of water per hour. This process generates
a huge slurry of sulphur, mercury and other metals which
must be stored in waste ponds indefinitely. If the dams
that impound the slurry ponds break, millions of litres
of waste can spill into rivers, causing large fish kills and
contaminating drinking and irrigation supplies with heavy
metals and other toxics. Modern scrubbers typically remove
over 95% of SO2 and can achieve capture rates of 98-99%.
Dry scrubber processes are used at some coal plants. In
this process, lime and a smaller amount of water are used
to absorb sulphur and other pollutants. This waste is then
collected using baghouses or electrostatic precipitators.
Modern systems can capture 90% or more of SO2.
FGD is the single most expensive pollution control device
and can cost $300-500 million for a 600-MW plant. This
can amount to roughly 25% of the cost of a new coal plant.
Many new plants do not install FGDs because of their cost.
Nitrogen Oxides
The emissions of nitrogen oxides can lead to the
formation of fine particulates and ozone. These pollutants
can increase rates of respiratory disease, including
Baghouse (PM) $100 million
Selective Catalytic Reduction (N0
x) $300 million
Scrubbers (S02) $400 million
THE MOUNTING COSTS OF A 600-MW COAL PLANT
Activated Carbon Injection (Mercury) $3 million
Ultrasupercritical Technology$95 million additional
Supercritical Technology$130 million additional
Subcritical Technology$770 million
Total Cost = $1.8 billion
Note: C02 emissions are unabated.
Source: IEA Technology Roadmap (March 2013);NESCAUM (2011)
Po
llutio
n C
on
trols
4 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 4
emphysema and bronchitis. Technologies such as low
NOx burners, which use lower combustion temperatures,
can be used to reduce the formation of NOx. After
combustion, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) can be
used to capture NOx pollution. Using a combination of
NOx reduction techniques, emissions can be reduced by
90%. SCR technology costs about $300 million per unit. An
alternative – selective non-catalytic reduction – is cheaper
and can achieve 60-80% control efficiency.
Mercury
Coal burning is the single largest human-caused source
of mercury emissions. Mercury is a neurotoxin, which can
cause birth defects and irreversibly harm the development
of children’s brains. In 2013, 140 nations ratified the UN
Minamata Convention on Mercury and agreed to reduce
their emissions of mercury to the environment.
Mercury emissions can be reduced somewhat by
coal washing, however, this generates mercury-laden
wastewater which can contaminate ground and surface
water. Most mercury emissions can be captured in systems
used to control other pollutants, such as baghouses, SCR
and FGD systems.
A system known as activated carbon injection can also be
used to capture mercury. Together with a baghouse or ESP,
this system can capture up to 90% of mercury emissions
and costs about $3 million for a 600-MW plant.4
3) CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE Some coal advocates assert that carbon capture and
storage (CCS) can reduce carbon dioxide emissions
from coal-fired power plants. CCS involves capturing
carbon dioxide emissions, compressing them into a liquid,
transporting them to a site and injecting them into deep
underground rock formations for permanent storage.
CCS is currently an extremely expensive, unproven
technology, which has not been widely implemented on a
commercial scale. The first barrier to CCS is its economic
viability. Between 25-40% more coal is required to
produce the same amount of energy using this technology.
Consequently, more coal is mined, transported, processed
and burned, increasing the amount of air pollution and
hazardous waste generated by coal plants. The cost of
construction of CCS facilities and the “energy penalty”
more than doubles the costs of electricity generation from
coal, making it economically unviable. The highly touted
600-MW Kemper plant in the US is mired in delays and
cost overruns. Originally projected to cost $2.8 billion,
the plant is now estimated to cost $6.1 billion and is three
years behind schedule.
Furthermore, there are considerable questions about the
technical viability of CCS. It is unclear whether CO2 can be
permanently sequestered underground and what seismic
risks underground storage poses. There are also doubts
about whether there are enough suitable underground
storage sites situated close to coal plants to physically
store the captured carbon dioxide.
ENDNOTES
1 “New unabated coal is not compatible with keeping global warming below 2°C”, Statement by leading climate and energy scientists, November 2013, p.3.
2 Benjamin K. Sovacool, “Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey”, Energy Policy, V. 36, p. 2940 (2008).
3 Technology Roadmap: High-Efficiency, Low-Emissions Coal-Fired Power Generation, OECD/International Energy Agency, Paris, 2012, pg. 24.
4 James E. Staudt, Control Technologies to Reduce Conventional and Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal-Fired Power Plants, Andover Technology Partners, March 31, 2011. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/coal-control-technology-nescaum-report-20110330.pdf
ENDCOAL.ORG
The Limits of Canada’s Boundary Dam ProjectThe coal industry lauded the recent opening of the
110-MW Boundary Dam project in Saskatchewan,
Canada as a milestone in commercial-scale CCS.
However, the US$1.4 billion project would not have
proceeded without $194 million in government sub-
sidies. (The same amount of money could have built
a 240 MW solar PV plant.)
SaskPower considered several options before even-
tually downsizing the project. Retrofitting CCS to an
existing coal plant would have consumed 40% of the
power generated by the plant. A proposal to build a
new 300-MW coal plant with CCS would have cost
$3.1 billion. In a telling sign, SaskPower admitted that
the project was also downsized because it was not
profitable to generate and capture more than one
million tons of CO2 per year. Typical 600-MW coal
plants emit roughly 3.5 million tons of CO2 per year.
Instead of pouring millions of dollars into troubled
CCS pilot projects, governments should prioritize in-
vestments in renewable energy to sustainably meet
our energy needs.
Clean Energy Advantage Declining coal companies are using deceptive PR to push coal for developing countries, but renewable energy is increasingly the choice for energy access in the developing world
Developing countries are choosing renewables Worldwide, solar installations are doubling every two years, with developing countries now installing
renewable energy projects at nearly twice the rate of developed nations. Renewable energy is now projected to overtake coal as the world’s largest source of electricity within the next 20 years.
In Bangladesh, nearly 20 million people get power from solar, and 100,000 household solar systems a month are being installed. India is planning to add wind and solar capacity in the next decade to power hundreds of millions of homes. Within five years, wind turbines in China are expected to produce nearly two and a half times the entire power generating capacity of Britain, and China is on pace to triple its solar power capacity by 2017 to cut its use of coal.
Clean energy is practical, cost-effective, and provides local economic benefit The large majority of people without access to electricity live in rural areas in sub-Saharan Africa and
developing Asia, meaning most are best served by mini-grids or off-grid power coming from renewable sources, according to the International Energy Agency. A Citi group assessment concurs, finding that as a result, coal’s share of total energy in Africa may be cut nearly in half by 2040.
In India, a village located more than five kilometres from the electrical grid can be served by local renewable energy sources far more cost-effectively than by conventional sources given the high costs of grid transmission infrastructure. It’s instructive that while India has doubled its coal capacity since 2002 the country has connected just 6.4% more of its rural population to the grid – coal largely is not serving the rural energy poor. In contrast to the years it can take to build fossil fuel plants, a solar panel can be installed on a roof in one day and a solar plant built in as little as three months.
A large coal power plant can cost over $1 billion, unaffordable for many developing nations. Prices of
utility-scale renewables have dropped to the point where they are meeting or beating coal and gas on price in some markets and will soon in others. In the U.S., wind power is now nearly half the cost of coal and two-thirds the price of natural gas. In a recent solar power auction in India the winning company bid under 9 cents per kilowatt hour, cheaper than using imported coal for power.
Investing in distributed renewables brings jobs and economic stimulus and investment into the communities being served, rather than to corporate coal interests that want to mine coal in the U.S. or Australia and ship it to developing countries. In Bangladesh, solar growth in recent years has created 114,000 jobs. Globally, there were an estimated 6.5 million jobs in renewable energy in 2013 – including 2.6 million in China, 894,000 in Brazil and 391,000 in India – and the numbers are growing. With wind power poised to potentially supply up to 19% of the world’s electricity by 2030, 2 million new jobs would be created.
In a clean energy era, coal companies turn to deception More than 12,800 megawatts of coal-fired power in the U.S. is expected to be shut down in 2015 and
coal use is projected to fall; in Europe, coal demand has fallen to a five-year low and will continue to drop for the next five years. In China, where air pollution from coal has killed millions, plans are in place to cap coal consumption by 2020. More than a third of Chinese provinces have pledged to begin reducing their coal consumption by 2017 and banned construction of new coal power plants.
Transition to cleaner energy than coal in many places is being driven by economics and concern about coal’s massive contribution to climate change and its devastating impacts on human health. Coal corporations are being affected financially. Peabody Energy, the biggest coal company in the world, has lost 88% of its market value and not reported an annual profit since 2011.
Facing further decline as a clean energy era unfolds, the coal industry has turned to a deceptive PR campaign purporting that coal is the way to address the very real problem of energy poverty in developing nations (and so therefore no one should stand in coal’s way). To run the campaign, Peabody Energy hired the same PR company that helped the tobacco industry deny that secondhand smoke is a health problem. In reality, analysis finds that Peabody actually does nothing to address energy poverty except funding PR pushing its product and buying social media likes and followers to fake support. In the cases where coal companies do contribute to programs to directly address energy poverty, those programs don’t use coal to provide energy access – they use distributed energy sources instead.
More information. Photo credits: Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) via Flickr/cc.
Top Related