THE DIRTY FACTS ABOUT COAL

COAL FACTSHEET #1

THE DIRTY FACTS ABOUT COAL Impacts of Coal on Health & the Environment

O

ur 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 in Perspective Coal’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

Impacts of the Coal Life Cycle 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.

1. MINING Large 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.

After 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. TRANSPORT The 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 |

COAL FACTSHEET #1

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.

Globally, over 350,000 people die prematurely each year due to air pollution from coal-fired power plants and millions more suffer serious illnesses.

2. PREPARATION/WASHING

2

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.

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

1. MINING

Mountaintop removal, surface and underground

2. PREPARATION

Destroys forests, uproots communities.

Heavy metals and other toxics contaminate water. Rivers and streams are polluted, harming communities and wildlife. Coal washing consumes fresh water.

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.

Leaching of heavy metals and other toxics contaminates water, harming communities and wildlife. Coal washing consumes fresh water.

3. TRANSPORT Coal dust increases heart and lung disease.

4. COMBUSTION

Water withdrawals for cooling systems can cause water scarcity and kill aquatic life.

Thermal water releases kill aquatic life.

ASH LANDF LANDFILL

Leaching of heavy metals and other toxics pollute water and increase rates of cancer, birth defects and neurological damage. Spills harm humans and ecosystems.

ENDCOAL

|

3

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.

Investing in Clean Energy 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

4

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.

ENDNOTES

RESOURCES

1 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.5 2 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/mediacentre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf 8 “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.

Coal Activist Resource Centre: endcoal.org

|

COAL FACTSHEET #1

Greenpeace International: greenpeace.org/ coal

ENDCOAL.ORG

Sierra Club: sierraclub.org/coal Union of Concerned Scientists: ucsusa.org/clean_ energy/ International Renewable Energy Agency: irena.org

COAL FACTSHEET #2

Towards Climate Catastrophe The Contribution of Coal to Climate Change

C

oal is the single biggest contributor to humancaused 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 2째C 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.

Graph 1

CO2 emissions by sector, electricity related CO2 emissions by fuel 4

CO2 EMISSIONS

BY SECTOR Residential 6%

Other sectors 10% Electricity 41%

Industry 20%

Other transport 6%

Road transport 16%

ELECTRICITY-RELATED CO2 EMISSIONS BY FUEL Other 1%

Natural Gas 21% Oil 7% Coal 72%

The golden decade of coal and record breaking global temperatures 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) GtCO2.6

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

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.

Coal expansion increases temperatures by 4-6°C GLOBAL COAL DEMAND 6DS

200

Proj

n ectio

s

EJ

150

100

r H ist o

i ca

2DS

l

50

0 2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

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 sealevel 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.

Graph 2: Increase in global coal demand in relation to increase in temperatures 14

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.

2 | COAL FACTSHEET #2

Most fossil fuel reserves must remain underground 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

FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES 3,863 GtC02

Oil 982 GtCO2

Gas 690 GtCO2

Coal 2,191 GtCO2

2°C budget 1050 GtCO2 Graph 3: Fossil fuel reserves and 2 degrees Celsius 18

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.

Shifting from coal 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.

Delaying change only costs more Early 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 preindustrial 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

ENDCOAL | 3

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.

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

ENDCOAL.ORG

“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

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-tracker 4 Foster, V and Bedrosyan, D. 2014. Understanding CO2 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/understandingco2-emissions-global-energy-sector 5 IPCC WG3 AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, Pg 5. http:// report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-forpolicymakers_approved.pdf 6 ibid 7 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 18 9 IEA pg 49 10 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-centurycoal-workshop/ 11 Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2012 – Market Trends and Projections to 2017, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2012

4 | COAL FACTSHEET #2

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-logicof-climate-change/ 14 IEA. Pg 46 15 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.pdf 19 IPCC AR5, op cit 20 IPCC AR5 op cit, Pg 20 21 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/04/21/ipccchair-delaying-climate-action-raises-risks-costs 22 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/29/3464918/climateeconomy-white-house-report/

COAL FACTSHEET #3

INSATIABLE THIRST

How Coal Consumes and Contaminates Our Water 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

O

ne 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 toxins at levels that significantly harm humans and wildlife.

Exposure to this toxic stew has increased the rates of human birth defects, disease and premature deaths. The impacts 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

local wells unusable and impacting nearby rivers.2

During mining operations, enormous amounts of groundwater 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

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 countries. This is detailed in Part 2 of this factsheet.

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 water 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.

THIRSTY COOLING SYSTEMS The amount of water withdrawn from freshwater sources and consumed by coal plants varies significantly depending on the type of cooling system used and the location

Graph 1

Water Consumption for a 1000 MW Coal Plant

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.

of coal plants. Coal plants with once-through cooling systems withdraw tremendous amounts of water with disastrous 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 temperatures 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 systems 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 systems are expensive and energy-intensive. Power plants with dry cooling must burn more coal for operation, decreasing 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 2 | C OA L A N D WAT E R FAC T S H E E T

The Tradeoffs of Coal Generation

to ual q e

equal to 1000 MW Coal Plant in India: 30-35 million cubic metres of water (That’s enough to fill over 12,000 Olympic swimming pools.)

Irrigation: 7,000 hectares of agricultural land

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 hundreds 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 meters 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 (assuming 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 bases, predominately in western provinces, despite projections 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

Basic Water Needs: 670,000 urban residents

resources per capita in these parched areas are only 1/10th of the national average. Coal development would consume 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 pristine, 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 scarcity 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.

ENDCOAL | 3

PART 2: How The Coal Life Cycle Pollutes Our Water MINING Surface mining dramatically alters natural water flow, increasing flooding and jeopardising the safety of downstream communities. When open pit mines are constructed, 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, erosion 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.

Since the impacts of acid mine drainage occur long after a mine has been abandoned, the liability and high cleanup costs typically fall on local governments and taxpayers.

PREPARATION After it is mined, coal is typically washed with water or other 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 larger 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.

An estimated 3840 km of streams have been buried by mountaintop Dams that impound slurry ponds are often built quickly removal mining in the without adequate protections to ensure their safety and Appalachia region of structural integrity. When coal slurry dams fail, they can the United States. The spill millions of litres of toxic coal sludge, poisoning land Acid mine drainage destroys aquatic ecosystems and contaminates water effects of these valley and contaminating rivers and streams. In October 2013, supplies fills are irreversible. an earthen dam broke, releasing 670 million litres of coal Communities living slurry into tributaries of Canada’s Athabasca River. The near mountaintop removal mining have suffered from inspill contained high concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, creased rates of lung cancer and heart, respiratory and mercury and lead, forcing the government to warn comkidney disease due to their exposure to contaminated munities not to use the river water until the slurry passed water. Researchers found that 4432 people in this region downstream.15 died prematurely from 1999-2005, largely due to drinking contaminated water.10 Communities also expeCoal plants in the rienced a 26 percent higher rate of birth defects.11 BNSF Railway estimates that almost US generate 127 300 kilograms of coal dust can escape million metric tonnes Acid mine drainage is one of the most from each car in a loaded coal train serious impacts of coal mining. When over a 600-kilometre journey. The coal of waste annually water interacts with rock exposed dust contaminates air and can lead to – enough to fill a by mining, naturally occurring heavy black lung disease in humans. Coal metals such as aluminium, arsenic dust can also contaminate waterways football stadium and mercury are released into the enduring rail transport, and through leaks over 60 times. vironment. Acid mine drainage conin damaged coal barges and during the taminates ground and surface water, loading and unloading of barges. 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.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of toxA South African Water Ministry official publicly called acid ic water pollution in the US, considering the toxicity of mine drainage “the greatest environmental challenge the pollutants emitted. Wastewater from coal plants conever.”12 South Africa has nearly 6000 abandoned mines. tains a number of heavy metals and other toxins, which Some estimate that nearly 200 million litres of acid mine harm and kill aquatic life and contaminate drinking water drainage per day threaten to pollute the Vaal River basin.13 supplies.16

TRANSPORT

COMBUSTION

4 | C OA L A N D WAT E R FAC T S H E E T

How a Coal Plant Pollutes Water

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.

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 LANDFILL

ASH POND

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.

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 usually 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 water 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 transferring pollutants from the air to water. This wastewater often contaminates groundwater and surface water with heavy metals at concentrations that harm wildlife and human health.17 ENDCOAL | 5

IMPACTS OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE The toxins contained in coal combustion waste can injure all of the major human organ systems, harm the development 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 communities. 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 estimates 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 reproductive rates and wipe out entire populations. Coal combustion waste has caused an estimated US$2.32 billion in damages to fish and wildlife in the US. Highly toxic selenium 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 industry 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 accumulates 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 nervous system. Mercury is of special concern to women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, since exposure to mercury can cause developmental problems, learning disabilities, and delayed onset of walking and talking in babies and infants.

ENDNOTES

RESOURCES

1

Coal Activist Resource Centre: endcoal.org

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-andwater-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.pdf 13 Steele (2012), p. 15.

14 “Brushy Fork Coal Sludge Impoundment,” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ Brushy_Fork_coal_sludge_impoundment 15 “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.

6 | C OA L A N D WAT E R FAC T S H E E T

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

COAL FACTSHEET #4

“Clean Coal” is a Dirty Lie Coal fired power station Hunter Valley, NSW. Credit: Greenpeace/Sewell

D

irty 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.

Lifetime Impacts of a Typical 550-MW Supercritical Coal Plant with Pollution Controls • • • • • • • • • • • •

150 million tonnes of CO2 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.

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 EFFICIENCY

• 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

The 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).

• 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, 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.

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.

THE CARBON INTENSITY OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION 1200

2) AIR POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

All types of coal plants still emit more CO2 than any other electricity source.

1060

1000 838

863

800

600

469

Coal, subcritical

22 45 48

Coal, supercritical

18

Coal, IGCC

12

Natural Gas

Solar CSP

Solar PV

Biomass

200

Geothermal

400

Wind

Grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour

• Ultra-supercritical (USC) plants can achieve efficiencies of up to 45% through the use of higher temperature and pressure.

0 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.

2 | COAL FACTSHEET #4

Air 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.

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 99.099.8% 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.

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

Activated Carbon Injection (Mercury) $3 million Baghouse (PM) $100 million

Selective Catalytic Reduction (N0x) $300 million

Pollution Controls

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.

THE MOUNTING COSTS OF A 600-MW COAL PLANT

Scrubbers (S02) $400 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)

ENDCOAL | 3

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

The Limits of Canada’s Boundary Dam Project The 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 subsidies. (The same amount of money could have built a 240 MW solar PV plant.)

SaskPower considered several options before eventually 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 investments in renewable energy to sustainably meet our energy needs.

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

ENDCOAL.ORG

4 | COAL FACTSHEET #4

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-technologynescaum-report-20110330.pdf

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.