Home
hamburger menu icon

Coal

Coal remains dominant in the electricity sector, providing 38% of the world's electricity production 1. The absolute growth rate of coal exceeds all other energy sources, with almost all of the growth occurring in developing countries 2.

Problem:
Environmental Impacts of Coal
Solution:
Coal Should Be Phased Out

Cost

Most mainstream estimates for the cost of coal power range from 6 to 12 ¢/kWh.

The image: "Cost of Coal Power.jpg" cannot be found!

Sources for cost estimates: Electric Power Research Institute 3, IEA, NEA, and OECD 4, Kost et al. 5, Lazard 6, Logan et al. 7, OpenEI 8, EIA 9. For more about carbon capture and sequestration, see 3, 7, 9.

Pollution

The following estimates the damages from coal power from mercury, other air pollution, mining, climate change, and other damages.

The image: "coal_externality.svg" cannot be found!

Climate damages assume 820 grams CO₂-equivalent per kilowatt-hour at a social cost of carbon of $50/ton 10, air pollution figures are from Samadi 11, and other figures are from Grausz 12. Major pollutants from coal power are sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrous oxide (NOₓ), particulate matter, and heavy metals, particularly mercury, each of which causes serious health damage to humans and economic damages. The damages are estimated at 1.27-1.84 ¢/kWh 11, though vary widely due to differences in pollution controls 13. Enhanced pollution controls should lower damages in the future. Epstein's mean estimate of 18.8 ¢/kWh 14 of all coal damages is higher than most others. Coal transportation damages are given by Hein and Howard 15. Coal mining, particularly mountaintop removal, cause significant additional ecological impact. Unquantified are external costs associated with coal ash disposal.

Problem:
Methane Leaks
Solution:
Methane Control on Coal Mines

Coal-fired power plants release sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter, among other harmful pollutants. These substances increase mortality due to cancer, diseases of the circulatory system, and diseases of the respiratory system. They also exacerbate asthma and other lung diseases, and contribute to heart disease and other health problems. Coal power plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the world. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can harm the nervous system, particularly in developing fetuses and young children 16,17.

Beyond air pollution, toxins from coal-fired power plants enter the water and thereby damage health 18.

Health

Black lung, more formally known as pneumoconiosis, is a disease caused by long-term exposure to coal dust, afflicting mainly coal miners. Coal mining companies are required to pay for medical treatment for black lung disease caused by their operations, but for companies that have gone bankrupt, the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, funded by the Black Lung Excise Tax, pays for care.

After a lapse, in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act made permanent an increase in the excise tax to up to $1.10/ton of coal, or about 0.05 ¢/kWh 19.

Efficiency

Plant efficiency, achieved by running the boilers at higher pressures and temperatures, reduce the per-kWh impact of coal power. The most efficient plants would save 25% CO₂ relative to today's norm, but they require advanced materials and are more expensive. Estimates of the efficiency of current and future coal plants are as follows.

See also our analysis of coal refuse (waste products of coal mining) and coal ash (waste products of combustion).

The image: "coal_efficiency.svg" cannot be found!

Efficiency of the current world coal plant fleet and different state-of-the-art models. Sources: Beér 20, Cebrucean et al. 21, General Electric 22, Industrial Efficiency Technology Database 23.

Over time, the impact of pollution has been lessened by pollution controls. Since the Clean Air Act of 1970, coal plants have installed flue gas desulphurization (scrubbers) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). These technologies have produced a cost to efficiency of 2% and 1% respectively [2]. The expansion of these technologies over time will nevertheless reduce the health and air pollution impact of coal on a per-kWh basis. However, scrubbers and SCR will not address global warming since these technologies do not capture CO₂.

Over time, the impact of pollution has been lessened by pollution controls. Since the Clean Air Act of 1970, coal plants have installed flue gas desulphurization (scrubbers) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). These technologies have produced a cost to efficiency of 2% and 1% respectively [2]. The expansion of these technologies over time will nevertheless reduce the health and air pollution impact of coal on a per-kWh basis. However, scrubbers and SCR will not address global warming since these technologies do not capture CO₂.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Due to the energy required to capture CO₂ emissions, installation of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) reduces the efficiency of a coal plant by about 10% 21. The costs of capturing CO₂ are estimated from $35 to $95 per ton 24, 25, 26, 27. Moreover, the reduction in efficiency means that more coal is required to produce each kilowatt-hour for the broader economy, raising the non-greenhouse gas costs of coal combustion. This efficiency penalty has been estimated at 12-23 percentage-points 28.

Peat

Peat is partially decayed organic matter harvested primarily from bogs; it can be classified as either a fossil fuel or as bioenergy. Historically, peat was a critical resource in the Dutch Golden Age and served as a basis for a transition between an agrarian economy and an industrial economy 29. Today, peat consumption for energy is about 156 PJ per year, or 0.1% of coal consumption and 0.03% total energy consumption 30. Peat has slightly greater greenhouse emissions than coal 31, 32.

The image: "peat_ghg.svg" cannot be found!

Greenhouse gas emissions of peat 30 and subbituminous coal 32.

Peat mining also imposes significant ecological impacts 33.

References

  1. International Energy Agency. "Global Energy & CO₂ Status Report". Accessed April 3, 2019. ↩

  2. World Energy Council. "World Energy Resources, 2013 Survey". 2013. ↩

  3. Electric Power Research Institute. "Australian Power Generation Technology Report". 2015. ↩ ↩2

  4. International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity: 2015 Edition". September 2015. ↩

  5. Kost, C., Shammugam, S., Jülch, V., Nguyen, H., Schlegl, T. "Levelized Cost of Electricity: Renewable Energy Technologies". Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE. March 2018. ↩

  6. Lazard. "Lazard's Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis - Version 12.0". November 2018. ↩

  7. Logan, J. et al. "Electricity Generation Baseline Report". National Renewable Energy Laboratory. January 2017. ↩ ↩2

  8. OpenEI. "Transparent Cost Database". Accessed May 11, 2019. ↩

  9. U.S. Energy Information Administration. "Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation". February 2019. ↩ ↩2

  10. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. "Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis". Under Executive Order 12866, United States Government. August 2016. ↩

  11. Samadi, S. "The Social Costs of Electricity Generation-Categorising Different Types of Costs and Evaluating Their Respective Relevance". Energies 10(3), pp. 356. 2017. ↩ ↩2

  12. Grausz, S. "The Social Cost of Coal: Implications for the World Bank". Climate Advisors. October 2011. ↩

  13. Committee on Health, Environmental, and Other External Costs and Benefits of Energy Production and Consumption. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 2010. ↩

  14. Paul R. Epstein et al. "Full Cost Accounting for the Life Cycle of Coal". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219, p. 92. 2011. ↩

  15. Hein, J., Howard, P. "Illuminating the Hidden Costs of Coal". Institute for Policy Integrity, New York University School of Law. December 2015. ↩

  16. Minichilli, F., Gorini, F., Bustaffa, E., Cori, L., Bianchi, F. Mortality and hospitalization associated to emissions of a coal power plant: A population-based cohort study. Science of The Total Environment 694: 133757. December 2019. ↩

  17. Fernandes, A. B., Barros, F., L., Peçanha, F.M., Wiggers, G.A., Frizera, V. P., Ronacher, S.M., Fiorim, J., Rossi, dB. P., Fioresi, M., Rossoni, L., Stefanon, I.. Toxic effects of mercury on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. BioMed Research International. January 2012. ↩

  18. Union of Concerned Scientists. Coal and Water Pollution. December 2017 ↩

  19. Internal Revenue Service. "Change in Rate for Coal Excise Tax". Accessed December 21, 2022. ↩

  20. Beér, J. "High Efficiency Electric Power Generation; The Environmental Role". Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 33(2), pp. 107-134. April 2007. ↩

  21. Cebrucean, D., Cebrucean, V., Ionel, I. "CO₂ Capture and Storage from Fossil Fuel Power Plants". Energy Procedia 63, pp. 18-26. 2014. ↩ ↩2

  22. General Electric. "GE Global Power Plant Efficiency Analysis". Accessed June 22, 2019. ↩

  23. Industrial Efficiency Technology Database. "Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Generation". A project of The Institute for Industrial Productivity. Accessed June 22, 2019. ↩

  24. Gillingham, K., Stock, J. "The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions". Journal of Economic Perspectives 32(4), pp. 53-72. November 2018. ↩

  25. Hardisty, P., Sivapalan, M., Brooks, P. "The Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Carbon Capture and Storage". Int J Environ Res Public Health 8(5), pp. 1460-1477. May 2011. ↩

  26. Hu. B,. Zhai, H. "The cost of carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants in China". International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 65, pp. 23-31. 2017. ↩

  27. Rubin, E., Davison, J., Herzog, H. "The cost of CO₂ capture and storage". International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 40, pp. 378-400. September 2015. ↩

  28. Supekar, S., Skerlos, S. "Reassessing the Efficiency Penalty from Carbon Capture in Coal-Fired Power Plants". Environmental Science & Technology 49(20), pp. 12576-12584. 2015. ↩

  29. Kedrosky, D. "Peat's Cradle". Economic History Research. September 2021. ↩

  30. World Energy Council. "World Energy Resources: Peat". 2013. ↩ ↩2

  31. Murphy, F., Devlin, G., McDonnell, K. "Benchmarking Environmental Impacts of Peat Use for Electricity Generation in Ireland-A Life Cycle Assessment". Sustainability 7(6), pp. 6376-6393. May 2015. ↩

  32. U. S. Energy Information Administration. "How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned?". Accessed August 19, 2019. ↩ ↩2

  33. Winkler, M., DeWitt, C. "Environmental Impacts of Peat Mining in the United States: Documentation for Wetland Conservation". Environmental Conservation 12(4), pp. 317-330. Winter 1985. ↩