Around the world, coal-fired power plants are running at half capacity and fewer are being built. With one significant exception: China.
Slowly, and with culpable delay, it really does seem that the international community is on the right path to leaving coal definitively behind and moving towards cleaner, more affordable and more sustainable energy sources. But there are some notable exceptions. Such as China, which appears ready to do whatever it takes to reinvigorate an economy badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic.
White smoke had risen from its chimneys for thirty-seven consecutive years, clearly visible for kilometres from the fields lining Lake Ontario, which marks the border with Canada. Until 31 March, the date on which the last remaining coal-fired power plant in the entire state of New York permanently shut down its turbines. Owned by Somerset Operating Company, the 675-megawatt facility employed around forty people. For at least five years, local press has noted, it had not been running for more than a month at a stretch. Despite the electoral proclamations of President Donald Trump, coal is now off the market in the US too, squeezed out by competition from natural gas and, above all, from renewable energy.
Read also: In 2019, global investment in renewables grows, if only slightly
Complementing the market dynamics, in summer 2019 came the climate law passed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, which sets far more ambitious targets for New York than those adopted by other federal states. Chief among them: generating 100 per cent of electricity using zero-emission technologies by 2040.
But can New York be considered an isolated case? The Boom and bust report — produced by Global energy monitor, Sierra club, Greenpeace and Crea (Center for research on energy and clean air) — which tracks all new coal-related projects each year, whether already under construction or merely approved by the authorities, provides an answer. In 2019, the latter recorded a decline for the fourth consecutive year. Partly because 33 states (and 27 federal states or administrations) have pledged to accelerate the transition to clean energy; and partly because 126 major banks, insurance companies and asset managers have (wholly or partially) cut off credit to the single most polluting energy source of all.
Read also: The European Investment Bank changes course on fossil fuels
The amount of energy generated from coal over the course of the year fell by 3 per cent compared to 2018, with even sharper drops in the US (minus 16 per cent) and the European Union (minus 24 per cent). On average, power plants are active for 51 per cent of their standard operating hours. The pace of new construction is also slowing, recording a minus 16 per cent between 2018 and 2019.
The report notes that last year 68.3 GW of new capacity was commissioned and 34.2 GW was decommissioned, resulting in a slightly positive net balance. The global figure, however, is only indicative up to a point, because there are vast differences from one territory to another. On one side is the camp of those gradually abandoning coal, led by the US (minus 16.5 GW in a year) and the European Union (minus 7.5 GW). On the other, there are still those who persist with this harmful and anachronistic source. First and foremost China, which alone commissioned 64 per cent of newly installed capacity, for a total of 43.8 GW. Next come India (8.1 GW), Malaysia (2.6 GW), Indonesia (2.4 GW) and Pakistan (2 GW).
The boom under way in the Asian giant is the logical result of authorisations granted in rapid succession between 2014 and 2016. A dangerous trend that could be replicated in the future, according to Lauri Myllyvirta, chief analyst at the Centre for research on energy and clean air. Once operational, he explains, the plants currently under construction will produce far more energy than is needed. Yet the local lobby fully intends to propose hundreds more between now and 2030. And there is always the risk that, in its frenzy to boost the economy after the coronavirus shock, the government will seek to interfere as little as possible with investments — even when they are plainly at odds with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
