Global Coal Consumption Reaches New Record High In 2021…China, India Consuming Two Thirds

According to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Coal 2021 report, coal-fired electricity generation reached an all-time high in 2021, increasing a whopping 9% in 2021.

Chart source: IEA

The increase was driven by the rapid economic recovery. Globally, a total of 10,350 terawatt-hours of electricity was generated from coal.

Even worse in terms of the climate protection perspective, the IEA report says that global coal demand could well reach a new all-time high in the next two years and would likely stay near these levels for the next few years.

More than 600 new coal-fired power plants are planned in Asia.

The IEA says China and India now account for two-thirds of global coal consumption, despite their efforts to expand renewables and other low-carbon energy sources.

“Without strong and immediate action by governments to tackle coal emissions – in a way that is fair, affordable and safe for those affected – we will have little, if any, chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said.

The IEA report comes just over a month after the end of the COP 26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. The agreement reached at COP 26 aimed to build on the Paris Agreement and alledgedly prevent the worst impacts of climate change.

The IEA forecast for the future:

At the same time, countries such as Viet Nam, the Philippines and Bangladesh, where very strong growth in coal demand had been expected a few years ago, are now set to show more modest increases as they shift more towards sources of electricity that are less carbon intensive.

However, global coal trends will be shaped largely by China and India, who account for two-thirds of global coal consumption, despite their efforts to increase renewables and other low-carbon energy sources.

In China, coal demand growth is expected to average less than 1% per year between 2022 and 2024.

In India, stronger economic growth and increasing electrification are forecast to drive coal demand growth of 4% per year.

India’s growing appetite for coal is set to add 130 million tonnes (Mt) to coal demand between 2021 and 2024.

For most industrial purposes where coal is used, such as iron and steel production, there are almost NO technologies that can replace coal in the short term.

Based on current trends, global coal demand is set to rise to 8,025 MILLION METRIC TON in 2022, the highest level ever seen, and to remain there through 2024.”

Views: 131


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on January 24, 2022 at 10:25pm


Thank you for the URLs

That article statement is correct.

A clever analysis, which needs to be spread around

Carbon can be Carbon 12, 13 and 14.

Only Carbon 12 is from combustion of fossil fuels.

Whatever quantities of Carbon 13 and 14 there may have been several hundred million years ago, they have decayed to Carbon 12.

At always, Carbon 14 is continuously produced by solar irradiation.

Comment by Lynn Oleum on January 24, 2022 at 8:14pm

"CO2 ... the little that man has put into the atmosphere...."

Carbon-14 has a half life of about 5,000 years. It is continuously produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. Fossil fuels are not exposed to cosmic rays, and therefore contain no carbon-14. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, and the trends of its amounts since 1750 using geologic measurements, Skrable, Chobot,and French concluded that claims that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels since 1750 cannot be supported.

Comment by Lynn Oleum on January 24, 2022 at 7:58pm
Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on January 24, 2022 at 7:04pm

As far as I'm concerned, CO2 is plant food and the little that man has put into the atmosphere has done even less to affect the climate. No global warming here in Maine.

Comment by Willem Post on January 24, 2022 at 7:04pm


URL please

Comment by Lynn Oleum on January 24, 2022 at 6:47pm

"Nothing can compare, except reservoir hydro."

Nuclear is safer. Check Paul Scherer Institut's ENSAD database.

Constructing a dam releases more CO2 as a consequence of concrete and steel production than constructing a nuclear reactor having the same output power.

Comment by Willem Post on January 24, 2022 at 5:17pm


South Korea, China and Russia build modern nuclear plants for about $5000 to $6000/kW, in 5 years

They last at least 60 years.

Nothing can compare, except reservoir hydro

Comment by Lynn Oleum on January 24, 2022 at 4:15pm

There are 52 nuclear power reactors under construction worldwide. Only two in the United States, nearing completion at Vogtle -- which environmentalists want to prevent from opening. Seventeen are under construction in China. Meanwhile, China installs one GWe of coal-fired capacity per week.

Michael Shellenberger documented in "Apocalypse Never" that oil, coal, and gas companies have been paying "environmental" (actually Marxist) groups to oppose nuclear power. Now the Bolsheviks have turned on them.

Comment by Willem Post on January 23, 2022 at 5:33pm




The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up to seven offshore wind systems (never call them farms) on the US East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico; a total of about 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030.


Biden's offshore wind systems would have an adverse, long-term impact on US electricity wholesale prices, and the prices of all other goods and services, because their expensive electricity would permeate into all economic activities.


The wind turbines would be at least 800-ft-tall, which would need to be located at least 30 miles from shores, to ensure minimal disturbance from night-time strobe lights.


Any commercial fishing areas would be significantly impacted by below-water infrastructures and cables. The low-frequency noise (less than 20 cycles per second, aka infrasound) of the wind turbines would adversely affect marine life, and productivity of fishing areas.


Production: Annual production would be about 30,000 x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh of variable, intermittent, wind/weather/season-dependent electricity.


The additional wind production would be about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.

That US load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.


This would require a large capacity of combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, to cost-effectively:


1) Counteract the wind output variations, MW, aka grid balancing

2) Fill-in wind production shortfalls, MWh, during any wind lulls


Such lulls occur at random throughout the year, and may last 5 to 7 days in the New England area.


These URLs provide examples of similar wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England


High Costs of Balancing the Grid with Increased Wind and Solar: The ANNUAL grid balancing costs are entirely due to the variations and intermittencies of wind and solar, because the OTHER power plants have to operate far from their efficient modes of operation, 24/7/365. They experience:


1) More up/down production at lower efficiencies, which have more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh

2) More equipment wear-and-tear cost/kWh, due to up/down production

3) More-frequent plant starts/stops, which have high Btu/kWh, high CO2/kWh


Increased wind and solar also requires:


- Increased hot, synchronous (3600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to immediatelyprovide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.

- Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.  


When wind and solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those balancing costs were minimal, sort of “lost in the data fog”


When wind and solar became a large percent, those balancing costs in the UK became 1.3 BILLION U.K. pounds in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, etc.


Those balancing costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems, but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.


Those balancing costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.


Now you all are finally beginning to see just how wonderful wind and solar have been, and will be, for your pocketbook.


Energy systems analysts, with decades of experience, saw this mess coming about 20 years ago, but all-knowing legislators and bureaucrats ignored them, because they were pressured into aiding and abetting the harvesting of federal and state subsidies.


The Biden fools adding 30,000 MW of very expensive offshore wind, would be donating a financial bonanza to Europe, because it would make oodles of money, plus it would permanently saddle the US, a trade competitor, with much higher energy costs, in addition to the enormous ANNUAL costs of defending Europe.


A master stroke, in deed, and the US is falling into their very expensive, debilitating trap.


BTW, Europe must have wind and solar, because it imports huge quantities of energy (mostly from unfriendly countries), whereas the US is nearly energy independent


Turnkey Capital Cost: The turnkey capital cost for wind systems, plus offshore/onshore grid extension/augmentation would be about 30,000 MW x $5,000,000/MW = $150 BILLION, excluding financing costs. Biden’s excessive inflation rates, about 7% at present, surely would increase that cost.


Area Requirements: The 8-MW wind turbines would be arranged on a grid, spaced at least one mile apart (8 rotor diameters), about 1 sq mile per wind turbine. The minimum sea area requirement for 30,000/8 = 3,750 wind turbines would be 3,750 sq miles, or 2,400,000 acres


Electricity Cost/kWh: Based on the real-world European, mostly UK and German, operating experience in the North Sea and Baltic, such highly subsidized wind turbine systems:


1) Last about 20 years

2) Have high maintenance and operating costs, due to the adverse marine environment

3) Produce electricity at an “al-in” cost of about 2 times the “calculated” values


The “all-in” wholesale prices of the offshore electricity of new systems are calculated at about 17 c/kWh, without cost shifting and subsidies, and about 9 c/kWh, with cost shifting and subsidies. The shifted costs and subsidies would result in:


1) Increased tax burdens on taxpayers

2) Increased household electric rates on ratepayers

3) Additions to federal and state government debts.

4) Additional burdens on the owners of traditional generators, because their power plants have to counteract the wind output variations, 24/7/365; the more wind (and solar), the greater the electricity quantities involved in the counteracting, plus their plants have to spend more time on standby, and are required to have more-frequent start/stops. See URLs and Appendix


NOTE: These rates compare with the average New England wholesale price of 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:


1) Abundant, domestic, natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, that have: 1) low-cost/kWh, low-CO2/kWh, extremely-low particulate/kWh

2) Domestic, uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh

3) Long-lasting hydro plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero-CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh


NOTE: Cost shifting and subsidies have not yet affected NE wholesale prices, because the percent of new RE (mostly wind and solar) on the NE grid is very small, after 20 years of subsidies.

The image shows the negligeable “contribution” of wind + solar to the NE grid load, during 2021, after 20 years of subsidies!!


Wind and solar became significant in Germany and Denmark after more than 20 years of subsidies, resulting in:


- Politicians excessively allocating RE costs to households, thereby greatly increasing household electric rates.

- Politicians keeping industrial rates artificially low for international competitiveness reasons (a hidden trade subsidy). See URL


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service