coal-fired power station

{{See also|Power station#History}}

File:Edison Electric Light Station, Holborn Viaduct, London.jpg in London, the world's first public steam-driven coal power station, opened in 1882]]

The first coal-fired power stations were built in the late 19th century and used reciprocating engines to generate direct current. Steam turbines allowed much larger plants to be built in the early 20th century and alternating current was used to serve wider areas.

File:Grand Junction Trip 92007 098.JPG near Helper, Utah]]{{Uncited-section|date=May 2023}}

Coal is delivered by highway truck, rail, barge, collier ship or coal slurry pipeline. Generating stations are sometimes built next to a mine; especially one mining coal, such as lignite, which is not valuable enough to transport long-distance; so may receive coal by conveyor belt or massive diesel-electric-drive trucks. A large coal train called a "unit train" may be 2 km long, containing 130-140 cars with around 100 tonnes of coal in each one, for a total load of over 10,000 tonnes. A large plant under full load requires at least one coal delivery this size every day. Plants may get as many as three to five trains a day, especially in "peak season" during the hottest summer or coldest winter months (depending on local climate) when power consumption is high.

Modern unloaders use rotary dump devices, which eliminate problems with coal freezing in bottom dump cars. The unloader includes a train positioner arm that pulls the entire train to position each car over a coal hopper. The dumper clamps an individual car against a platform that swivels the car upside down to dump the coal. Swiveling couplers enable the entire operation to occur while the cars are still coupled together. Unloading a unit train takes about three hours.

Shorter trains may use railcars with an "air-dump", which relies on air pressure from the engine plus a "hot shoe" on each car. This "hot shoe" when it comes into contact with a "hot rail" at the unloading trestle, shoots an electric charge through the air dump apparatus and causes the doors on the bottom of the car to open, dumping the coal through the opening in the trestle. Unloading one of these trains takes anywhere from an hour to an hour and a half. Older unloaders may still use manually operated bottom-dump rail cars and a "shaker" attached to dump the coal.

A collier (cargo ship carrying coal) may hold {{convert|40000|long ton|tonne|order=flip}} of coal and takes several days to unload. Some colliers carry their own conveying equipment to unload their own bunkers; others depend on equipment at the plant. For transporting coal in calmer waters, such as rivers and lakes, flat-bottomed barges are often used. Barges are usually unpowered and must be moved by tugboats or towboats.

For start up or auxiliary purposes, the plant may use fuel oil as well. Fuel oil can be delivered to plants by pipeline, tanker, tank car or truck. Oil is stored in vertical cylindrical steel tanks with capacities as high as {{convert|90000|oilbbl|m3|order=flip}}. The heavier no. 5 "bunker" and no. 6 fuels are typically steam-heated before pumping in cold climates.

{{See also|Thermal power station}}

File:PowerStation3.svg

As a type of thermal power station, a coal-fired power station converts chemical energy stored in coal successively into thermal energy, mechanical energy and, finally, electrical energy. The coal is usually pulverized and then burned in a pulverized coal-fired boiler. The heat from the burning pulverized coal converts boiler water to steam, which is then used to spin turbines that turn generators. Compared to a thermal power station burning other fuel types, coal specific fuel processing and ash disposal is required.

For units over about 200 MW capacity, redundancy of key components is provided by installing duplicates of the forced and induced draft fans, air preheaters, and fly ash collectors. On some units of about 60 MW, two boilers per unit may instead be provided. The hundred largest coal power stations range in size from 3,000 MW to 6,700 MW.

{{Uncited-section|date=May 2023}}

Coal is prepared for use by crushing the rough coal to pieces less than {{Convert|5|cm|abbr=on|sigfig=1}} in size. The coal is then transported from the storage yard to in-plant storage silos by conveyor belts at rates up to 4,000 tonnes per hour.

In plants that burn pulverized coal, silos feed coal to pulverizers (coal mills) that take the larger 5 cm pieces, grind them to the consistency of talcum powder, sort them, and mix them with primary combustion air, which transports the coal to the boiler furnace and preheats the coal in order to drive off excess moisture content. A 500 MW_e plant may have six such pulverizers, five of which can supply coal to the furnace at 250 tonnes per hour under full load.

In plants that do not burn pulverized coal, the larger 5 cm pieces may be directly fed into the silos which then feed either mechanical distributors that drop the coal on a traveling grate or the cyclone burners, a specific kind of combustor that can efficiently burn larger pieces of fuel.

{{further|Fluidized bed combustion| Circulating fluidized bed}}{{Uncited-section|date=May 2023}}

Plants designed for lignite (brown coal) are used in locations as varied as Germany, Victoria, Australia, and North Dakota. Lignite is a much younger form of coal than black coal. It has a lower energy density than black coal and requires a much larger furnace for equivalent heat output. Such coals may contain up to 70% water and ash, yielding lower furnace temperatures and requiring larger induced-draft fans. The firing systems also differ from black coal and typically draw hot gas from the furnace-exit level and mix it with the incoming coal in fan-type mills that inject the pulverized coal and hot gas mixture into the boiler.

The ash is often stored in ash ponds. Although the use of ash ponds in combination with air pollution controls (such as wet scrubbers) decreases the amount of airborne pollutants, the structures pose serious health risks for the surrounding environment.{{Cite news |url=https://trib.com/business/energy/mixing-water-powder-river-basin-coal-ash-dangerous-to-human/article_9a85a08e-8d70-5dad-b059-b861d2a34757.html|title=Mixing water, Powder River Basin coal ash dangerous to human health, new research finds |last=Erickson |first=Camille |date=7 October 2019 |work=Casper Star-Tribune |location=Casper, WY}} Power utility companies have often built the ponds without liners, especially in the United States, and therefore chemicals in the ash can leach into groundwater and surface waters.{{Cite web |url=https://blackwarriorriver.org/new-coal-ash-pollution-maps/ |title=New Interactive Maps of Groundwater Pollution Reveal Threats Posed by Alabama Power Coal Ash Pits |last=Brooke |first=Nelson |date=5 June 2019 |website=Black Warrior Riverkeeper |location=Birmingham, AL}}

Since the 1990s, power utilities in the U.S. have designed many of their new plants with dry ash handling systems. The dry ash is disposed in landfills, which typically include liners and groundwater monitoring systems.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, D.C. (21 June 2010)."Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals From Electric Utilities; Proposed rule." Federal Register, {{usfr|75|35151}} Dry ash may also be recycled into products such as concrete, structural fills for road construction and grout.{{cite journal |last1=Scott |first1=Allan N. |last2=Thomas |first2=Michael D. A. | title=Evaluation of Fly Ash From Co-Combustion of Coal and Petroleum Coke for Use in Concrete |journal=ACI Materials Journal |volume=104 |issue=1 |pages=62–70 |publisher=American Concrete Institute |location=Farmington Hills, MI |date=January–February 2007 |doi=10.14359/18496}}

{{main|Fly ash}}{{Uncited-section|date=May 2023}}

Fly ash is captured and removed from the flue gas by electrostatic precipitators or fabric bag filters (or sometimes both) located at the outlet of the furnace and before the induced draft fan. The fly ash is periodically removed from the collection hoppers below the precipitators or bag filters. Generally, the fly ash is pneumatically transported to storage silos and stored on site in ash ponds, or transported by trucks or railroad cars to landfills.

{{main|Bottom ash}}{{Uncited-section|date=May 2023}}

At the bottom of the furnace, there is a hopper for collection of bottom ash. This hopper is kept filled with water to quench the ash and clinkers falling down from the furnace. Arrangements are included to crush the clinkers and convey the crushed clinkers and bottom ash to on-site ash ponds, or off-site to landfills. Ash extractors are used to discharge ash from municipal solid waste–fired boilers.

File:Coal-fired plant animation.ogv

Effective energy policy, law and electricity markets are essential for grid flexibility.{{Cite web|url=https://webstore.iea.org/status-of-power-system-transformation-2018-summary-for-policy-makers|title=Status of Power System Transformation 2018: Summary for Policy Makers|website=IEA Webstore|access-date=3 July 2019|archive-date=10 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200510205937/https://webstore.iea.org/status-of-power-system-transformation-2018-summary-for-policy-makers|url-status=dead}} While the flexibility of some coal-fired power stations can be enhanced, they generally offer less dispatchable generation than most gas-fired power plants. A key aspect of flexibility is low minimum load;{{Cite web|url=https://www.vgb.org/en/flexibility_toolbox.html?dfid=90943|title=Flexibility Toolbox|website=vgb.org|access-date=3 July 2019}} however, certain flexibility upgrades for coal plants may be more costly than deploying renewable energy sources with battery storage.{{Cite web|url=https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-powers-latest-plunge-costs-threatens-coal-gas/|title=Battery Power's Latest Plunge in Costs Threatens Coal, Gas|date=26 March 2019|website=BloombergNEF|access-date=3 July 2019}}

File:Global-electricity-prod-source.png

{{As of|2020|}} two-thirds of coal burned is to generate electricity. In 2020 coal was the largest source of electricity at 34%.{{Cite web|title=Global Electricity Review 2021 - Global Trends|url=https://ember-climate.org/project/global-electricity-review-2021/|url-status=live|access-date=7 July 2021|website=Ember|date=28 March 2021 |language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210328230247/https://ember-climate.org/project/global-electricity-review-2021/ |archive-date=28 March 2021 }} Over half of global coal-fired generation in 2020 occurred in China, and coal provided approximately 60% of electricity in China, India and Indonesia.

Globally in 2020, 2,059 GW of coal-fired capacity was operational, with 50 GW newly commissioned and 25 GW under construction (primarily in China), while 38 GW was retired (mainly in the US and EU).{{Cite web|title=Boom and Bust 2021: TRACKING THE GLOBAL COAL PLANT PIPELINE|url=https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BoomAndBust_2021_final.pdf|url-status=live|website=Global Energy Monitor|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210406013232/https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BoomAndBust_2021_final.pdf |archive-date=6 April 2021 }}

By 2023, global coal power capacity had increased to 2,130 GW, largely due to 47.4 GW of additions in China.{{Cite journal |last1=Monitor |first1=Global Energy |last2=CREA |last3=E3G |last4=Finance |first4=Reclaim |last5=Club |first5=Sierra |last6=SFOC |last7=Network |first7=Kiko |last8=Europe |first8=C. a. N. |last9=Groups |first9=Bangladesh |last10=Asia |first10=Trend |last11=ACJCE |last12=Sustentable |first12=Chile |last13=POLEN |last14=ICM |last15=Arayara |date=2024-04-10 |title=Boom and Bust Coal 2024 |url=https://globalenergymonitor.org/report/boom-and-bust-coal-2024/ |journal=Global Energy Monitor |language=en-US |pages=11}}{{Rp|pages=7-64}}

While some nations pledged to transition away from coal power at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) through the Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement, significant challenges persist, especially in developing countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam.{{Cite journal |last1=Do |first1=Thang Nam |last2=Burke |first2=Paul J. |date=2024-06-01 |title=Phasing out coal power in two major Southeast Asian thermal coal economies: Indonesia and Vietnam |journal=Energy for Sustainable Development |volume=80 |pages=101451 |doi=10.1016/j.esd.2024.101451 |issn=0973-0826|doi-access=free |bibcode=2024ESusD..8001451D |hdl=1885/317223 |hdl-access=free }}

There are 4 main types of coal-fired power station in increasing order of efficiency are: subcritical, supercritical, ultra-supercritical and cogeneration (also called combined heat and power or CHP).{{Cite web|title=Coal|url=https://www.iea.org/tcep/power/coal/|access-date=5 July 2019|website=iea.org}} Subcritical is the least efficient type, however recent innovations have allowed retrofits to older subcritical plants to meet or even exceed efficiency of supercritical plants.{{Cite web|last=Patel|first=Sonal|date=3 August 2020|title=Xuzhou 3 Shows the Future of Subcritical Coal Power Is Sublime|url=https://www.powermag.com/xuzhou-3-shows-the-future-of-subcritical-coal-power-is-sublime/|access-date=4 August 2020|website=POWER Magazine|language=en-US}}

{{main|Integrated gasification combined cycle}}

Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is a coal-based power generation technology that uses a high-pressure gasifier to convert coal (or other carbon-based fuels) into pressurized synthesis gas (syngas). The gasification process allows the use of a combined cycle generator, typically achieving higher efficiency. IGCC also facilitates removal of certain pollutants from the syngas before power generation. However, this technology is more expensive than conventional coal-fired power stations.

File:Greenhouse gas emissions per energy source.png

{{See also|Fossil fuel power station#Carbon dioxide}}

As coal is mainly carbon, coal-fired power stations have a high carbon intensity. On average, coal power stations emit far more greenhouse gas per unit electricity generated compared with other energy sources (see also life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources). In 2018 coal burnt to generate electricity emitted over 10 Gt {{CO2}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy-data-explorer|title=Emissions|website=iea.org|access-date=4 July 2019|archive-date=12 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190812215445/https://www.iea.org/geco/emissions/|url-status=dead}} of the 34 Gt total from fuel combustion{{Cite web|url=https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf|title=BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019}} (the overall total greenhouse gas emissions for 2018 was 55 Gt {{CO2}}e{{Cite web|url=http://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019|title=Emissions Gap Report 2019|last=Environment|first=U. N.|date=19 November 2019|website=UNEP - UN Environment Programme|language=en|access-date=22 January 2020}}).

{{See also|Coal phase out}}

{{multiple image | total_width=450

| image1=2000- Retired coal-fired power capacity - Global Energy Monitor.svg |caption1= The annual amount of coal plant capacity being retired increased into the mid-2010s. However, the rate of retirement has since stalled,{{cite web |title=Retired Coal-fired Power Capacity by Country / Global Coal Plant Tracker |url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t3gO35bzcVI8ekq9318jBUq6nd7UADcut4gY3vjHZMM/edit#gid=1751753356 |publisher=Global Energy Monitor |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230409194508/https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t3gO35bzcVI8ekq9318jBUq6nd7UADcut4gY3vjHZMM/edit#gid=1751753356 |archive-date=9 April 2023 |date=2023 |url-status=live }} — Global Energy Monitor's [https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/summary-tables/ Summary of Tables] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230408201908/https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/summary-tables/ archive]) and global coal phase-out is not yet compatible with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.{{cite web |author1=Shared attribution: Global Energy Monitor, CREA, E3G, Reclaim Finance, Sierra Club, SFOC, Kiko Network, CAN Europe, Bangladesh Groups, ACJCE, Chile Sustentable |title=Boom and Bust Coal / Tracking the Global Coal Plant Pipeline |url=https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Boom-Bust-Coal-2023.pdf |page=3 |publisher=Global Energy Monitor |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230407125552/https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Boom-Bust-Coal-2023.pdf |archive-date=7 April 2023 |date=5 April 2023 |url-status=live}}

| image2= 2000- New coal-fired power capacity - Global Energy Monitor.svg |caption2= In parallel with retirement of some coal plant capacity, other coal plants are still being added, though the annual amount of added capacity has been declining since the 2010s.{{cite web |title=New Coal-fired Power Capacity by Country / Global Coal Plant Tracker |url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j35F0WrRJ9dbIJhtRkm8fvPw0Vsf-JV6G95u7gT-DDw/edit#gid=647531100 |publisher=Global Energy Monitor |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230319120539/https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1j35F0WrRJ9dbIJhtRkm8fvPw0Vsf-JV6G95u7gT-DDw/edit#gid=647531100 |archive-date=19 March 2023 |date=2023 |url-status=live}} — Global Energy Monitor's [https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/summary-tables/ Summary of Tables] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20230408201908/https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/summary-tables/ archive])

}}

From 2015 to 2020, although coal generation hardly fell in absolute terms, some of its market share was taken by wind and solar. In 2020 only China increased coal power generation, and globally it fell by 4%. However, in 2021, China declared that it limited coal generation until 2025 and subsequently phase it out over time.{{Cite journal |last1=Overland |first1=Indra |last2=Loginova |first2=Julia |date=2023-08-01 |title=The Russian coal industry in an uncertain world: Finally pivoting to Asia? |journal=Energy Research & Social Science |volume=102 |pages=103150 |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2023.103150 |issn=2214-6296|doi-access=free |bibcode=2023ERSS..10203150O }} The UN Secretary General has said that OECD countries should stop generating electricity from coal by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2040, otherwise limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, a target of the Paris Agreement, would be extremely difficult. A 2024 analysis by The Economist concluded that financing phase-out would be cheaper than carbon offsets. However phasing out in Asia can be a financial challenge as plants there are relatively young: in China the co-benefits of closing a plant vary greatly depending on its location.{{Cite journal|last1=Wang|first1=Pu|last2=Lin|first2=Cheng-Kuan|last3=Wang|first3=Yi|last4=Liu|first4=Dachuan|last5=Song|first5=Dunjiang|last6=Wu|first6=Tong|date=29 November 2021|title=Location-specific co-benefits of carbon emissions reduction from coal-fired power plants in China|journal=Nature Communications|language=en|volume=12|issue=1|pages=6948|doi=10.1038/s41467-021-27252-1|pmid=34845194 |pmc=8629986 |bibcode=2021NatCo..12.6948W |issn=2041-1723}} Vietnam is among the few coal-dependent fast developing countries that fully pledged to phase out unbated coal power by the 2040s or as soon as possible thereafter.{{cite journal |last1=Do |first1=Thang |last2=Burke |first2=Paul J |date=2023 |title=Phasing out coal power in a developing country context: Insights from Vietnam |journal=Energy Policy |volume=176 |issue=May 2023 113512 |page=113512 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113512 |bibcode=2023EnPol.17613512D |s2cid=257356936 |hdl-access=free |hdl=1885/286612}}

Ammonia has a high hydrogen density and is easy to handle. It can be used as storing carbon-free fuel in gas turbine power generation and help significantly reduce CO₂ emissions as a fuel.{{cite web |date=January 2021 |author1=NAGATANI Genichiro |author2=ISHII Hiroki |author3=ITO Takamasa |author4=OHNO Emi |author5=OKUMA Yoshitomo |title=Development of Co-Firing Method of Pulverized Coal and Ammonia to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions |url=https://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/technology/review_library/review_en/2020/_cms_conf01/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2021/01/14/Vol53No1_F.pdf |website=IHI Corporation |access-date=8 November 2021 |archive-date=21 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211021111248/https://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/technology/review_library/review_en/2020/_cms_conf01/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2021/01/14/Vol53No1_F.pdf |url-status=dead }}

In Japan, the first major four-year test project was started in June 2021 to develop technology to enable co-firing a significant amount of ammonia at a large-scale commercial coal-fired plant.{{cite web|date=24 May 2020 |author=Darrell Proctor |title=Project Will Burn Ammonia with Coal to Cut Emissions |url=https://www.powermag.com/project-will-burn-ammonia-with-coal-to-cut-emissions/ |website=Power Magazine |access-date=8 November 2021 }}{{cite web|date=24 May 2020 |title=JERA and IHI to Start a Demonstration Project Related to Ammonia Co-firing at a Large-Scale Commercial Coal-Fired Power Plant |url=https://www.jera.co.jp/english/information/20210524_677 |website=JERA |access-date=13 November 2021 }} However low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia is in demand for sustainable shipping, which unlike electricity generation, has few other clean options.{{Cite web|date=28 September 2021|title=Japan Inc. ups its game in offshore wind power|url=https://cleanenergynews.ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/japan-inc-up-its-game-in-offshore-wind-power.html|access-date=7 December 2021|website=IHS Markit}}

Some power stations are being converted to burn gas, biomass or waste,{{Cite web|url=https://simecatlantis.com/2018/11/05/uskmouth-power-station-conversion-project-update-and-epp-contract-award/|title=Uskmouth Power Station Conversion Project Update and EPP Contract Award|date=5 November 2018|website=SIMEC Atlantis Energy|language=en-GB|access-date=4 July 2019|archive-date=7 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200507064121/https://simecatlantis.com/2018/11/05/uskmouth-power-station-conversion-project-update-and-epp-contract-award/|url-status=dead}} and conversion to thermal storage will be trialed in 2023.{{Cite web|date=7 September 2020|title=Thermal blocks could convert coal-fired power stations to run fossil-fuel free|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-08/thermal-blocks-technology-to-convert-coal-fired-power-station/12638462|publisher=Australian Broadcasting Corporation}}

Retrofitting some existing coal-fired power stations with carbon capture and storage was being considered in China in 2020,{{Cite report|date=December 2020|title=China's New Growth Pathway: From the 14th Five-Year Plan to Carbon Neutrality|url=https://www.efchina.org/Attachments/Report/report-lceg-20201210/Full-Report_Synthesis-Report-2020-on-Chinas-Carbon-Neutrality_EN.pdf|url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210416100821/https://www.efchina.org/Attachments/Report/report-lceg-20201210/Full-Report_Synthesis-Report-2020-on-Chinas-Carbon-Neutrality_EN.pdf |archive-date=Apr 16, 2021 |access-date=|publisher=Energy Foundation China}} but this is very expensive, reduces the energy output and for some plants is not technically feasible.{{Cite web|url=https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/news-events/blog/post-combustion-capture-retrofit-evolving-current-infrastructure-cleaner-energy|title=Post-Combustion Capture Retrofit: Evolving Current Infrastructure for Cleaner Energy {{!}} UKCCS Research Centre|website=ukccsrc.ac.uk|access-date=4 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190704183151/https://ukccsrc.ac.uk/news-events/blog/post-combustion-capture-retrofit-evolving-current-infrastructure-cleaner-energy|archive-date=4 July 2019|url-status=dead}}

{{Main|Environmental impact of the coal industry}}

File:Coal power plant wastestreams - EPA.png

Coal burning power plants kill many thousands of people every year with their emissions of particulates, microscopic air pollutants that enter human lungs and other human organs and induce a variety of adverse medical conditions, including asthma, heart disease, low birth weight and cancers. In the U.S. alone, such particulates, known as PM_2.5 (particulates with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less), caused at least 460,000 excess deaths over two decades.The Guardian, 23 Nov. 2023 [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/23/coal-power-plants-deaths-pollution?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other US Coal Power Plants Killed at Least 460,000 People in Past 20 Years--Report]

In some countries pollution is somewhat controlled by best available techniques, for example those in the EU{{Citation|title=Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants (notified under document C(2017) 5225) (Text with EEA relevance. ) |date=17 August 2017 |url=http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2017/1442/oj/eng|issue=32017D1442 |access-date=5 July 2019}} through its Industrial Emissions Directive. In the United States, coal-fired plants are governed at the national level by several air pollution regulations, including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulation,{{cite web |title=Mercury and Air Toxics Standards |url=https://www.epa.gov/mats |date=19 June 2019 |publisher=United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |location=Washington, D.C.}} by effluent guidelines for water pollution,{{cite web |date=6 November 2019 |title=Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines—2015 Final Rule |url=https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines-2015-final-rule |publisher=EPA}} and by solid waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).{{cite web |title=Special Wastes |url=https://www.epa.gov/hw/special-wastes |date=29 November 2018 |website=Hazardous Waste |publisher=EPA}}

Coal-fired power stations continue to pollute in lightly regulated countries: such as the Western Balkans,{{Cite web |url=https://bankwatch.org/publication/chronic-coal-pollution |title=Chronic coal pollution|website=Bankwatch |language=en-US|access-date=5 July 2019 |publisher=CEE Bankwatch Network |location=Prague}} India, Russia and South Africa,{{Cite web |last=Schipper |first=Ori |url=https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/02/global-impact-coal-power.html |title=The global impact of coal power |website=ETH Zurich |date=18 February 2019}} causing over a hundred thousand early deaths each year.{{Cite journal|last1=Cropper|first1=Maureen|last2=Cui|first2=Ryna|last3=Guttikunda|first3=Sarath|last4=Hultman|first4=Nate|last5=Jawahar|first5=Puja|last6=Park|first6=Yongjoon|last7=Yao|first7=Xinlu|last8=Song|first8=Xiao-Peng|date=2 February 2021|title=The mortality impacts of current and planned coal-fired power plants in India|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=118|issue=5|doi=10.1073/pnas.2017936118 | pmc=7865184 |issn=0027-8424|pmid=33495332|bibcode=2021PNAS..11817936C |doi-access=free }}{{Cite web|title=Death rates from energy production per TWh|url=https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh|access-date=26 November 2021|website=Our World in Data}}{{Cite journal|last1=Vohra|first1=Karn|last2=Vodonos|first2=Alina|last3=Schwartz|first3=Joel|last4=Marais|first4=Eloise A.|author4-link=Eloise Marais|last5=Sulprizio|first5=Melissa P.|last6=Mickley|first6=Loretta J.|date=1 April 2021|title=Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935121000487|journal=Environmental Research|language=en|volume=195|pages=110754|doi=10.1016/j.envres.2021.110754|pmid=33577774 |bibcode=2021ER....19510754V |s2cid=231909881 |issn=0013-9351}}

Damage to health from particulates, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide occurs mainly in Asia and is often due to burning low quality coal, such as lignite, in plants lacking modern flue gas treatment. Early deaths due to air pollution have been estimated at 200 per GW-year, however they may be higher around power plants where scrubbers are not used or lower if they are far from cities.{{Cite web |last=Hausfather |first=Zeke |url=http://berkeleyearth.org/deaths-per-gigawatt-year/ |title=Coal in China: Estimating Deaths per GW-year |date=18 November 2016 |website=Berkeley Earth |location=Berkeley, CA |access-date=1 February 2020}} Evidence indicates that exposure to sulfur, sulfates, or PM_2.5 from coal emissions may be associated with higher relative morbidity or mortality risk than that to other PM_2.5 constituents or PM_2.5 from other sources per unit concentration.{{Cite journal |last1=Henneman |first1=Lucas |last2=Choirat |first2=Christine |last3=Dedoussi |first3=Irene |last4=Dominici |first4=Francesca |last5=Roberts |first5=Jessica |last6=Zigler |first6=Corwin |date=2023-11-24 |title=Mortality risk from United States coal electricity generation |journal=Science |language=en |volume=382 |issue=6673 |pages=941–946 |doi=10.1126/science.adf4915 |issn=0036-8075|doi-access=free |pmid=37995235 |pmc=10870829 |bibcode=2023Sci...382..941H }}

Pollutants such as heavy metals leaching into ground water from unlined coal ash storage ponds or landfills pollute water, possibly for decades or centuries.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/04/us-coal-plants-contaminating-groundwater-toxins-analysis |title=Most US coal plants are contaminating groundwater with toxins, analysis finds |last=Milman |first=Oliver |date=4 March 2019 |work=The Guardian |issn=0261-3077}} Pollutant discharges from ash ponds to rivers (or other surface water bodies) typically include arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, chromium, and cadmium.

Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants can fall back onto the land and water in rain, and then be converted into methylmercury by bacteria.{{Cite web|date=15 May 2015|title=Mercury Experiment to Assess Atmospheric Loading in Canada and the United States (METAALICUS)|url=https://www.iisd.org/ela/blog/research-highlights/mercury-experiment-assess-atmospheric-loading-canada-united-states-metaalicus-2/|access-date=7 July 2020|website=IISD Experimental Lakes Area}} Through biomagnification, this mercury can then reach dangerously high levels in fish.{{Cite web|date=2 April 2016|title=Researching Atmospheric Mercury and Freshwater Fish|url=https://www.iisd.org/ela/research/current-research/atmospheric-mercury/|access-date=7 July 2020|website=IISD Experimental Lakes Area}} More than half of atmospheric mercury comes from coal-fired power plants.{{Cite web|date=8 August 2018|title=When a lake is better than a lab|url=https://www.canadiangeographic.ca/article/when-lake-better-lab|access-date=7 July 2020|website=Canadian Geographic|language=en}}

Coal-fired power plants also emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen.{{Cite web|date=4 April 2016|title=Acid Rain|url=https://www.iisd.org/ela/research/past-research/acid-rain/|access-date=7 July 2020|website=IISD Experimental Lakes Area}} These emissions lead to acid rain, which can restructure food webs and lead to the collapse of fish and invertebrate populations.{{Cite web|date=12 February 2020|title=IISD Experimental Lakes Area: The world's living freshwater laboratory|url=http://www.biolabmag.com/iisd-experimental-lakes-area-living-freshwater-laboratory/|access-date=7 July 2020|website=BioLab Business Magazine|language=en-US}}

{{Main|Coal pollution mitigation}}

{{As of|2018}} local pollution in China, which has by far the most coal-fired power stations, is forecast to be reduced further in the 2020s and 2030s, especially if small and low efficiency plants are retired early.{{Cite journal|last1=Tong|first1=Dan|last2=Zhang|first2=Qiang|last3=Liu|first3=Fei|last4=Geng|first4=Guannan|last5=Zheng|first5=Yixuan|last6=Xue|first6=Tao|last7=Hong|first7=Chaopeng|last8=Wu|first8=Ruili|last9=Qin|first9=Yu|date=6 November 2018|title=Current Emissions and Future Mitigation Pathways of Coal-Fired Power Plants in China from 2010 to 2030|journal=Environmental Science & Technology|volume=52|issue=21|pages=12905–12914|doi=10.1021/acs.est.8b02919|pmid=30249091|issn=0013-936X|bibcode=2018EnST...5212905T|s2cid=206581545}}

Coal power plants tend to serve as base load technology, as they have high availability factors, and are relatively difficult and expensive to ramp up and down. As such, they perform poorly in real-time energy markets, where they are unable to respond to changes in the locational marginal price. In the United States, this has been especially true in light of the advent of cheap natural gas, which can serve as a fuel in dispatchable power plants that substitute the role of baseload on the grid.{{cite web |last1=EIA |title=More than 100 coal-fired plants have been replaced or converted to natural gas since 2011 |url=https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636 |website=Energy Information Administration |publisher=US Department of Energy |access-date=26 May 2021}}

In 2020 the coal industry was subsidized $US18 billion.

{{See also|Fossil fuel divestment}}Coal financing is the financial support provided for coal-related projects, encompassing coal mining and coal-fired power stations.{{Cite journal |title= Finance-based accounting of coal emissions|journal= Environmental Research Letters|date=2021 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/abd972 |last1=Manych |first1=Niccolò |last2=Steckel |first2=Jan Christoph |last3=Jakob |first3=Michael |volume=16 |issue=4 |page=044028 |bibcode=2021ERL....16d4028M |s2cid=233704266 |doi-access=free }} Its role in shaping the global energy landscape and its environmental and climate impacts have made it a subject of concern. The misalignment of coal financing with international climate objectives, particularly the Paris Agreement, has garnered attention.{{Cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Xu |last2=Li |first2=Zhongshu |last3=Gallagher |first3=Kevin P. |last4=Mauzerall |first4=Denise L. |date=2021-10-15 |title=Financing carbon lock-in in developing countries: Bilateral financing for power generation technologies from China, Japan, and the United States |journal=Applied Energy |volume=300 |pages=117318 |doi=10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117318 |issn=0306-2619|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021ApEn..30017318C }}

The Paris Agreement aims to restrict global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius and ideally limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Achieving these goals necessitates a substantial reduction in coal-related activities.{{Cite web |date=18 January 2022 |title=UN Chief: Phase Out of Coal Is Key Climate Priority |url=https://unfccc.int/news/un-chief-phase-out-of-coal-is-key-climate-priority |access-date=2023-11-03 |website=unfccc.int}}

Studies, including finance-based accounting of coal emissions, have revealed a misalignment of coal financing with climate objectives. Major nations, such as China, Japan, and the U.S., have extended financial support to overseas coal power infrastructure.{{Cite journal |last1=Trencher |first1=Gregory |last2=Healy |first2=Noel |last3=Hasegawa |first3=Koichi |last4=Asuka |first4=Jusen |date=2019-09-01 |title=Discursive resistance to phasing out coal-fired electricity: Narratives in Japan's coal regime |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421519303908 |journal=Energy Policy |volume=132 |pages=782–796 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.020 |bibcode=2019EnPol.132..782T |s2cid=198655858 |issn=0301-4215}} The largest backers are Chinese banks under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).{{Cite web |last=Crooks |first=Ed |date=30 June 2019 |title=The week in energy: China's coal-fired outreach |url=https://www.ft.com/content/1efe4e16-9b61-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726 |access-date=6 July 2019 |website=Financial Times |language=en-GB}} This support has led to significant long-term climate and financial risks and harms the objectives of reducing CO2 emissions set by the Paris Agreement, of which China, the United States and Japan are signatories. A substantial portion of the associated {{CO2}} emissions is anticipated to occur after 2019.

Coal financing poses challenges to the global decarbonization of the power generation sector. As renewable energy technologies become cost-competitive, the economic viability of coal projects diminishes, making past fossil fuel investments less attractive.{{Cite journal |last1=Creutzig |first1=Felix |last2=Agoston |first2=Peter |last3=Goldschmidt |first3=Jan Christoph |last4=Luderer |first4=Gunnar |last5=Nemet |first5=Gregory |last6=Pietzcker |first6=Robert C. |date=2017-08-25 |title=The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2017140 |journal=Nature Energy |language=en |volume=2 |issue=9 |page=17140 |doi=10.1038/nenergy.2017.140 |bibcode=2017NatEn...217140C |s2cid=133826185 |issn=2058-7546}} To address these concerns and align with climate goals, there is a growing call for stricter policies regarding overseas coal financing. Countries, including Japan and the U.S., have faced criticism for permitting the financing of certain coal projects. Strengthening the policies, potentially by banning public financing of coal projects entirely, would enhance their climate efforts and credibility. In addition, Enhanced transparency in disclosing financing details is crucial for evaluating their environmental impacts.

In India capacity factors are below 60%.{{Cite web|title=Boom and Bust 2021|url=https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BoomAndBust_2021_final.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210406013232/https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BoomAndBust_2021_final.pdf |archive-date=6 April 2021 }} In 2020 coal-fired power stations in the United States had an overall capacity factor of 40%; that is, they operated at a little less than half of their cumulative nameplate capacity.{{Cite report|url=https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_a|title=Electric Power Monthly|date=September 2021|publisher=US Department of Energy}}

If global warming is limited to well below 2 °C as specified in the Paris Agreement, coal plant stranded assets of over US$500 billion are forecast by 2050, mostly in China.{{Cite journal|date=31 May 2019|title=Power sector asset stranding effects of climate policies|journal=Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy|volume=14|pages=99–124|doi=10.1080/15567249.2019.1618421|last1=Saygin|first1=Deger|last2=Rigter|first2=Jasper|last3=Caldecott|first3=Ben|last4=Wagner|first4=Nicholas|last5=Gielen|first5=Dolf|issue=4|bibcode=2019EneSB..14...99S |s2cid=191757913|url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1a4bffbc-268e-47e2-a881-8b2c092f9945}} In 2020 think tank Carbon Tracker estimated that 39% of coal-fired plants were already more expensive than new renewables and storage and that 73% would be by 2025.{{Cite report|title=How to Retire Early: Making accelerated coal phaseout feasible and just|url=https://carbontracker.org/reports/how-to-retire-early/|date=June 2020|publisher=Carbon Tracker}} {{As of|2020}} about half of China's coal power companies are losing money and old and small power plants "have no hope of making profits".{{Cite web|url=https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/the-path-ahead-for-chinas-coal-power-industry/|title=The Path Ahead for China's Coal Power Industry|website=hellenicshippingnews.com|access-date=23 January 2020}} {{As of|2021}} India is keeping potential stranded assets operating by subsidizing them.{{Cite web|date=29 March 2021|title=There's no way out for India's stranded thermal power assets|url=http://ieefa.org/ieefa-theres-no-way-out-for-indias-stranded-thermal-power-assets/|access-date=7 December 2021|website=Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis|language=en-US}}{{Cite web|title=Mapping India's Energy Subsidies 2021: Time for renewed support to clean energy|url=https://www.iisd.org/publications/mapping-india-energy-subsidies-2021|access-date=7 December 2021|website=International Institute for Sustainable Development|language=en}}{{Cite news|title=Power freebies show pitfalls of electoral politics|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/power-freebies-show-pitfalls-of-electoral-politics/articleshow/88095162.cms|access-date=7 December 2021|website=The Times of India}}

File:Protest of Greenpeace with coal in front of the German Chancellery 03.jpg protesting against coal at the German Chancellery]]

In May 2021, the G7 committed to end support for coal-fired power stations within the year.{{Cite web|date=21 May 2021|title=G7 commits to end support for coal-fired power stations this year|url=https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/21/g7-commits-to-end-support-for-coal-fired-power-stations-this-year|access-date=23 July 2021|website=euronews|language=en}} The G7's commitment to end coal support is significant as their coal capacity decreased from 23% (443 GW) in 2015 to 15% (310 GW) in 2023, reflecting a shift towards greener policies. This contrasts with China and India, where coal remains central to energy policy.{{Rp|page=11}}

As of 2023, the Group of Twenty (G20) holds 92% of the world's operating coal capacity (1,968 GW) and 88% of pre-construction capacity (336 GW).{{Rp|page=11}}

The energy policy of China regarding coal and coal in China are the most important factors regarding the future of coal-fired power stations, because the country has so many.{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/asia/china-coal-plant-inner-mongolia-intl-hnk/index.html|title=China struggling to kick its coal habit despite Beijing's big climate pledges|author=David Culver, Lily Lee and Ben Westcott|publisher=CNN|date=29 September 2019|access-date=20 October 2019}} According to one analysis local officials overinvested in coal-fired power in the mid-2010s because central government guaranteed operating hours and set a high wholesale electricity price.{{Cite web|url=https://voxeu.org/article/china-overinvested-coal-power-here-s-why|title=China overinvested in coal power: Here's why|last1=Ren|first1=Mengjia|last2=Branstetter|first2=Lee|date=16 March 2019|website=VoxEU.org|access-date=6 July 2019|last3=Kovak|first3=Brian|last4=Armanios|first4=Daniel|last5=Yuan|first5=Jiahai}}

In democracies coal power investment follows an environmental Kuznets curve.{{Cite journal |last1=Urpelainen |first1=Johannes |last2=Zucker |first2=Noah |last3=Clark |first3=Richard |date=11 April 2019 |title=Political Institutions and Pollution: Evidence from Coal-Fired Power Generation |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3370276 |journal=Review of Policy Research |language= |location=Rochester, NY |ssrn=3370276}} The energy policy of India about coal is an issue in the politics of India.{{Cite web|title=Indigenous residents protest huge coal mine plan in India|url=https://www.eco-business.com/news/indigenous-residents-protest-huge-coal-mine-plan-in-india/|access-date=11 October 2020|website=Eco-Business|date=9 October 2020 }}{{Cite web|title=Unleashing coal: inside India's plans to open up commercial coal mining|url=https://www.mining-technology.com/features/unleashing-coal-inside-indias-plans-to-open-up-commercial-coal-mining/|access-date=11 October 2020|website=mining-technology.com|date=September 2020 }}

In the 21st century people have often protested against opencast mining, for example at Hambach Forest, Akbelen Forest and Ffos-y-fran;{{Cite web|url=http://climatetracker.org/successful-protest-indias-coal-industry/|title=Successful Protests Against India's Coal Industry|last1=Ch|first1=Aruna|last2=rasekar|date=26 September 2017|website=Climate Tracker|language=en-US|access-date=6 July 2019|archive-date=15 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200515232913/http://climatetracker.org/successful-protest-indias-coal-industry/|url-status=dead}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/23/europe/germany-climate-protest-garzweiler-coal-mine-intl-scli-grm/index.html|title=Hundreds of climate protesters stage blockade in German coal mine|author=Matthew Robinson|publisher=CNN|date=23 June 2019|access-date=6 July 2019}} and at sites of proposed new plants, such as in Kenya{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48503020|title=Row over Kenya World Heritage site coal plant|last=Leithead|first=Alastair|date=5 June 2019|access-date=6 July 2019|language=en-GB}} and China.{{Cite news |last= |first= |date=2012-10-22 |title=Chinese protesters clash with police over power plant |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/22/chinese-protesters-power-plant |access-date=2023-09-10 |issn=0261-3077}}

• Powering Past Coal Alliance
• Global Energy Monitor

{{Clear}}

{{Reflist}}

• [https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Coal_fired_power_plant Coal fired power plant] Energy Education by the University of Calgary
• [https://www.tva.com/Energy/Our-Power-System/Coal/How-a-Coal-Plant-Works How a coal plant works video] by the Tennessee Valley Authority
• [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeXG8K5_UvU How a coal plant works video] by Ontario Power Generation
• [https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal/coal-electricity Electricity from coal] by the World Coal Association
• [https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants World's coal power plants mapped] by Carbon Brief
• {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20220501101418/https://endcoal.org/ End Coal]}} by various environmental, social justice and health advocates
• [https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-sector Coal-fired power] by the International Energy Agency
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20190629141848/https://www.carbontracker-coal-economics-portal.com/ Economics of coal] by Carbon Tracker
• [https://energyandcleanair.org/ Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air]

{{World topic|prefix=List of coal-fired power stations in|title=List of coal-fired power stations by country|noredlinks=yes|state=expanded}}

{{Authority control}}

Category:Greenhouse gas emissions

Category:Subsidies