Our 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 FACTSHEET #1

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

Coal in PerspectiveCoal’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

1. MININGLarge 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.

2. PREPARATION/WASHINGAfter 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. TRANSPORTThe 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

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.

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.

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

Impacts of the Coal Life Cycle

Globally, over

350,000 people

die prematurely

each year due to

air pollution from

coal-fired power

plants and millions

more suffer

serious illnesses.

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.

2 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 1

E N D C O A L | 3

ASH LANDFILL

ASHLANDF

1. MINING

2. PREPARATION

3. TRANSPORT 4. COMBUSTIONCoal dust increases heart and lung disease.

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

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

Thermal water releases kill aquatic life.

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

Destroys forests, uproots communities.

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

Mountaintop removal, surface and underground

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.

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

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.

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.

ENDNOTES1 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.52 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/media-

centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221_E.pdf8 “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.

Investing in Clean Energy

4 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 1

RESOURCES

Coal Activist Resource Centre: endcoal.org

Greenpeace International: greenpeace.org/coal

Sierra Club: sierraclub.org/coal

Union of Concerned Scientists: ucsusa.org/clean_energy/

International Renewable Energy Agency: irena.org

ENDCOAL.ORG

Coal is the single biggest contributor to human-

caused 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 2°C 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.

COAL FACTSHEET #2

Towards Climate CatastropheThe Contribution of Coal to Climate Change

ELECTRICITY-RELATED CO2

EMISSIONS BY FUEL

Natural Gas21%

Oil7%

Other 1%

Coal72%

CO2 EMISSIONS

BY SECTOR

Electricity41%

Roadtransport

16%Other

transport6%

Industry20%

Residential6%

Othersectors

10%

Graph 1

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

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.

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 sea-

level 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.

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) GtCO

2.6

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.

2 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 2

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

2DS

6DS

0

50

100

150

200

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

EJ

GLOBAL COAL DEMAND

Hist orical

Projections

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

The golden decade of coal and record breaking global temperatures

Coal expansion increases temperatures by 4-6°C

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.

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.

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

E N D C O A L | 3

Oil982 GtCO

2

2°C budget1050 GtCO

2

Gas690 GtCO

2

Coal2,191 GtCO

2

FOSSIL FUEL RESERVES3,863 GtC0

2

Graph 3: Fossil fuel reserves and 2 degrees Celsius 18

Most fossil fuel reserves must remain underground

Shifting from coal

Delaying change only costs moreEarly 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 pre-

industrial 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

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-tracker4 Foster, V and Bedrosyan, D. 2014. Understanding CO

2 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/understanding-co2-emissions-global-energy-sector

5 IPCC WG3 AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, Pg 5. http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf

6 ibid7 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 189 IEA pg 4910 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-century-coal-workshop/

11 Medium-Term Coal Market Report 2012 – Market Trends and Projections to 2017, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2012

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-logic-of-climate-change/

14 IEA. Pg 4615 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.pdf19 IPCC AR5, op cit20 IPCC AR5 op cit, Pg 2021 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/04/21/ipcc-

chair-delaying-climate-action-raises-risks-costs22 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/29/3464918/climate-

economy-white-house-report/

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

“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

ENDCOAL.ORG

4 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 2

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.

One 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 tox-

ins at levels that significantly harm humans and wildlife.

Exposure to this toxic stew has increased the rates of hu-

man birth defects, disease and premature deaths. The im-

pacts 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

During mining operations, enormous amounts of ground-

water 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

local wells unusable and impacting nearby rivers.2

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 coun-

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

COAL FACTSHEET #3

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

INSATIABLE THIRSTHow Coal Consumes and Contaminates Our Water

2 | C O A L A N D W A T E R F A C T S H E E T

THIRSTY COOLING SYSTEMS

The amount of water withdrawn from freshwater sources

and consumed by coal plants varies significantly depend-

ing on the type of cooling system used and the location of coal plants. Coal plants with once-through cooling sys-

tems withdraw tremendous amounts of water with disas-

trous 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 tem-

peratures 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 sys-

tems 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 sys-

tems are expensive and energy-intensive. Power plants

with dry cooling must burn more coal for operation, de-

creasing 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

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 wa-

ter 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.

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.

Graph 1

Water Consumption for a 1000 MW Coal Plant

E N D C O A L | 3

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 hun-

dreds 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 me-

ters 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 (as-

suming 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 bas-

es, predominately in western provinces, despite projec-

tions 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

resources per capita in these parched areas are only 1/10th

of the national average. Coal development would con-

sume 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 pris-

tine, 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 scarci-

ty 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.

(That’s enough to fill

over 12,000 Olympic swimming pools.)

The Tradeoffs of Coal Generation

Irrigation: 7,000 hectares

of agricultural land

1000 MW Coal Plant in India:

30-35 million cubic metres of water

equal to equal to

Basic Water Needs:670,000 urban

residents

4 | C O A L A N D W A T E R F A C T S H E E T

PART 2: How The Coal Life Cycle Pollutes Our Water

MINING

Surface mining dramatically alters natural water flow, in-

creasing flooding and jeopardising the safety of down-

stream communities. When open pit mines are construct-

ed, 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, ero-

sion 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.

An estimated 3840 km

of streams have been

buried by mountaintop

removal mining in the

Appalachia region of

the United States. The

effects of these valley

fills are irreversible.

Communities living

near mountaintop removal mining have suffered from in-

creased rates of lung cancer and heart, respiratory and

kidney disease due to their exposure to contaminated

water. Researchers found that 4432 people in this region

died prematurely from 1999-2005,

largely due to drinking contaminat-

ed water.10 Communities also expe-

rienced a 26 percent higher rate of

birth defects.11

Acid mine drainage is one of the most

serious impacts of coal mining. When

water interacts with rock exposed

by mining, naturally occurring heavy

metals such as aluminium, arsenic

and mercury are released into the en-

vironment. Acid mine drainage con-

taminates ground and surface water,

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.

A South African Water Ministry official publicly called acid

mine drainage “the greatest environmental challenge

ever.”12 South Africa has nearly 6000 abandoned mines.

Some estimate that nearly 200 million litres of acid mine

drainage per day threaten to pollute the Vaal River basin.13

Since the impacts of acid mine drainage occur long after

a mine has been abandoned, the liability and high clean-

up costs typically fall on local governments and taxpayers.

PREPARATION

After it is mined, coal is typically washed with water or oth-

er 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 larg-

er 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.

Dams that impound slurry ponds are often built quickly

without adequate protections to ensure their safety and

structural integrity. When coal slurry dams fail, they can

spill millions of litres of toxic coal sludge, poisoning land

and contaminating rivers and streams. In October 2013,

an earthen dam broke, releasing 670 million litres of coal

slurry into tributaries of Canada’s Athabasca River. The

spill contained high concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,

mercury and lead, forcing the government to warn com-

munities not to use the river water until the slurry passed

downstream.15

TRANSPORT

BNSF Railway estimates that almost

300 kilograms of coal dust can escape

from each car in a loaded coal train

over a 600-kilometre journey. The coal

dust contaminates air and can lead to

black lung disease in humans. Coal

dust can also contaminate waterways

during rail transport, and through leaks

in damaged coal barges and during the

loading and unloading of barges.

COMBUSTION

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of tox-

ic water pollution in the US, considering the toxicity of

the pollutants emitted. Wastewater from coal plants con-

tains a number of heavy metals and other toxins, which

harm and kill aquatic life and contaminate drinking water

supplies.16

Coal plants in the

US generate 127

million metric tonnes

of waste annually

– enough to fill a

football stadium

over 60 times.

Acid mine drainage destroys aquatic

ecosystems and contaminates water

supplies

E N D C O A L | 5

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 usual-

ly 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 wa-

ter 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 trans-

ferring pollutants from the air to water. This wastewater

often contaminates groundwater and surface water with

heavy metals at concentrations that harm wildlife and hu-

man health.17

ASH POND

How a Coal Plant Pollutes Water

ASH LANDFILL

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 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.

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.

6 | C O A L A N D W A T E R F A C T S H E E T

IMPACTS OF COAL COMBUSTION WASTE

The toxins contained in coal combustion waste can injure

all of the major human organ systems, harm the develop-

ment 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 com-

munities. 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 esti-

mates 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 repro-

ductive rates and wipe out entire populations. Coal com-

bustion waste has caused an estimated US$2.32 billion in

damages to fish and wildlife in the US. Highly toxic seleni-

um 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 indus-

try 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 accu-

mulates 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 ner-

vous system. Mercury is of special concern to women who

are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, since ex-

posure to mercury can cause developmental problems,

learning disabilities, and delayed onset of walking and

talking in babies and infants.

ENDNOTES

1 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-and-water-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.pdf13 Steele (2012), p. 15.14 “Brushy Fork Coal Sludge Impoundment,” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/

Brushy_Fork_coal_sludge_impoundment15 “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.

RESOURCES

Coal Activist Resource Centre:

endcoal.org

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

Dirty 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.

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

COAL FACTSHEET #4

Lifetime Impacts of a Typical 550-MW Supercritical Coal Plant with Pollution Controls• 150 million tonnes of CO

2

• 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.

2 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 4

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 EFFICIENCYThe 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).

• 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.

• Ultra-supercritical (USC) plants can achieve efficiencies

of up to 45% through the use of higher temperature

and pressure.

• 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

• 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 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.

2) AIR POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIESAir 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.

THE CARBON INTENSITY OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Co

al,

sub

crit

ica

l

Co

al,

sup

erc

riti

cal

Co

al,

IGC

C

Na

tura

l Ga

s

So

lar

PV

Ge

oth

erm

al

So

lar

CS

P

Bio

ma

ss

Win

d

12 18 22 45 48

469

838863

1060

All types of coal plants still emit more CO

2 than any

other electricity source.

Gra

ms

of

carb

on

dio

xid

e e

qu

iva

len

t p

er

kilo

wa

tt-h

ou

r

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.

E N D C O A L | 3

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 99.0-

99.8% 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.

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.

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

Baghouse (PM) $100 million

Selective Catalytic Reduction (N0

x) $300 million

Scrubbers (S02) $400 million

THE MOUNTING COSTS OF A 600-MW COAL PLANT

Activated Carbon Injection (Mercury) $3 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)

Po

llutio

n C

on

trols

4 | C O A L F A C T S H E E T # 4

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

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

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-technology-nescaum-report-20110330.pdf

ENDCOAL.ORG

The Limits of Canada’s Boundary Dam ProjectThe 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 sub-

sidies. (The same amount of money could have built

a 240 MW solar PV plant.)

SaskPower considered several options before even-

tually 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 in-

vestments in renewable energy to sustainably meet

our energy needs.

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.