Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Earth

Global Use of Coal Hit Record High in 2024 (theguardian.com) 180

Posted by msmash from the reality-check dept.
Coal use hit a record high around the world last year despite efforts to switch to clean energy, imperilling the world's attempts to rein in global heating. From a report: The share of coal in electricity generation dropped as renewable energy surged ahead. But the general increase in power demand meant that more coal was used overall, according to the annual State of Climate Action report, published on Wednesday. The report painted a grim picture of the world's chances of avoiding increasingly severe impacts from the climate crisis. Countries are falling behind the targets they have set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which have continued to rise, albeit at a lower rate than before.

Clea Schumer, a research associate at the World Resources Institute thinktank, which led the report, said: "There's no doubt that we are largely doing the right things. We are just not moving fast enough. One of the most concerning findings from our assessment is that for the fifth report in our series in a row, efforts to phase out coal are well off track."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Use of Coal Hit Record High in 2024 More

Global Use of Coal Hit Record High in 2024

Comments Filter:

  • bUt NuClEaR bAd (Score:5, Insightful)

    by atomicalgebra ( 4566883 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2025 @04:53PM (#65744000)
    Yes, you antinuclear scumbags are at fault for this. Just compare nuclear France at 19 g CO2 per kWh vs coal loving Germany at 283 g CO2 per kWh.
      • Is that the best you can do? We would all be better if you just admitted you were wrong, took responsibility, and started advocating for new nuclear energy.

      • Problem is though, if you look at all the major economies, the ones with the lowest CO2 per capita have nuclear in the mix.

        • Problem is though, if you look at all the major economies, the ones with the lowest CO2 per capita have nuclear in the mix.

          Having nuclear in the mix is one thing, and "therefore we need to build more nuclear power" is something else. When we started building nuclear plants they arguably made sense, now building more definitely doesn't as we have cleaner alternatives.

          • What if building new safer nuclear allows us to decommission the older, more dangerous nuclear that is 'in the mix' earlier?

            • What if building new safer nuclear allows us to decommission the older, more dangerous nuclear that is 'in the mix' earlier?

              Great. Do that, on the same site only.

          • Horseshit. Since wind and solar are intermittent and have to rely on methane, coal, biofuels and/or batteries they are not cleaner than new nuclear energy. So it makes sense to build hundreds of new reactors. DF

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Look at China, the world's second largest economy, with per capita emissions way below the US and Europe.

          The reason their emissions have peaked is not nuclear, it's renewables displacing coal.

    • When we haven't even come close to building out enough wind and solar is stupid and criminal.

      That's before we talk about the obvious technical shortcomings of nuclear power that are complete disasters waiting to happen thanks to social problems we refuse to acknowledge and address. Specifically the wanton obsessive privatization of high-risk industries like nuclear power and the unquenchable thirst for profit and short-term quarter on quarter gains.

      Add in the fact that we never punish the ruling elite
      • Germany has spent 15 years and 500 billion euros only to fail. And you are conflating a lot of other problems with nuclear energy. Don't do that. It's not accurate nor is it fair.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Germany's "failure" has nothing to do with renewables and everything to do with tying their non-renewable natural gas needs to Russian supplies. THAT'S what is making their electricity prices so high over there. Renewables are how they achieve energy independence and security from their hostile neighbor.

    • Re:bUt NuClEaR bAd (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2025 @06:52PM (#65744230)

      Yes, you antinuclear scumbags are at fault for this. Just compare nuclear France at 19 g CO2 per kWh vs coal loving Germany at 283 g CO2 per kWh.

      You aren't entirely wrong but you seem to be ignoring the progress that is being made: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]

      However, you can see France has had a bit of a head start in the energy transition because it hasn't used fossil fuels for energy generation for the last 30+ years: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]

      You also seem to be ignoring that some countries are actively expanding their use of coal:
      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      * https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
      * https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]

      I suppose the lesson to be learned here is that the low tech simplicity of coal makes it very appealing for developing countries.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Coal is cheap and can often be mined domestically. The plants are simple and cheap, and can be built by domestic firms using domestic technology.

        The only real way to beat it is cheaper renewables, but it would really help if we shared some tech so developing nations could manufacture some of it locally.

    • Re:bUt FrAcKiNg bAd (Score:4, Interesting)

      by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Thursday October 23, 2025 @01:52AM (#65744754)

      Yes, you antinuclear scumbags are at fault for this. Just compare nuclear France at 19 g CO2 per kWh vs coal loving Germany at 283 g CO2 per kWh.

      You anti-fracking scumbags are at fault for this too. Natural gas emits half the CO2 per Joule as coal, and is cheaper to boot. If only we could frack for natural gas everywhere, we'd cut CO2 emissions right now.

      • I'm absolutely fine with fracking as long as the company doing it is bound by contract to repair the geology if their work causes an unexpected impact on the water table. Still cheaper with the insurance to allow that kind of remediation included? It's not a fair comparison if you allow one side to externalise costs.

      • Methane is at 490 g CO2 per kWh. That is bad. Stop attempting to justify burning fossil fuels instead of nuclear energy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If you look at which countries are using more coal, it's the ones where nuclear isn't a viable option. It's too expensive, it would take too long to build, and there are geo-political problems.

      These are developing nations, and telling them "just put growth on hold for 20 years while you develop a nuclear industry and build the first plan" isn't going to work.

      Many of them do have excellent renewable resources, but need help and encouragement to exploit them. Once those are in place the floodgates open like t

      • Germany could have phased out their coal if they had just kept their nuclear power plants open. A nuclear grid is cheaper and faster than a solar and wind heavy grid. That's reality.
  • Good thing coal is faster.
    • I expect this. I saw an article I think on thereg about how some company is repurposing jet engines as turbines for a quick way to ramp up nat gas fired juice. The article mentioned someone paying 25mil to reserve a turbine slated for production in 2030. almost 5 year backlog for nat gas juice. AI is very much like the post a couple down, FEED ME SEYMOUR Re-activating coal plants is probably the fastest way to more juice. I'd be pretty unsurprised to hear AI co's buying old ALCOA smelters. ALCOA often coloc

      • Life really is like a video game, your things that have OP features have strong negative modifiers.

        Coal is pretty widely distributed, there's so much of it we won't be running out anytime soon and compared to gas and oil extraction today mining coal is relatively cheap. I mean our favorite mega machine the Bagger 288 is just there to strip mine out stupid amounts of coal and then once you have it it's pretty easy to turn into energy. Quick, simple, reliable.

        The downside is using it is a catastrophe for any

  • Jevon's paradox is still alive! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Quakeulf ( 2650167 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2025 @04:57PM (#65744008)

    Why is this never going out of fashion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Wind, Solar and Batteries are cheaper and cleaner (Score:5, Informative)

    by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2025 @06:17PM (#65744168)

    I see the nuclear fanbois are out in force.
    Nuclear is the most expensive energy. Takes the longest time to build. And is most problematic with issues of nuclear waste and accidents.
    Can we get real and just accept that solar, wind and batteries are the cheapest and cleanest energy.

    • This, and there is also a concern for water shortages. I understand that solar is being built over canals, and that reduces evaporation, and increases the solar efficiency of the panels as they are cooled. I just think that creative engineering is the solution here, and not to listen to entrenched interests/ rich people who want to stuff more money in their pockets.
    • I love how the idea that nuclear power taking 100% account for its waste products up front, as they are produced, is portrayed as a NEGATIVE.

      You know, as opposed to throwing billions of tons of pollution up into the air, along with so much mercury that everyone in the world now has a lifetime allowance for seafish, not to mention all the radioactivity from the uranium in the coal, or the fly ash piles that would set off the alarms at most nuclear plants and destroy entire ecosystems when they get rained

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      What the world would really like is something that performs like nuclear fission (lots of 24/7 reliable baseload power, deployable anywhere) but without the big upfront expense or the catastrophic risks (pollution, storage, proliferation) to manage.

      Is there such a thing? Could there be? Nuclear fusion might be one answer, and they've made good progress, but it's still a bit iffy and even in the best-case scenario it won't be applied at scale for some years yet. Geothermal is seeing some interesting devel [energyglobal.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Baseload is a myth. Energy demand varies greatly each day and nuclear only goes at one speed.
        Batteries wind and solar can easily follow demand.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Baseload is the minimum amount of electric power a grid needs to supply continuously over a period of time. That's not a myth. And no where in the world does batteries, solar and wind follow demand. Just try an get a watt of electricity from a solar panel at 9pm.

    • Can we get real and just accept that solar, wind and batteries are the cheapest and cleanest energy.

      So why are countries building the more expensive coal power plants? I mean since solar, wind and batteries are the cheapest option, why countries like Chine are building the more expensive option? I don't think the leaders are unable to count money.

    • Can we get real and just accept that solar, wind and batteries are the cheapest and cleanest energy.

      Sure; however, you should also acknowledge that nuclear is the most energy dense form of generating electricity and is more reliable than any of the other methods you have mentioned.... but you won't.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Energy density is irrelevant.
        Nuclear is reliable until it isn't. It gets shut down completely for maintenance, floods, drought, accidents, etc.
        Wind, solar and batteries are more reliable because they are distributed. If a solar panel, windmill, or battery is damaged, it doesn't stop the rest from operating.

        • Energy density is irrelevant.
          No one in the industry believes that, and if they do we are in big trouble.

          The problem with distribution on the level of wind or solar is that maintenance will become a problem. Right now installations are relatively new.
        • Solar isn't more reliable. It never works at night. Wind isn't more reliable. They have capacity factors in the 20-30% range. Compare that with nuclear which has a capacity factor in the 90's. Also nuclear requires the least amount of land and the least amount of resources(aka mining). Also grid level batteries don't exist.
    • Sorry to burst your bubble but nuclear doesn't care about wind or sunshine. It just works and works for decades.

      Did it have growing pains, sure and some were doozys. But modern designs and proper location selection alleviates all of the past issues except for what to do with spent fuel. Wait until all those windmills and solar panels reach their end of useful life. No one will want to recycle them and they will just become landfill.

      Energy generation should not be a for-profit endeavor, sadly that is w
    • Germany spent 500 billion euros and 15 years on their solar and wind buildout and FAILED. So just from that real world example it is clear than nuclear is faster and cheaper. If solar wind and batteries were the cheapest and cleanest energy source Germany wouldn't be at 283 g CO2 per kWh compared to France at 19.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mspohr ( 589790 )

        Germany's renewable energy sources are primarily wind and solar, which together accounted for about 43% of its electricity generation in 2024. The country aims to have 80% of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2045. Biomass and hydropower are also significant, and Germany has made substantial progress, with renewables providing 59% of electricity in 2024.

        • 283 vs 19. 283 is bad. And that's after spending 500 billion and 15 years. If they spent the same on new nuclear they would be near France at 19. If they just kept their existing nuclear they would be near 100 and would have phased out coal. Biomass is also dirty as all fuck. 59% is an F is most school.

  • The Guardian mentions China twice: once to say that half of new vehicles in China are electric, and the other time to say that China could "blunt the impact [of greenhouse emissions]" by favoring renewable energy.

    The Guardian fails to mention that China consumes over 50% of the world's coal production [worldometers.info] and over 60% of the new coal-fired electricity production [carbonbrief.org].

    • Now put that in per capita terms?

  • Communism didn't save the world and is now out of fashion.

    Surely this popular belief (with or without factual basis is irrelevant, see "religion") could not be exploited by those with ulterior motives. Humanity are too virtuous for that. Elections prove it.

  • ... of mining vast amounts of cheap energy in the form of squished forests (not dinosaurs -- it was early forests decaying without the presence of fungi to break them down, mostly) as coal, oil, LNG for their industrial revolutions.

    The raccoons, or crows, or octopuses will have to move directly from manual labour to machinery powered by renewable resources like solar and wind, since we will have sucked most of the fossil fuels out of the planet just before we drive ourselves to extinction.

    Presuming the resu

  • What exactly are the differences among global warming, global heating, global roasting, global frying, and global sauteeing?

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol

Close