Skip to content

Planned Coal Power Investments

June 13, 2015

By Paul Homewood 




EurActiv have this recently published chart, showing planned coal power investment.






The total adds up to 1206.74GW. Current UK coal fired capacity stands at about 20GW.

  1. June 13, 2015 11:28 am

    Am I the only one to smile at the fact that China is ‘permitted’ to have a figure?

    Since when have the Chinese allowed any other country to dictate what it will or will not do?

    And if they do exceed 48GW, who will do what to them?

    • AndyG55 permalink
      June 13, 2015 11:58 am

      I’m assuming it means that the Chinese Government has issued a permit.

      A slight variation on the usually meaning of “permitted”

  2. AndyG55 permalink
    June 13, 2015 11:36 am

    Over the next 50 years or so, it is estimated that the Earth’s population will grow by some 5 billion.

    I assume that these extra people will require to be fed.

    Now, all food on this planet, be it meat, vegetables, grains, is ultimately dependant on one single chemical reaction.
    That chemical reaction is photosynthesis.

    Photosynthesis requires 3 basic ingredients. sunlight, H2O and CO2.

    We are stuck with how much sunlight we have, and with good planning can generally get enough H2O (even if it requires desalination).

    Obviously the problem will be the current low CO2 levels.

    We will need to raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2 considerably to feed these extra 5 billion people.

    It is good to see that at least some countries are doing their bit.

    (Special thanks to China and India, other countries need to wake up and get on with it !)

    • Richard111 permalink
      June 13, 2015 12:39 pm

      Well said AndyG55, though I suspect your 5 billion might be a tad low. 🙂

    • Le Gin permalink
      June 13, 2015 5:43 pm

      You could raise CO2 levels to as high as they will go. Unfortunately plants are pretty crap when it comes to photosynthetic efficiency and are rate limited in their take up of increased CO2 by photosynthesis.
      Also, we eat plants, sure, but it is the nutritional value that is important. CO2 would make leafier and larger plants, but without any additional inputs, such as Nitrogen, their nutritional value won’t increase and would, weight for weight, quite possibly decrease.
      The question perhaps should be about sequestering Nitrogen from the abundant amount already in the atmosphere.Get that sorted and we’ll be alright. Well, until it starts to run out…

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        June 13, 2015 8:43 pm

        The Haber-Bosch process perhaps?

      • Le Gin permalink
        June 13, 2015 9:49 pm

        @Graeme No.3
        Yeah, I know! We’ve been chucking fertiliser on stuff for ever. I kinda meant sorting the problem in plants, getting crop plants to increase their nutritional value through genetic engineering rather than manufacturing it through chemical engineering.
        And if you manufacture you have to transport and distribute and all the other stuff, but if you could figure a way to get a plant to increase it’s Nitrogen uptake using atmospheric N everything is all done in-situ, so to speak. Low cost high nutrient food.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        June 13, 2015 10:59 pm

        legumes !!

      • Le Gin permalink
        June 14, 2015 11:30 am

        There several species of Nitrogen fixing bacteria, and I think most legumes are in possession of these (there are others, clover for example), but again it is about increasing the rate and amount of N that can be fixed.

    • Daniel permalink
      June 13, 2015 10:20 pm

      Best figures have it at an extra 2 billion and then it will decline.

    • Brian H permalink
      June 20, 2015 5:40 am

      Actually, the only population estimates which have ever been close to accurate is the UN Population Survey ‘Low Fertility’ Band. It currently projects peak population at ~8bn in the ’40s, declining indefinitely thereafter. Aging and underpopulation will be the problem, not overpopulation. Per capita wealth by 2100 is estimated at 12-70X current. Androids to the rescue?!

      PS; if you run out of nitrogen, you run out of atmosphere It’s ~78%. That’s 780,000 ppm.

  3. cheshirered permalink
    June 13, 2015 3:07 pm

    It just exposes how utterly insane and deluded Western politics has become. The UK has 20GW versus a planned expansion of 1200+GW, and our blessed ‘leaders’ want us to cut our coal plants in order to ‘make a difference? The stupid is simply hilarious. History will NOT be kind to these jokers.

    • June 13, 2015 10:09 pm

      Yes, this CAGW must be the most successful piece of science fiction ever.

  4. manicbeancounter permalink
    June 13, 2015 9:05 pm

    The preceding article is on Gas powered stations for Turkey. The 65GW of coal-fired power stations in the pipeline could be mostly hype in an electricity sector is liberalized. Many of the the proposed power stations will be contingent on others not coming to fruition. Otherwise it would give Turkey, with 15% more people than the UK, maybe twice the generation capacity.
    The same hype could also be the case in China, where total electrical power consumption is already approaching first world levels. It is in India where I would expect a higher proportion of the pipeline to be built, as its deficiency in electrical power consumption is much greater, and where the Government is committed to increasing the already high levels of economic growth.
    When looking at total global emissions in the coming decades, it is in countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and the Philippines where the additional growth in capacity will come from. Global emissions are likely to keep on rising for a few more decades, despite what a few crazy Governments in Western countries decide to inflict on their peoples.

  5. June 13, 2015 10:14 pm

    Thanks for the information, Paul.
    These 20 GW out of 1,207 GW would make a tremendous difference to those that loose the 20 GW.

    • Brian H permalink
      June 20, 2015 5:44 am


  6. June 14, 2015 6:04 am

    Christopher Booker gives yet another couple of good references to this site. Well done Paul.

  7. June 14, 2015 3:54 pm

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    It would seems to me that the “smart” money is on coal!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: