Showing posts with label Shut Down. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shut Down. Show all posts

Australia’s Dirtiest Coal Power Plant in 2025

Dirtiest Coal Power Plant in Australia to Close

Australia has long relied on coal-fired power to keep its lights on, but in 2025 the debate around dirty coal power plants is louder than ever. Rising carbon emissions, international climate pressure, and the growth of renewable energy have put certain plants in the spotlight as the nation’s worst polluters.

Why Coal Power Plants Are Called “Dirty”

Coal power is one of the highest-emitting sources of carbon dioxide (CO₂), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These emissions contribute to:

  • Greenhouse gases driving climate change

  • Air pollution that causes respiratory illness

  • Acid rain and environmental damage

When analysts rank plants as “dirtiest,” they usually measure emissions intensity (CO₂ per megawatt-hour produced) and total annual output.

The Dirtiest Coal Plant in Australia

As of 2025, reports from environmental watchdogs continue to identify AGL’s Loy Yang A power station in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley as one of the dirtiest coal plants in the country.

  • Fuel: Brown coal (lignite), among the most polluting types

  • Capacity: ~2,200 MW

  • Emissions: Estimated at 15–18 million tonnes of CO₂ annually

  • Notable fact: Consistently ranks in the top 10 dirtiest coal plants worldwide in emissions intensity

Another frequent entry on “dirtiest plant” lists is Yallourn Power Station, also in Victoria, which has been criticized for older infrastructure and high emissions levels.

Top 5 Dirtiest Coal Power Plants in Australia (2025)

Rank Power Station Location (State) Capacity (MW) Emission Intensity* (t CO₂-e/MWh) Planned Closure Year
1 Yallourn Power Station Victoria (Latrobe Valley) ~1,480 MW ~1.33 2028
2 Loy Yang A Power Station Victoria (Latrobe Valley) ~2,200 MW ~1.17 2035
3 Loy Yang B Power Station Victoria (Latrobe Valley) ~1,050 MW ~1.14 2046–47
4 Gladstone Power Station Queensland ~1,680 MW ~0.95 TBD
5 Eraring Power Station New South Wales ~2,880 MW ~0.87 2025+ (under review)

* Emission Intensity = tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per megawatt-hour generated — a key measure of how “dirty” the plant is.

Impact on Australia’s Energy Mix

Despite being a wealthy nation with vast renewable potential, Australia still gets about 50–55% of its electricity from coal in 2025. The dirtiest plants persist because:

  • Low cost of brown coal in regions like Victoria

  • Legacy grid infrastructure built around coal

  • Slow political consensus on energy transition

Government Policy and Phase-Out Plans

Australia’s federal and state governments have pledged to cut emissions and accelerate renewable adoption. For example:

  • Loy Yang A is currently scheduled to close by 2035, though environmental groups are pushing for an earlier date.

  • Yallourn’s operator has announced closure by 2028.

  • Eraring in NSW was planned to shut down in 2025 but may be extended due to grid reliability concerns.

  • National targets aim for 82% clean energy by 2030, meaning coal’s role will shrink significantly.

The Future: Renewables vs Coal

With the rapid rise of solar farms, wind farms, and battery storage, the economics of coal look weaker every year. Communities that once depended on coal jobs are transitioning toward clean energy industries.

Still, the dirtiest coal power plants remain in operation, balancing grid reliability until storage solutions scale up. This tension defines Australia’s current energy debate.

Key Takeaways

  • Yallourn and Loy Yang A are the dirtiest coal plants in Australia by emissions intensity.

  • These plants emit millions of tonnes of CO₂ annually, contributing heavily to climate change.

  • Closure dates are set, but there is uncertainty around timelines due to energy demand pressures.

  • Renewables are scaling quickly, but coal remains a stubborn backbone of Australia’s grid—for now.

Map of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Active, Decommissioned, Future

Active, Decommissioned, Future Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear power plants generate 19% of the electricity in the U.S., according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Sixty-one percent comes from fossil fuels and 20% comes from renewables.).

There are 93 commercial nuclear reactors operating in the United States at 55 locations in 28 states. The majority of nuclear reactors are in the eastern portion of the U.S.

Why Is The Unfinished 50 Year Old Satsop Nuclear Plant Still Standing?

Satsop Nuclear Power Plant in Elma, Washington

The Washington Public Power Supply System initiated the largest construction project for nuclear power plants in U.S. history in the 1970s: reactors 1, 2, and 4 at Hanford, and reactors 3 and 5 at Satsop, west of Olympia. The project was scrapped as the budget swelled to $25 billion and public sentiment turned against nuclear power (particularly after Three-Mile Island). 

In the end, only one plant was completed: Washington Nuclear Power Unit 2 (now known as the Columbia Generating Station), located on the Hanford Reserve. Construction was well underway at Satsop, and plant number 3 was approximately 76 percent complete, with the reactor built. Cooling towers were left in place, 480 feet tall-which had never generated a breath of steam-while all power generation machinery was removed. Since then, the site has grown into a special business/technology park. It is now known as Energy Northwest, the Washington Public Power Supply Grid.

The nuclear power plant was 76% complete when the project was canceled; dismantling the structure would have cost millions, so it was left standing. 


Is It Save To Live Near A Nuclear Power Plant?


The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has completed a groundbreaking ecological study of the impact of nuclear power plants on the local population. Despite large studies that say there is no evidence that people living near nuclear power plants are at increased risk of dying from cancer, the federal government is investigating the issue, starting with seven nuclear power plants in Connecticut and California. In a pilot project that will begin in the coming months, the NRC has commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on cancer risk.

The Office of Radiation Protection continuously monitors radioactivity and trains emergency workers in radiation emergencies. The Office for Radiation Protection monitors radiation levels in the air, water, and soil and continuously checks for radioactive substances and the presence of radioactive substances in air and water.
 
When an accident at a nuclear power plant is expected to release radiation into the area, local authorities activate warning sirens and approved alarms. Information and materials for emergencies can be obtained from the power plant operator, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or the US Department of Energy. The area within a 10-mile radius of a plant typically includes areas within 1,000 feet of the reactor building or other facilities. If AI has not received information about the safety of people living within 10 miles of nuclear power plants, please contact your local Emergency Management Office.
 
Citizens living near a nuclear power plant must be regularly informed of procedures to inform them of problems at the plant and to take action when protective measures such as evacuation or shelter are required. This EPA fact sheet provides information for people living within a 10-mile radius or within a 10-mile radius of a reactor building or other facility, including how to respond in an emergency. It is an important resource for people, especially those living within ten miles of nuclear power plants and who may be exposed to radiation from nuclear power plants.
 
NPR wants to hear above all from the residents of a nuclear power plant about their experience with radiation pollution. We would like to hear from you at 800-989-8255 to learn more about your experience in the nuclear power plant environment.
 
We spoke to the National Academy of Sciences to remind them of the health studies they have conducted on nuclear power plants and their impact on public health and safety. This report continues to support the fact that US nuclear power plants do not affect public health and safety. It is not just a statistic that other children live near a nuclear power plant and get cancer.
 
We point out that coal-fired power stations release 100 times more radioactivity than nuclear power stations, and there is data showing that people living near a coal-fired power station are at a higher risk of cancer than those not living near the power station. Studies show that the amount of radioactive material released in operated coal-fired power plants is the same as in nuclear power plants. We quote a study by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which states that 'coal-fired power plants have released up to 100,000 tonnes of radioactive waste per year, or more than the total amount of radiation emitted by an operational power plant in the US.
 
The COMARE report contrasts this with a German study which calls for an increase in the risk of leukemia and other cancers in people living near nuclear power stations. The estimated radiation dose that people take in near coal-fired power plants is about twice as high as that of nuclear power plants or coal-fired power plants. However, a study by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found no significant difference in cancer risk between people with cancer and those who do not live in close proximity to nuclear and coal-fired power plants. In fact, the risk of childhood leukemia in areas with high radiation exposure, such as the United States and Germany, has roughly doubled, according to the CDC.
 
Ten years after the leak began, a person living near the plant was twice as likely to get cancer as someone living elsewhere in the U.S. The latest report by COMARE examined the health of children under the age of 5 living near 13 British nuclear power stations. Such studies deal with radiation exposure to the surrounding population, not just the nuclear power plant itself.
 
Nuclear power stations are built according to certain regulations, so the energy costs are lower when you grow up there. District heating near a nuclear power plant is, however, much more expensive than in other parts of the US and Canada. For example, the first nuclear power plant in the United States, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, was shut down in 1971.
 
The closure has led to an increase in the number of people living closer to the power plant, as proximity to the plant is linked to employment in the vicinity of the power plant. The other part, of course, is how many jobs they create over time, but I ask you to think about how important they are to meet the nation's electricity needs in the years ahead. Is it safe to live near a nuclear power plant, especially if you live in a city with a high concentration of nuclear power plants, such as New York City?