Why Relying on Technology to Keep ASEAN Coal-Fired Power Plants Running Is Risky

A new report by the ASEAN Energy Centre (ACE) highlights that ASEAN countries do not need to phase out all their coal-fired power plants immediately to help combat climate change.

The report said coal would continue to be a significant part of the energy transition. It also said that giving ASEAN countries more time to upgrade their power grids to accommodate more renewables could help smooth the transition to cleaner energy. Combining the two factors, the report strongly suggested that coal could be squeezed in to buy that time.

To reduce the damage caused by coal, ACE called on ASEAN member states to use clean coal technologies in coal-fired power plants. It also recommended using carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) to replace “old, inefficient and unmanageable coal-fired power plants.”

Interestingly, this view is also promoted by the World Coal Association (now Future Coal) – an international pro-coal lobbying group.

At first glance, this plan seems promising. However, relying so heavily on technology oversimplifies the potential risks and assumes full delivery of promises without carefully assessing the risks. In this article, we present evidence that the path chosen by ACE is not as good as it seems and may face serious problems in the future.

False solution

The first “clean coal technology” proposed by ACE – called “high efficiency, low emissions (HELE)” – is primarily supercritical coal-fired power stations. This means they use less coal while producing more energy. As such, they are claimed to be more environmentally friendly than subcritical or “regular” coal-fired power stations.

However, the use of supercritical technology does not guarantee a solution to the emissions problem; the effectiveness of this technology in reducing carbon emissions varies.

For example, a 2019 Australian paper found that supercritical coal-fired power plants performed worse than conventional plants with higher failure rates, leading to frequent electricity price spikes in 2018 and 2019. This happened a decade after the technology was first introduced commercially in 2007.

The lack of a stable electricity supply would be contrary to ACE’s stated aim of preventing energy shortages and enabling a smoother transition to renewable energy.

Carbon Capture Risks

Another technology promoted by ACE is carbon capture and storage (CCS), which involves capturing carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and storing it underground.

However, CCS appears to replicate previous project failures. Opponents of CCS often suggest that the success rate is relatively low.

The industry claims the technology can capture 95% of carbon dioxide from each project. However, a 2023 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found that no current project has consistently captured more than 80% of carbon dioxide emissions. Some have captured as little as 15%.

Leakage from carbon captured underground is another risk we could face. This would have huge consequences not only by cutting off so-called mitigated emissions but also by contaminating groundwater and putting nearby communities at risk.

Carbon capture advocates say that if done properly, the risk of a leak is negligible. Even if it does happen, they say it won’t be catastrophic.

However, a large enough leak is still possible. The safety margin is very narrow: even just 1% leakage every decade could have serious long-term consequences, mainly temperature increases. Maintaining a “safe leak rate” requires rigorous monitoring and oversight. That’s why the risk may be higher in developing countries like Indonesia, which has chronic problems with regulatory governance.

Some other evidence suggests that CCS is not economically viable. One of the strongest arguments against CCS is probably diminishing returns. As one leading expert on carbon capture says:

The closer a CCS system gets to 100% efficiency, the more difficult and expensive it is to capture additional carbon dioxide.

This means potential future costs for larger equipment, additional time and additional energy that CCS will need to expend to achieve this level of performance.

More importantly, the pursuit of increasingly expensive CCS technology only prolongs the life of coal-fired power plants, which pose serious environmental risks. The same money and effort could be spent building more renewable energy infrastructure, such as wind turbines or solar panels.

In addition to the potentially high costs, the captured carbon dioxide must be sold commercially – for uses ranging from oil extraction to food preservation – to make it economically viable.

However, beyond converting CO₂ into fuels, there are strictly limited uses of CO₂. Commercial use of CO₂ accounts for less than 1% of global CO₂ emissions from energy use. On the other hand, converting CO₂ back into fuels requires carbon-free energy sources.

The conversion will also result in about 25-35% energy loss. Although more research has been done on how to improve the efficiency of the process, the use of CO₂ is not yet scalable.

Why these half-measures?

ACE needs to be cautious about relying on technological solutions. Instead, the center should consider doubling down on lower-risk, less capital-intensive solutions with multiple positive impacts, such as building community-based renewable energy sources, aggressive reforestation, and even better, significantly halting deforestation.

Community renewable energy offers assistance to people in energy-poor areas to build their own energy sources. In addition, people living in close geographic proximity can share the costs and resources of installing and maintaining off-grid renewable energy sources, encouraging wider use of cleaner energy sources with minimal land use concerns.

On the other hand, unlike CCUS, aggressive reforestation does not require heavy equipment or the specialized knowledge and skills to operate complex technology to achieve the same emission storage goals. Again, it is an established scientific fact that forests and soil currently store 30% of emissions. Unlike CCS, which only stores emissions from the places where it is installed, forests and soil absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions. Even well-planned urban forests may have a greater capacity to effectively absorb CO2 than we thought.

ACE may also consider replacing “old, inefficient and unbeatable coal-fired power plants” with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, especially those for non-industrial power facilities. The cost of generating electricity has been falling rapidly for years.

Since most ASEAN member states are developing countries, they must carefully select the most appropriate technologies to adopt. With limited fiscal capacity, rushing into importing advanced technology that will require significant upfront costs potentially becomes a costly endeavor with limited benefits.

It is interesting why we should replace our old coal-fired power plants with new ones. It is like replacing our old mobile phone with a slightly better one – instead of jumping straight to a smartphone. Why this half-measure?