Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Energy

How the Iran War Is Fueling a Coal Comeback

The Strait of Hormuz disruption is “gravy” to producers of the world’s dirtiest fuel.

•
Smoke from a bombing and pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Library of Congress

2025 was supposed to be the year of peak global coal, or at least close to it. As recently as December, the International Energy Agency forecasted that 2025 coal demand would be similar to 2024, at around 8.8 billion tons, and would begin to decline by 2030.

There were promising signs that this story would pan out — coal demand in China, the world’s largest consumer, may have peaked in 2024 or 2025. Coal-fired power generation was also falling in India, the world’s second largest coal consumer, for the first time since the 1970s.

Then came “the greatest global energy security threat in history,” as IEA chief Fatih Birol put it.

Until February 28, about a fifth of global oil production and a fifth of liquified natural gas flowed through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the United States and Israel struck Iran, however, the strait has been effectively closed. The IEA has projected that, on net, global oil production would fall by 8 million barrels per day in 2026 due to shut-in production as a result of the war. Iranian airstrikes have also knocked out almost a fifth of Qatar’s LNG production, damage that will likely take several years to recover from.

Middle Eastern fossil fuels largely go to Asia, where oil and gas feed the region’s power plants, cars, and petrochemical factories. In their absence, Asian countries are scrambling to keep power generation steady. That often means (re)turning to coal.

“Last year I put my flag in and called peak coal in seaborne markets,” Anthony Knutson, global head of thermal coal markets research at Wood Mackenzie told me. Now that the strait is closed, however, “It’s still plateauing — it’s a longer plateau, and then a drop-off.”

That’s because, he said, “everybody runs back to energy security.”

Rich Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan that are unable to get the gas they’ve already contracted for are having to decide between ramping up coal output or paying for gas in the extremely expensive spot market. How much coal generation actually rises “is a function of how much spot gas can be purchased” and “how much pain they’re willing to take on gas prices,” Knutson said.

The more expensive gas becomes, the more these countries will opt for coal.

“If LNG prices stay relatively high due to the impact of the war, we would expect thermal coal to take market share from gas in the seaborne markets,” Jefferies analyst Lloyd Byrne wrote in a note to clients earlier this week. “The most price-sensitive customers in Asia will switch to coal,” a team of Jefferies analysts wrote in a separate note.

In South Korea, the government lifted limits on capacity utilization in the nation’s coal fleet. Thailand restarted coal units after spot LNG prices nearly doubled. Japan’s policy before the crisis was to cap coal utilization at 50% and to eventually phase it out entirely; now it’s planning to lift limits on coal output, Nikkei reported.

China and India, Knutson said, will likely turn to domestic coal production, while the rest of Asia will be looking to increase imports from Australia, South Africa, Russia, and Indonesia.

Evidence of gas-to-coal switching is showing up on the supply side as well as the demand side. Indonesia, the world’s largest coal exporter, was planning to cut production from 790 million tons to 600 million tons because, Knutson said, it was worried the market was oversupplied and prices were depressed. Now the government is allowing coal miners to increase production.

But whether this is a temporary surge in coal use (and emissions) or a permanent reordering of the energy system depends on the duration and intensity of the shock, and markets and analysts still seem to think markets will return to something like normal.

Like other energy commodities, coal prices have been volatile this month as President Trump continues to hint that he would prefer the war to end soon while the strait remains closed. Coal prices have shot up to around $140 per ton Thursday, compared to around $101 at the beginning of the year. While still a sizable increase, it’s nowhere near the dislocations seen in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when coal prices jumped to above $420 per ton. That volatility means that few analysts expect any long term increase in investment or production, which in turn makes the increase in demand almost pure profit for producers.

“You’re not going to open a new pit. You’re not going to buy new mine fleets. This is gravy right now,” Knutson told me.

Though other parts of the world — e.g. Eastern Europe — also depend on coal, the increase in demand will likely be confined to Asia, S&P analyst Wendy Schallom told me in an email. She expects “incremental coal generation in Europe in Q2 to be limited by both the reduced coal generating capacity and the seasonally low power demand,” she said.

That also means the long-term story of coal might not be disturbed if the market views the disturbance to LNG exports as essentially temporary. S&P’s long term forecast hadn’t changed, Schallom told me. While Knutson said that coal production is “going to be marginally higher going forward,” he added, “it’s not a game changer.”

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Politics

California Just Voted for Single-Payer Wildfire Insurance

Progressive candidate Jane Kim declared victory in the race for California Insurance Commissioner.

Jane Kim and Ben Allen.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Jane Kim, Ben Allen

Few political wonks outside of California were likely paying much attention to the Golden State on Tuesday night, as Democrats’ anticipated blue wave crested. But the state did have one close, consequential race on the ballot: insurance commissioner. On Friday, Bernie Sanders-endorsed progressive Jane Kim won the race to lead the California Department of Insurance, which oversees the state’s $452 billion insurance market.

Kim declared victory over the more moderate State Senator Ben Allen, who was backed by the California Democratic Party, after reaching a nearly six-point lead on Friday. In a brief speech before supporters, Kim said Allen called to congratulate her that morning. (A spokesman for the Allen campaign confirmed the call to The Orange County Register.) Kim ran on a proposal for a state-run, single-payer insurance program that would cover homeowners against wildfire damage — though the plan would ultimately need approval from both the California legislature and Governor-elect Xavier Becerra.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Data center construction.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Beyond the repudiation of Donald Trump, if there was one message voters sent on election night, it was that they really don’t like data centers.

Democrats who ran against rampant data center development won at both the gubernatorial level (Amy Acton in Ohio, Gina Hinojosa in Texas) and the senatorial level (Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Annie Andrews in South Carolina). The Wall Street Journal counted 125 Democrats nationwide who “targeted their opponents over data centers.”

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Mike Levin.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

It’s crunch time for the Senate’s bipartisan permitting reform and transmission bill. In three days, the bill’s authors plan to put the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act to a vote on the Senate floor. That means there’s probably only three days to finish up an amendment to the bill that addresses critics’ concerns without toppling the delicate balance the authors initially struck to foster bipartisan support.

BAAJA has major implications for climate policy, as it would make it much easier and cheaper to build high-voltage transmission lines that connect renewable energy from where it is generated to demand centers. It includes ratepayer protection provisions that require data centers to pay all of the costs of upgrading the grid so that they can hook up to it. The bill would also speed up permitting for energy projects of all stripes, from solar farms and geothermal plants to pipelines and liquified natural gas terminals.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue