United States

Dirty Coal
Breaking the Myth About Japanese-Funded Coal Plants
Published by: Kiko Network, JACSES, Friends of the Earth Japan,
CoalSwarm, Friends of the Earth US, Sierra ClubSUMMARY
The Japanese government is the largest public financier of coal plants globally amongst OECD countries,
and the second largest in the world, behind China.
From 2003 to 2015, the Japan Bank for International
Cooperation (JBIC) provided at least US$8.49 billion inloans and guarantees for new coal plants around theworld, amounting to 23,933 MW of new capacity (seeAnnex 1 for detailed list).1
While the Japanese government claims its technology
is less polluting and more efficient than that fromcompeting countries,2 even going so far as to countsome of its coal plant investments towards its climate finance commitments,3 the data tells a different
1. There have been several different calculations of JBIC support
for coal plants over the past 12 years. The data for this paper comesfrom a combination of OECD figures leaked in October 2014, anda list compiled by Yuki Tanabe from JACSES, based on publicly
available data. The dithering figures highlights the need for open andtransparent reporting from all export credit agencies on actual loans,insurance and guarantees. For transparency purposes, a list of all
projects included in this analysis is in Annex 1.
2. See p.3 of http://www.meti.go.jp/committee/summary/0004685/
pdf/002_05_00.pdf and pp 12 and 15 of http://bit.ly/1EJ4TDa
3. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/29/business/japanaccused-of-financing-coal-fired-power-plants/#.VRyf2mSUfSQ

BREAKING THE MYTH ABOUT JAPANESE COAL PLANTS

story. Coal projects supported by JBIC are actuallyless ­efficient than the worldwide average, and areoften not equipped with the best pollution control­technology.
In a room document presented to the OECD Exports
Credit Group in March 2015, Japan proposed a continuation of public funding for coal plants by OECD
Export Credit Agencies, including additional incentives to slightly higher-efficiency coal-fired power
plants, such as longer repayment terms.
Japan’s position rests on the notion that exports
by Japan and other OECD countries are pragmatically necessary because the alternative would belower-­efficiency, subcritical coal plants provided by
China.4 In fact, as outlined below, the portrayal of
Chinese exports of coal technology as sub-par can
only be justified by focusing on older time periods
and excluding current data. We document that there
has been a considerable increase in exports of more
4. Ueno, Yanagi, Nakano, “Quantifying Chinese Public Financing for
Foreign Coal Power Plants,” November 2014, available at http://www.
pp.u-tokyo.ac.jp/research/dp/documents/GraSPP-DP-E-14-003.pdf

APRIL 2015 | 1

DIRTY COAL

efficient Chinese boilers over the past five years,
and that China is fast overtaking Japan as a provider
of more efficient coal technologies.

Table 1. Combustion technology in JBIC-funded
coal plants 2003–2015.
MW

Share

Moreover, efficiency is only one measurement of a
project’s environmental and human health impact.
We also looked at pollution controls deployed in JBIC-­
financed projects and found that these projects often
fail to utilize the Best Available Technology to limit
pollutants from power stations, exposing local residents to dangerous emissions such as sulfur dioxide(SO2), nitrous oxides, particulates including fine particulates, acid gases including sulfuric acid mist andhydrochloric acid, and certain heavy metals.

Subcritical

10,144

42%

Supercritical

12,40352%

Ultra-supercritical

1,386

6%

23,933

100%

Combustion Technology

Source: Platts WEPP, January 2015

To provide a current comparison between recent
JBIC lending and world norms, Table 2 excludes theseven oldest JBIC projects (all subcritical), comparing
JBIC-financed plants completed or planned from 2010
onwards to the global average during the same periodof time. The overall efficiency of JBIC-funded projects
during this period is actually worse than the global
average.

This paper considers each of these topics in turn, firstcomparing the track record of JBIC-funded coal plants
to global averages, then looking at actual data on
Chinese coal technology exports, and finally looking
at pollution control technologies deployed by JBICfunded plants.

As shown in Table 2, 31% of plants funded by JBIC
with completion dates in 2010 or later were subcritical, approximately the same as the worldwide share of
29% for subcritical plants. But what is more revealingis that almost all the other plants funded by JBIC weresupercritical. JBIC has only funded one ultra-supercritical coal plant, the Safi ultra-supercriticalcoal plant in Morocco. JBIC has not funded a single
ultra-supercritical coal plant in Asia. Compared withthe worldwide average of 36% supercritical and 29%
ultra-supercritical, JBIC-financed coal plants are lessefficient than the global average.

1. HOW EFFICIENT ARE
JBIC-FUNDED COAL PLANTS?
Over the past 12 years, JBIC has provided at least$8.49 billion in financing to 43 new coal boilers with a
total capacity of 23,933 MW (see Annex 1 for details).
Table 1 below outlines the coal plant technologies
deployed in JBIC-financed projects from 2003–2015.

Table 2. Comparison of combustion technology mix between JBIC-funded coal plants and all coal plants worldwide, 2010–2018.
Plants completed or planned 2010 and later(JBIC financed)

Plants completed or planned 2010 and later(Worldwide)

Combustion Technology

MW

Share

MW

Share

Subcritical

6,312

31%

262,809

29%

Supercritical

12,40362%

327,89836%

Ultra-supercritical

1,386

7%

268,41129%

Other/Unknown
Total

0

0%

56,395

6%

20,101

100%

823,847

100%

Source: Platts WEPP, January 2015.

BREAKING THE MYTH ABOUT JAPANESE COAL PLANTSAPRIL 2015 | 2

DIRTY COAL

Worldwide averages since 2010 show supercriticaltechnology is commonplace, routinely exported by
China, and should not be considered as an “efficient”
technology. More importantly, the difference in efficiency between subcritical, supercritical and ultra-supercritical is minimal when comparing new plantsof comparable size. When Sargent & Lundy modeled
the efficiencies of pulverized coal combustion plants
for the U.S. EPA, they evaluated a new subcritical
600 MW plant burning bituminous coal compared to
new supercritical and ultra-supercritical plants of thesame size and burning the same coal. They found therelative efficiencies were 36.68%, 37.84%, and 38.45%
respectively.5 Coal-fired power plants, regardless of
their boiler technology, are always major emitters ofgreenhouse gas pollution and should never be considered low carbon.

2. HOW EFFICIENT ARE CHINESE
COAL PLANT EXPORTS?
The Japanese government is relying on a report fromthe Graduate School of Public Policy (GraSPP) at
the University of Tokyo to justify its contention that
Chinese coal exports are dominated by subcriticalboiler technology,6 and therefore OECD export credit
support is necessary to promote more efficient coalplants. The GrasPP paper presents data derived fromthe 2012 Platts UDI World Electric Power Plant Database (WEPP), comparing the types of boilers suppliedby Chinese manufacturers to Asian overseas markets to those supplied by Japanese manufacturers.
The authors report that only 35% of Chinese boilers
supplied to Asian overseas markets “after 2007” weresupercritical or ultra-supercritical, compared to 62%
of Japanese boilers.

As is often the case with such comparisons, the devil
is in the detail. Only in the footnotes do the authors
reveal that the data set used to generate their results
was confined to those projects that started commercial operation after 2007 or were under construction
in 2012. Since this time period, the composition ofChinese boiler exports has changed considerably.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the share of subcriticalplants in the overall mix of capacity exported by Chinese manufacturers is rapidly dwindling. The chartshows the year-by-year shares for subcritical versus
supercritical technology according to the January 2015
release of Platts WEPP for coal plants built or scheduled outside China during the decade 2008–2017, withboilers from the three main Chinese manufacturers,
Dongfang, Shanghai Electric, and Harbin. As the chartshows, by 2016 the share of China’s coal plant exports
utilizing subcritical technology is expected to drop to
15 percent.
Figure 1. Share of capacity exported by Dongfang, Harbin, andShanghai Electric, 2008–2017

Source: Platts WEPP, January 2015

5. “New Coal-Fired Power Plant Performance and Cost Estimates,”
Sargent & Lundy, August 28, 2009, Project 12301-003 at http://www.
epa.gov/airmarkets/resource/docs/CoalPerform.pdf
6. See note 4 above

BREAKING THE MYTH ABOUT JAPANESE COAL PLANTSAPRIL 2015 | 3

DIRTY COAL

Table 3. New coal-fired generating capacity exported by Dongfang, Harbin, and Shanghai Electric, 2008–2017.
Megawatts
Year

Subcritical

2008

2,445

2009
2010
2011
2012

Share
Supercritical

Subcritical

Supercritical

0

100%

0

2,145

0

100%

0

4,275

1,890

69%

31%

6,478

1,920

77%

23%

6,495

3,300

66%

34%

2013

7,155

4,500

61%

39%

2014

4,810

15,514

24%

76%

2015

11,472

10,320

53%

47%

2016

1,441

7,920

15%

85%

2017

695

3,970

15%

85%

Source: Platts WEPP, January 2015

Table 3 shows the year-by-year breakdown for Chinese
coal boilers sold outside China in megawatts.
Based on the most recent data available, the claim that
OECD export credit subsidies are needed to ensure
the export of more efficient coal plant technologies
overseas cannot be supported, since China’s exportsof supercritical coal plants are rapidly overtaking its
exports of subcritical coal plants.

(a) Control of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Table 4 shows the results for SO2 pollution controls
amongst JBIC-funded coal plants from 2003–2015.

Table 4. SO2 pollution control technology used by JBIC-funded
coal plants.
MW

Percent SO2 Technology

3. HOW DIRTY ARE JBIC-FUNDEDCOAL PLANTS?

4,708

20%

Seawater FGD scrubber

8,400

36%

Compliance fuel (no scrubbers)

572

2%

Semi-dry circulating fluidized bed FGD scrubber

1,700

7%

Fluidized bed

In addition to falling beneath global norms for coalplant efficiency, JBIC projects also have a questionable
track record for control of major air pollutants, failingto utilize the Best Available Technology to limit pollutants from power stations and thereby exposing local
residents to dangerous emissions such as SO2, particulates including fine particulates, acid gases including
sulfuric acid mist and hydrochloric acid, and certain
heavy metals, all of which can be controlled by scrubbers and baghouses.

5,270

22%

Wet limestone FGD scrubber

BREAKING THE MYTH ABOUT JAPANESE COAL PLANTS

232

1%

Wet lime FGD scrubber

2,620

11%

No sulfur control/no information

23,502

100%

Total

Source: Platts WEPP, January 2015

Only half of JBIC projects have known scrubbers ofany kind. 36% use “compliance fuel,” meaning they
try to use lower sulfur coal, but lack any pollution
control equipment. For 11% of plants (Hai Phong 1 inVietnam, Meja in India and Pacifico-II in Mexico), thePlatts database did not list any scrubber, which may

APRIL 2015 | 4

DIRTY COAL

mean there was no scrubber or that Platts did not have
any information. The projects that listed “compliancefuel” as the SO2 control were in India (Barh, Jaypee
Nigrie, Kudgi and Rajpura Nabha), Indonesia (Cirebon), and Vietnam (Hai Phong).
It is doubtful that “compliance fuel” is an adequate
pollution control strategy. India, for example, does not
currently have any plant or unit-specific SO2 or NOX
limits for coal-fired power plants.7 Thus, “compliancefuel” is meaningless in this context, as there is noenforcement mechanism to comply with. According toa study by Resources for the Future,8 three-quarters of
the premature deaths in India from coal are attributable to SO2 emissions from supposedly “low sulfur”
coal, which averages to 500 deaths per coal plant.
Typical sulfur contents of the mostly sub-bituminous
coals in India are in the range of 0.2–0.7%, which iscomparable to sub-bituminous coal from the U.S.9
Resources for the Future recommends that scrubbers,
or at least coal washing, should be deployed in every
Indian plant in order to minimize health impacts (currently only 5% of coal in India is washed). Numerous
coal plants burning sub-bituminous coals with similarsulfur content in the US currently use scrubbers. JBIC
could use its leverage to require scrubbers, but clearly
has not done so.

cardio-vascular diseases leading to premature deathand increased morbidity. That is why strong pollution
controls for PM2.5 are essential in protecting people’s
health from the effects of coal combustion.
The best available technology for controlling particulate matter, particularly fine particulate matter,
includes both fabric filters (baghouses) and wet electrostatic precipitators (wESP). Deploying both of thesetechnologies can remove almost all particulates fromthe smokestack, but both are rarely deployed becauseof the cost. The second best option is to deploy just abaghouse. Baghouses can capture 99.9% of total particulates and 99.0–99.8% of fine particulates. The third
best option is a wet ESP, and the fourth best option is a
dry ESP, which can capture over 99% of total particulates, but only 90–95% of fine particulates.10 Dry ESPs,
by the very nature of their operation, are less robust
devices for removal of particulate matter as compared
to baghouses and they are not as effective as wet ESPs
for the capture of fine particulate matter.
Table 5 shows the particulate matter controls deployed
by JBIC-funded coal plants.

Table 5. Particulate control technology used in JBIC-funded
coal plants.
MW(b) Control of Particulate Matter
Exposure to fine particulates (less than 1/30th thewidth of a human hair) increases rates of heart attack,stroke and respiratory disease. PM2.5, the smallest
and most deadly type of particulate matter, penetrates
deep into the lungs. Even exposure to a relatively
small amount of PM2.5 can result in respiratory and7. http://www.greenpeace.org/india/Global/india/docs/India-ChinaAir-Quality-Standards-Comparison.pdf
8. Maureen Cropper and Kabir Malik, “The Hidden Costs of Power:
Effects of Coal Electricity Generation in India,” Resources Magazine,
2012 at http://bit.ly/1I7hSO7
9. Mittal, M.L., et. al., Estimates of Emissions from Coal Fired
Thermal Power Plants in India, available at http://www.epa.gov/
ttnchie1/conference/ei20/session5/mmittal.pdf

BREAKING THE MYTH ABOUT JAPANESE COAL PLANTS

Percent Particulate Control

804

3%

Baghouse (fabric filter)

2,754

12%

Cold side ESP (downstream of air preheater)

18,64479%

Unspecified type of electrostatic precipitator(elektrofilter)

1,300

6%

No particulate control

23,502

100%

Total

Source: Platts WEPP, January 2015

If we look at the type of particulate controls deployed
by JBIC, the vast majority (91%) are either cold side
dry ESPs or unspecified, likely other types of dry ESP.
While the technology for wet ESP has been aroundfor at least two decades, a lack of regulation has
10. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/coal-control-technologynescaum-report-20110330.pdf

APRIL 2015 | 5

DIRTY COAL

slowed its implementation. It is unlikely that manyof these plants use wet ESP. This means that almost
four-fifths of the coal plants funded by JBIC areusing less effective, inferior technology that will not
robustly capture all of the harmful fine particulates(PM2.5) emitted by the smokestack. Only two plants
have deployed baghouses, the second best type oftechnology for controlling particulate matter, andnone have deployed a baghouse and wet ESP, the mosteffective way of removing fine particulates from the­smokestack.

4. CONCLUSIONJBIC’s central claim that its funding of coal plants ispragmatically necessary to prevent the building of
subcritical Chinese coal plants can only be supported
by limiting the analysis to outdated statistics on Chinese exports. Up-to-date data shows that the share of
subcritical plants in the Chinese export mix dwindles
to 15% in the post-2015 period.
JBIC’s portrayal of its technology as a “cleaner” andmore efficient alternative is belied by comparisons

BREAKING THE MYTH ABOUT JAPANESE COAL PLANTS

with global norms. JBIC-funded coal plants are actually less efficient than the global average. On pollution
controls, JBIC-funded coal plants are not deploying thebest available technologies and are therefore jeopardizing the health and lives of people around the world.
It is unacceptable for the Japanese government to continue to defend subsidies for Japanese companies todeploy inferior technology in poorer countries aroundthe world, and the Japanese government cannot possibly claim that it is exporting the least dirty and mostefficient coal plant technologies currently available.
There is simply no justification for continued investments in coal plants that have far higher CO2 emissions than any other electricity source and that lock in
decades of additional emissions.
The Japanese government should support efforts at
the OECD Export Credit Group to rule out export credit
support for new coal plants abroad, as well as otherfossil fuel financing. Instead, the government should
use public resources to support the burgeoning renewable energy industry in the Asia-Pacific region, inorder to ensure a clean energy future for all.

APRIL 2015 | 6

DIRTY COAL

Annex 1: JBIC-funded coal plants 2003–2015
JBIC
Year
investment
Funded (million USD)
2003

91

2003

Unit

Country

CompanyMW

StatusOperation
Year

Boilertype

MINDANAO STEAG 1

PHILIPPINESSTEAG STATE POWER INC

116

OPR

2006

SUBCR

BH

STEAG STATE POWER INC

116

OPR

2006

SUBCR

BH

WL

SUBCR

ESP

FGD
WLST

MINDANAO STEAG 2

Particulate
SO2
control
control
WL

2003

91

PAROSENI 4

ROMANIASC COMPLEX ENERGETIC HUNEDOARA

150

OPR

2003

721

TANJUNG JATI-B NO 1

INDONESIAPT CENTRAL JAVA POWER

660

OPR

2006

SUBCR

CSE

PT CENTRAL JAVA POWER

660

OPR

2006

SUBCR

CSE

WLST

BLCP LTD

717

OPR

2006

SUBCR

CSE

SWFGD
SWFGD

2003
2004

TANJUNG JATI-B NO 2
408.5

2004

BLCP 1THAILANDBLCP LTD

717

OPR

2007

SUBCR

CSE

2004

138

BLCP 2MARITZA EAST-2 NO 1-4

BULGARIA

TPP MARITZA EAST-2 PLC

696

OPR

2007–2009

SUBCR

ESP

WLST

2005

62.4

HAI PHONG THERMAL-I NO 1

VIETNAM

HAI PHONE THERMAL POWER JSC

300

OPR

2011

SUBCR

BLANK

BLANK

HAI PHONE THERMAL POWER JSC

300

OPR

2011

SUBCR

BLANK

BLANK

NTPC LTD

660

CON

2015

SUPERC

ESP

CF

2005
2007

HAI PHONG THERMAL-I NO 2
380

BARH 1

INDIA

2007

BARH 2

NTPC LTD

660

CON

2015

SUPERC

ESP

CF

2007

BARH 3

NTPC LTD

660

CON

2016

SUPERCESPCF

HAI PHONE THERMAL POWER JSC

300

OPR

2013

SUBCR

ESP

CF

HAI PHONE THERMAL POWER JSC

300

OPR

2014

SUBCR

ESP

CF

PT CENTRAL JAVA POWER

660

OPR

2011

SUBCR

ESP

WLST

2007

38

2007
2008

HAI PHONG THERMAL-II NO 1

VIETNAM

HAI PHONG THERMAL-II NO 2
1753

2008

TANJUNG JATI-B NO 3

INDONESIAPT CENTRAL JAVA POWER

660

OPR

2012

SUBCR

ESP

WLST

2010

1458

TANJUNG JATI-B NO 4
PAITON-3

INDONESIAPT PAITON ENERGY

815

OPR

2012

SUPERC

ESP

FGD

2010

216

CIREBON 1

INDONESIAPT CIREBON ELECTRIC POWER

700

OPR

2012

SUPERC

ESP

CF

2010

273

PACIFICO-II NO 1

MEXICOCOMISION FEDERAL DE ELEC

700

OPR

2010

SUPERC

BLANK

BLANK

2011

110

JAYPEE NIGRIE 1

INDIA

JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD

660

CON

2014

SUBCR

ESP

CF

JAIPRAKASH POWER VENTURES LTD

660

CON

2014

SUBCR

ESP

CF

NABHA POWER LTD

700

OPR

2014

SUPERCESP

CF

NABHA POWER LTD

700

CON

2014

SUPERCESPCFPETROVIETNAM POWER CORP

600

CON

2014

SUBCR

ESP

WLST

PETROVIETNAM POWER CORP

600

CON

2014

SUBCR

ESP

WLST

TAQA NORTH AFRICA

350

CON

2014

SUBCR

ESP

FGD

TAQA NORTH AFRICA

350

CON

2014

SUBCR

ESP

FGD

AES GENER SA

286

CON

2017

SUBCR

BH

CFBS

AES GENER SA

286

CON

2017

SUBCR

BH

CFBS

PETROVIETNAM POWER CORP

600

CON

2017

SUPERCESPWLSTPETROVIETNAM POWER CORP

600

CON

2018

SUPERCESPWLSTNTPC LTD

800

CON

2016

SUPERC

ESP

CF
CF

2011
2011

JAYPEE NIGRIE 2
81

2011
2011

58

500

JORF LASFAR 5

MOROCCO

COCHRANE AES 1

CHILE

COCHRANE AES 2
85

2013
2014

VIETNAMJORF LASFAR 6

2013
2013

VUNG ANG-1 NO 1
VUNG ANG-1 NO 2

216

2012
2013

INDIA

RAJPURA NABHA 2

2011
2012

RAJPURA NABHA 1

THAI BINH-2 NO 1

VIETNAMTHAI BINH-2 NO 2210

KUDGI 1

INDIA

2014

KUDGI 2

NTPC LTD

800

CON

2017

SUPERCESP2014

KUDGI 3

NTPC LTD

800

CON

2017

SUPERCESPCFNTPC LTD

660

CON

2016

SUPERCESPBLANKNTPC LTD

660

CON

2017

SUPERCESPBLANKSAFI ENERGY COMPANY SA

693

CON

2018

ULTRSCESPSWFGD

SAFI ENERGY COMPANY SA

693

CON

2018

ULTRSCESPSWFGD

EVN GENCO NO 3

600

CON

2017

SUPERCESPSWFGD

EVN GENCO NO 3

600

CON

2018

SUPERC

ESP

SWFGD

688

CON

2018

SUPERC

ESP

SWFGD

2014

90

2014
2014

INDIA

MEJA 2
908

2014
2014

MEJA 1SAFI 1

MOROCCOSAFI 2
202

2014

VINH TAN-4 NO 1

VIETNAM

VINH TAN-4 NO 2

2015

409

Totals

8498.9DUYEN HAI 3 EXTENSIONVIETNAM

23933

Sources: OECD data, press releases from JBIC website, Platts WEPPKey:
SO2 Control
SWFGD
CF
CFBS
FGD
WLST
WL
BLANK

Seawater FGD scrubber
Compliance fuel (no scrubbers)
Semi-dry circulating fluidized bed FGD scrubber
Fluidized bed
Wet limestone FGD scrubber
Wet lime FGD scrubber
No sulfur control

Particulate Control
BH
Baghouse (fabric filter)
CSE
Cold side ESP (downstream of air preheater)
ESP
Unspecified type of electrostatic precipitator (elektrofilter)
BLANK
No particulate control

BREAKING THE MYTH ABOUT JAPANESE COAL PLANTSAPRIL 2015 | 7