Indonesia industrial coal power plans undercut emissions pledge: report
Indonesia's planned expansion of "captive" coal plants used to power industry is threatening its pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 2030 and close all coal-fired plants by a decade later, said a report published Thursday.
Coal-dependent Indonesia, Southeast Asia's largest economy, is one of the world's top emitters but President Prabowo Subianto last year committed to phasing out coal in just 15 years and reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century.
Indonesia's new national electricity master plan announced in November projects growth in renewables but also a sharp rise in coal generation beyond 2030, according to a report by London-based energy think tank Ember.
The new plan raises "concerns that Indonesia's latest electricity masterplan could significantly increase coal power generation", Ember said.
Jakarta previously said its renewable energy mix would reach 44 percent of its power generation by 2030.
But the new plan includes 26.8 gigawatts of new coal capacity over the next seven years, Ember said, with more than 20 GW of that coming from so-called captive coal expansion, which supplies energy to industry rather than the grid.
Indonesia currently operates 49.7 GW of coal-fired power plants, according to Ember, and the government says 253 coal-fired power plants were operational as of December.
But dozens more coal-fired plants remain under construction, including captive coal plants.
State electricity company Perusahaan Listrik Negara did not respond to a request for comment.
"Expanding captive coal while global markets shift to clean energy makes little economic sense," said Dody Setiawan, Ember's senior climate and energy analyst for Indonesia.
"Committing to a clear path for coal phase-out while prioritising renewables would help Indonesia address the multi-faceted challenges that all coal-dependent economies must face."
The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which said much of the captive coal growth was centred on Sulawesi and North Maluku islands, issued a warning to locals.
They "will have to bear the highest health and economic burden from pollution exposure," said CREA analyst Katherine Hasan.
Indonesia secured a $20 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership with developed nations in 2022, which was supposed to speed its clean energy transition, but little of that money has been seen so far.
This month the environment ministry rushed to again pledge Jakarta's support for the landmark Paris climate deal after its climate envoy suggested the agreement was irrelevant after US President Donald Trump again withdrew from it.
The report said Indonesia needed to do much more to meet the Paris agreement target by 2050.
bur-jfx/mtp
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
It's no wonder that the middle classes are fleeing Rachel Reeves's anti-wealth island
A brain drain is coming. We need to talk about emigration. Yes, you read that right, emigration – not just immigration. You heard the warnings during the Brexit wars – business and investors will leave for Paris, Frankfurt, Milan (and the Earth will stop spinning...) unless we remain in the customs union – and back then it was largely a load of hot air. But hear me out. This time, it's actually happening. Entrepreneurs and businesspeople are fleeing in their droves. In the past year alone, more than 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Only China saw more high net-worth individuals leave. European countries are now stealing our lunch, with Italy and Portugal styling themselves as destinations for investor flight with attractive low-tax regimes. It wasn't Brexit that did it, but an economically illiterate tax regime determined to squeeze the juice dry. The best-paid 1 per cent already paid about a third of all income tax collected: those with the broadest shoulders were – and still are – bearing the greatest burden. But the Chancellor viewed successful investors and risk-taking entrepreneurs as criminals to punish, rather than assets to court. The non-dom tax changes may have polled well in focus groups, but they've backfired – and the public will now pay the price. Who is going to fund increases in defence, healthcare and transport spending? Yet again, it will fall to the middle classes to bridge the gap left. The Chancellor's ineptitude means further tax rises on working people in the autumn are now inevitable. The social contract with the middle class hasn't simply frayed – it's been shredded. They have been disproportionately targeted to fund a record tax burden while their quality of life has remained largely stagnant. They're paying more than ever to get less than ever in return. The public services they use are crumbling, the streets they walk feel less safe, and the town centres they visit are hollowed out by petty crime and boarded-up shopfronts. In France, discontent leads to riots; in Britain, it seems to dissipate into despair. The very real risk now is that Brits vote with their feet and simply pack up and leave en masse. A recent poll showed that nearly a quarter of UK adults are considering moving abroad in the next five years. These are highly skilled professionals who are the bedrock of any country: 48 per cent of those in the IT industry are considering emigrating, as are 30 per cent of those in the healthcare sector. And it's not just white-collar workers, either – when I speak to tradesmen, they think they would have far better prospects in countries such as Australia and Canada. This is no longer an issue of investor flight, but a full-on brain drain. In the 1970s, a high-tax and anti-business environment led to Britain experiencing a net loss of 500,000 people. Half a century later, history could well repeat itself. Even my generation, now pushing into our 40s, who didn't feel like we had it particularly good entering the jobs market in the 2000s, and with the massive house-price boom of that period, had it so much better. When I speak at universities, I am struck by how many are contemplating opportunities abroad. And who can blame them? Young graduates today pay more than ever to live in tiny bedrooms in shared flats. The prospect of homeownership – or starting a family – has never been more distant. Unlike previously, the alternatives to the UK are increasingly appealing. Their money can go further elsewhere, and they can live in more prosperous countries with a better quality of life. In 2007, the average Brit was richer than the average American, Australian, Austrian, Belgian, Canadian and German, to name just a few. Now, they have all overtaken us. And it's not just them. Finland, the UAE, Hong Kong and Israel have all sailed past us when it comes to GDP per capita. A failed policy consensus of the past 20 years has driven this country into decline – and now the consequences are upon us. We won't return to being a country of net emigration anytime soon. Quite the opposite: Starmer's immigration White Paper was a recipe for more mass legal and illegal migration. That means hundreds of thousands more migrants who, over their lifetime, will take out more then they put in – many of whom are from culturally divergent countries. Meanwhile, net contributors are pushed towards the exit. On average, a millionaire leaves the country every 45 minutes, while an illegal migrant enters the country every 15 minutes. It's the most brain-dead migration policy imaginable. I don't just fear for the raw economic consequences. If middle-class flight takes off, the foot will slam on the accelerator driving the dizzying pace of change. Brits who have grown up here and are imbued with our history, heritage, culture, customs and traditions can't simply be swapped like-for-like. Nations, like all good things, take an age to create but are easily destroyed. Many Brits can sense that the country they love is slipping away: at first gradually, then suddenly. I understand why people consider leaving the UK, although I could never, ever imagine it myself. I too despair sometimes, but I care too much to just shrug my shoulders and resign myself to defeat. We have a fight on our hands to turn this country around. But safe streets, cohesive communities, cheap energy, functioning public services, higher wages and a startup culture are never unobtainable. For all our problems, this is a great country – and I'm convinced we can be greater still. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
See Purdue's 50-year plan to transform downtown Indianapolis campus with high-rises
Over the next 50 years, Purdue University plans to transform its downtown Indianapolis campus into an urban hub with high-rise buildings hosting up to 15,000 students, according to a new master plan. Today, Purdue's 28-acre sliver of land wedged between Indiana Avenue and Michigan Street on downtown's west side — roughly the same acreage as the parcel on which Lucas Oil Stadium and its south parking lot sit — is home to three parking garages and five expansive parking lots. A conceptual master plan approved by Purdue's Board of Trustees June 6 envisions 16 new buildings on that site, featuring 4.5 million square feet and about 3,500 student beds. With leasing agreements at nearby apartments, Purdue expects to offer students more than 5,300 beds downtown. The plan foresees an increase in Purdue's student enrollment in Indianapolis from about 2,800 in fall 2024 to 15,000 by fall 2075. Despite the dense development, the plan sets aside about 60% of the downtown acreage for open spaces where students can gather and walk, according to Maryland-based architecture firm Ayers Saint Gross, which designed the 50-year master plan. Construction on the campus' main building, the 15-story Academic Success Building near the intersection of West and Michigan streets, began this April. The $187 million facility with classrooms, lab space, dining halls and student housing will be complete around May 2027. The long-term plan comes as Purdue and Indiana University in Indianapolis jostle for position on the west side of downtown following the 2024 split of the two schools' joint urban campus, IUPUI. As Purdue updates its plans, IU has allotted hundreds of millions of dollars to build multiple major facilities, including an 11-story School of Medicine building and a 4,500-seat athletics center, on its downtown campus in the next few years. IUPUI split: Indiana Ave. fell as IUPUI rose. After Purdue and IU split, can they help renew the Avenue? After the IUPUI division, IU retains most of the 536-acre downtown campus and enrolled more than 25,000 students in fall 2024. IU also owns the 28-acre wedge of land where Purdue will expand between Indiana Avenue to the north, Michigan Street to the south and Blake Street to the west. Purdue has signed a 100-year lease to use the property. Purdue is expanding into Indiana's capital city in part to ease the strain on housing and other facilities at the West Lafayette campus, which now enrolls an all-time high of more than 55,000 students. University leaders have also announced partnerships with Indianapolis-based science and engineering firms like animal health company Elanco and race car manufacturer Dallara. 'Rather than a single hub, Purdue is weaving into the fabric of the city's innovation and industry corridors," David Umulis, Purdue's senior vice provost for Indianapolis, said in a statement, "expanding from downtown all the way to the northwest side of Indianapolis." Email IndyStar Reporter Jordan Smith at JTsmith@ Follow him on X: @jordantsmith09 This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: What's in Purdue's 50-year plan for downtown Indianapolis campus
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Debate heats up as Ocean City wind farm moves forward
The Maryland Department of the Environment has made a final determination to approve permits for Baltimore-based US Wind Inc. to build the first large-scale offshore wind project near Ocean City. According to MDE, 'The proposed construction and commissioning of the offshore wind project would not cause violations of any applicable air pollution control regulations.' The decision, issued Friday, is the latest move in a multi-year, controversial effort to bring the plan to fruition. U.S. Wind has proposed 114 turbines that would be about 11 miles from shore at their closest, according to documents filed by the company with the Maryland Public Service Commission. The project would deliver 1,710 megawatts with turbines about 10 miles from Ocean City, according to its Maryland PSC application. The build-out would occur in several phases, with the first turbines intended for operation in 2028, according to the commission document. Opponents of the project, who include Ocean City Mayor Richard Meehan, argue that the wind farms could harm the environment and wildlife, degrade air quality and damage the region's tourism economy by marring the beach view. 'It is unconscionable to believe that the Maryland Department of Environment is ignoring pre-established permitting deadlines and fundamentally ignoring every shred of feedback offered by those who will be directly involved if this poorly conceived and potentially disastrous offshore wind project is allowed to move forward,' Meehan said in a statement Friday, following the MDE decision. 'The entire economy of our coastal resort town is dependent on tourism, our eco system, and commercial fishing, all of which will be significantly impacted if hundreds of these giant eyesores are constructed 10 miles from our beaches.' In October, the town of Ocean City filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the wind farm that is closest to beginning construction along its shoreline. The ongoing suit alleges that the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management violated federal law when it approved the construction plan for US Wind's project. There are several groups circulating petitions against the wind farms, including nonprofit Save Ocean City and Indian River High School Engineering Students Class Of 2025 & 2026. Ocean City resident Spencer Rowe said he is concerned about the environmental impact of the wind farms. 'In my experience, more and more people are starting to question the proposed wind farms, although many of them are not motivated enough to sign [petitions],' Rowe said in an email to The Baltimore Sun. 'Traveling [around] town, one sees a lot of bumper stickers and restaurant signs displaying opposition messages. I talk to a lot of people about this, and nearly everyone is opposed now that they are learning more about all the detrimental impacts, both to the offshore environment and to our priceless viewshed.' Maryland has made significant investments in wind energy in recent years. The US Wind project is projected to create 13,000 jobs and net more than $6 billion in economic benefits. For fiscal year 2025 alone, $5 million was allocated to build a wind energy workforce and supply chain. Under state law, Maryland must reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045. The state also aims to develop up to 8,500 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2031. Despite some expressing environmental and economic concerns, others continue to support the development of offshore wind farms. In a letter to The Sun, Berlin resident Larry Austin Ryan outlined 10 reasons why people should not sign a petition recently sponsored by the Town of Ocean City to push wind turbines more than 26 miles off Maryland's coast. 'Wind power is the fastest growing energy industry in the world! Jobs in wind turbine technology are also one of the fastest growing areas of employment in living wage jobs,' Ryan wrote. 'The Ocean City area is guaranteed 60 jobs and there will be many more jobs in Salisbury and Baltimore in the manufacture and distribution of wind turbines and their components. With the addition of this many jobs, more visitors will have more discretionary income allowing them to enjoy the fruits of their labor in Ocean City.' 'Electricity produced by offshore wind will supply more than 750,000 homes and businesses on the Eastern shore,' Ryan added. 'It will ensure a large-scale improvement of our already inadequate electrical grid here on the shore and avoid a surcharge to Maryland ratepayers for having to import electricity from out of state. This will allow continued economic growth for all the shore in the 21 st century.' A petition to review MDE's decision must be filed by July 14 in the circuit court for the county where the permit application indicates the proposed activity will occur. 'The permits were issued after a thorough review of US Wind's application and following a public process,' an MDE spokesperson said in an email Saturday. 'Due to significant public interest, the Department of the Environment extended the time for the public to provide input. All feedback was carefully reviewed.' Aside from public debate, US Wind's project is facing legal and political hurdles. On May 5, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown sued President Donald Trump's administration for freezing the development of offshore wind energy projects. Brown and a coalition of 17 attorneys general allege that the executive order threatens states' abilities to secure affordable energy sources, meet the increasing electricity demand, meet climate goals and disrupt billions of dollars in infrastructure and supply chain investments, according to the lawsuit. 'The president's actions violate federal law and will make it harder for us to help Marylanders keep the money they make. One of the best strategies for driving down utility costs is ramping up clean energy production through wind power,' Gov. Wes Moore said in a statement at the time. 'At a moment when families are feeling the strain of high energy bills, we should focus on cutting red tape, not halting critical infrastructure projects.' Have a news tip? Contact Todd Karpovich at tkarpovich@ or on X as @ToddKarpovich.
