Kelly Levin and Ailun Yang opine that the fossil fuel budget holds the most significant implications for coal. Carbon-dioxide emissions associated with burning coal are the greatest of any fossil fuel, and coal has the highest carbon content among all unburned fossil fuel reserves. Data from the scientific statement shows that additional budgets are needed for the emissions associated with coal reserves alone, leaving no budget for continued use of oil or natural gas. Nuclear needs
Despite these known risks, coal remains a dominant energy source. There are nearly 1,200 new coal-fired power plants slated for development worldwide. More than three-quarters of these plants are proposed in India and China, nations already struggling with air quality and environmental issues associated with coal emissions, and coal remains an existing source in many countries. More recent information suggests that plans for many such coal plants are being scraped in favor of nuclear power, especially in China and India.
The IEA reports that coal currently provides 40 percent of the electricity and has been the fastest-growing global energy source since 2000. The IEA most recent World Energy Outlook finds that while renewables and natural gas generation will grow rapidly (relative to what?), coal is still projected to be the dominant source of electricity through 2035.
I2M Web Portal editors downplay the impact of wind and solar suggesting that only natural gas and nuclear power offer the grid-based energy sources that minimize electricity cost to the consumer and meet environmental requirements at the same time.
This article by Levin and Yang is another example puff journalism driven by agendas designed to favor wind and solar without providing any basis for their claims. Notice they rightly criticize coal but then jump to the conclusion that renewables should replace coal without mentioning or considering the significant benefits of nuclear power. I2M calls this bias.