A global dataset for coal-to-renewables cost crossover analysis
This paper presents a comprehensive global dataset and dashboard that integrates plant-level coal operating costs with local renewable energy and financing conditions to enable direct, transparent comparisons of the economic crossover point between continuing coal operations and transitioning to solar and wind power.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The world's power grids are in the middle of a quiet, massive shift. For over a century, coal has been the reliable backbone of electricity generation, a fuel that burns hot and steady to keep lights on and factories running. But the economics of energy are changing faster than the infrastructure itself. On one side, we have aging coal plants that are already built; their biggest cost is no longer construction, but simply the fuel and maintenance needed to keep them running day after day. On the other side, we have solar panels and wind turbines, which require a large upfront investment to build but cost almost nothing to operate once they are spinning or glowing in the sun. The critical question for the future is not just whether renewables are cheaper to build, but whether they are cheaper to run than the coal plants that are already standing. This is a complex puzzle because the answer depends on a unique mix of local conditions: how much sun or wind a specific place gets, how expensive it is to borrow money to build new projects in that country, and how much the local coal plant actually pays for its fuel.
A team of researchers at Columbia University has built a massive, detailed map to solve this puzzle for the entire globe. They created a new dataset that compares the cost of keeping existing coal plants running against the cost of building new solar or wind farms right next to them. They looked at 6,580 individual coal-fired units operating in 73 countries. For each one, they calculated the exact cost to keep the coal plant running for another year, including fuel and maintenance. Then, they modeled the cost of building a new renewable energy project nearby, factoring in the local strength of the wind or sun and the specific interest rates available in that country. Their goal was to find the "crossover point," the moment when the new renewable energy becomes cheaper than the old coal plant.
The results show that for the vast majority of these coal plants, the switch has already happened. In their central analysis, which uses standard estimates for resource quality and financing, the researchers found that new solar or wind power is cheaper to operate than the existing coal plants at 2,702 out of 2,836 units in their main comparison group. This means that for these plants, the money spent on fuel and maintenance to keep the coal burning is higher than the total cost of generating the same amount of electricity from a new renewable source. In many regions, particularly in Africa and Asia, solar power emerged as the cheapest option, while in other areas like parts of Europe and the Americas, wind was the winner. The study also identified a smaller group of 134 plants where the economics are very close; these are what the researchers call "finance-sensitive." For these specific units, renewable energy would be cheaper if the cost of borrowing money to build them were slightly lower, but even here, the gap is small.
The researchers did not stop at a simple yes-or-no answer. They built a flexible system that allows anyone to test different scenarios. They accounted for the fact that wind and solar are intermittent, meaning they don't produce power 24 hours a day, so they added the cost of four-hour battery storage to the equation. When they included the cost of storing enough energy to cover the gaps in the sun or wind, the number of coal plants that are cheaper to replace dropped significantly. If every bit of renewable energy had to pass through a battery, the crossover point disappeared for most plants, showing that storage is a critical, expensive piece of the puzzle. However, the study also explored how much cheaper things would get if interest rates for renewable projects were reduced through government support or policy changes. They found that if financing costs were lowered by just a few percentage points, nearly every single coal plant in their dataset would become more expensive to keep running than the renewable alternative.
This work provides a transparent, unit-by-unit record that moves beyond national averages to look at the specific reality of individual power plants. The researchers combined data from global coal trackers, solar and wind atlases, and financial reports to create a single, consistent view. They made sure to distinguish between plants that feed directly into the public grid and those that serve private industries or provide heat, focusing their main conclusions on the grid-connected units that power most of the world. The dataset is now available for anyone to use, allowing policymakers, investors, and researchers to see exactly where the economic case for retiring coal is strongest and where it is weakest. It confirms that the transition to clean energy is not just a matter of technology, but of local economics, and that for a large portion of the world's coal fleet, the math already says it is time to move on.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.