Monday March 9 2026

Hacker Times

Ireland shuts last coal plant, becomes 15th coal-free country in Europe (2025)

Discussion

Moneypoint in County Clare, Ireland, joins the ranks of other European nations exiting coal by shutting off power generation at its sole remaining coal plant. Industry observers say Ireland’s increased renewable energy generation in recent years, particularly in wind, has contributed to this milestone. Moneypoint now functions as a backup oil burner under emergency instruction, but it is no longer active in the wholesale electricity market.

June 20, 2025

ESB Moneypoint Generation Station

Image: Charles W Glynn, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0

Ireland today (June 20) became the 15th coal-free country in Europe, having ended coal power generation at its 915 MW Moneypoint coal plant in County Clare. Initially commissioned in the mid-1980s by ESB, Moneypoint was intended to help Ireland offset the impact of the oil crises in the 1970s by providing a dependable source of energy.

But with Ireland now generating a lot more renewable energy nowadays, coal burning is no longer such an urgent need. Energy think tank Ember data states Ireland generated 37% (11.4 TWh) of its electricity from wind in 2024. Solar is not near wind levels of generation, (0.97 TWh in 2024) but it has been continuously breaking generation records in recent months and local stakeholders are confident this positive trend will continue.

Following the closure, the Moneypoint plant will continue to serve a limited backup role, burning heavy fuel oil under emergency instruction from Ireland’s transmission system operator EirGrid until 2029.

This strategy is in line with previous plans made by EirGrid and ESB to exit coal-fired generation by the end of 2025, which stipulated that Moneypoint would no longer be active in the wholesale electricity market.

“Ireland has quietly rewritten its energy story, replacing toxic coal with homegrown renewable power,” said Alexandru Mustață, campaigner on coal and gas at Europe’s Beyond Fossil Fuels.

“But this isn’t ‘job done’. The government’s priority now must be building a power system for a renewable future; one with the storage, flexibility, and grid infrastructure needed to run fully on clean, domestic renewable electricity,” Mustață warned.

Jerry Mac Evilly, Campaigns Director at Friends of the Earth Ireland, appealed to the government to ensure oil backup at Moneypoint is kept to an absolute minimum and ultimately decommissioned. He also appealed for the government to prevent further development of data centers, which he said are increasing Ireland’s reliance on fossil gas.

“We also can’t ignore that the government is targeting the installation of at least 2 GW of gas power plants with no strategy to reduce Ireland’s dangerous gas dependency,” he added.

On a broader level, Ireland’s step to close coal power generation at Moneypoint sets a precedent for further European countries’ coal exits to come, says Beyond Fossil Fuels. The group tracks European countries' progress on their commitments to switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy. So far, 23 European countries have committed to coal phase-outs. Italy is expected to complete its mainland coal phase-out this summer with the upcoming closure of its last two big coal power plants, while mainland Spain is also expecting to declare itself coal-free this summer.

This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.

Popular content

mrguyorama•about 5 hours ago

This source also offers an option of $1 Trillion USD to do it with battery storage.

All of Europe. $1 Trillion USD. Oh, and that figure has already fallen by 1/3rd in reality and the article claims it should drop by half again.

And that seems to be assuming you only have wind power as input. The long lull periods that drive the high storage requirements are, as that article claims, caused by large high pressure air masses. High pressure systems like that often come with clear skies! Indeed, go look at weather history for that same 2015 period and you see that the skies were calm and clear, and precipitation was about half the "normal" amount for that time of year. While there is perfect correlation between a windless day and a night without sunlight, battery to get you through the night is trivial and solved far more cheaply than this article seems to understand. Enough battery to maintain 24 hour output for a solar farm is cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels. Long term, wind and solar do not correlate, so it's very rare to have long lulls in both at the same time.

So this article is leaving out important details and also is way more pessimistic than even it admits is true.

That also ignores that even in the "lulls", wind never seems to go to zero, so even in lulls, you can always just have more wind. Building 10x as much wind as you need is not as feasible as building 10x as much solar as you need though IMO.

Oh, and a very very very important fact: Renewable generation is almost entirely a one time cost, or one time every 30ish years on average. OPEX per kilowatt hour is dramatically lower than fossil fuels. In fact, today Europe imports 10 million barrels of crude oil a day, and at $100 a barrel (a number which will rise quite a bit in the coming months), Europe spends $1 Trillion every few years.

Europe's current energy spend is to buy an entire continent's worth of energy storage and just turn it into CO2 every few years. Every single day of crude oil import, Europe could instead pay for one of the Coire Glas model plants this article is doing the math with.

Storage is beyond feasible and will reduce energy costs.

Note: This article is about making wind energy constant over month long time scales, not about building enough storage to power Europe durably, so that explains some of it's misses, but also doesn't really explain much. The 2.1 TWh of storage it suggest would be enough to power all of Europe for 8 hours a day.

zahlman•about 3 hours ago

Per your own source:

1. There are coordination issues that have caused them to overestimate the need for such plants, which have been running at low capacity. There have also been perverse incentives to build plants that weren't needed, in order to placate the relevant stakeholders.

2. Battery storage (including pumped hydro) is being pursued aggressively, specifically (among other things) to address the reliability concerns that motivated the recent new coal plant construction. Government policy, furthermore, is clearly focused on "new energy", i.e. not fossil fuels.

3. Coal power generation in China has been level or declining for a little while now. Generation from new renewable plants is outstripping the overall increase in demand for power. There is a graph titled "New coal power has no predictive value for future coal power generation".

4. Historical, global evidence shows a persistent trend of capacity reduction lagging behind generation reduction. As should be expected. It takes effort (= money) to decommission a power plant, and an inactive (or less-active) one is a safety net. "In most cases, what ultimately stopped new coal power projects in those countries was not a formal ban, but the market reality.... In China, the same market signals are emerging: clean energy is now meeting all incremental demand and coal power generation has, as a result, started to decline."

5. As a share of total power generation, coal power in China has dropped substantially (from nearly 3/4 to scarcely half) over the last decade or so. In absolute terms, it is likely near or even past the peak.

6. The article concludes: "While China’s coal power construction boom looks, at first glance, like a resurgence,it currently appears more likely to be the final surge before a long downturn. The expansion has added friction and complexity to China’s energy transition, but it has not reversed it."

You asked:

> So are China, generally shifting away from coal?

Your own source clearly argues that they are, in fact, shifting away from coal. Presenting an article that refutes you as if it supported you, while employing this style of repeated "pointed" questions, is disingenuous and obnoxious.

Imustaskforhelp•about 1 hour ago

Alright, So I think that some/most of my talking points were very inspired from the michael moore's documentary on the topic and I re-watched it after reading your comments. (Although Michael doesn't talk about Nuclear in the shortcomings)

I was going to ask you 3-4 questions but then I searched them upon myself and I do think that the results are more (positive?) than I thought.

Solar could feed world's energy needs by 0.3% and I think that Excess Solar could be used for green Hydrogen etc. too when needed for burstable energy source and smart grids in general to fix the ramp-up/ramp-down problem

I think one of the only things that I was sort of worried about mainly was the fact that Batteries produce lots of Co2 emissions and harm to the planet when mined but it seems that they have lifespan of about 10 years and can be carbon negative 3-4 years.

I don't know, I go through waves of doubt over Solar. I might need to learn more about Solar because I feel like I can just agree to whatever side I hear the recent data's from. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics it seems.

But I feel like although solar is right direction too, we probably need smarter grids and just improvements within grid infrastructure in general too. Another point about Solar could be that there can be a more personal adoption of it whereas I can't build my own nuclear power plant so I do agree with you.

I'd still say that there is a lot of greenwashing in the Climate Change community to treat wood-chips and trees as fuel source and all the problems that stem from that with timber industry.

So although there are short-comings in Solar given its intermittent nature. I do agree that unless Govt.s create nuclear, it could be a good bet for personal actions/ even Govt.s to diversify at the very least from Oil.

I still think that though there is something wrong where People are wrongfully worried about nuclear. India for example had 3% of its energy coming from Nuclear and I looked at wiki and we planned even more but anti nuclear protests started happening after Fukushima Disaster :(

I am still really interested about Thorium Reactors and the race towards building it though. They are mostly disaster-free and Indian in particular has quite a large reserve of Thorium (25% of the world supply). The govt. is working on making 100GW to raise thorium's ratio in energy to almost ~10% estimate from 3% till 2047 which would still be impressive given that total energy would skyrocket as well till then.

India has true chances of being Energy Independent long term if it focuses on nuclear and Solar both rather than focusing on Solar given any advancement in Thorium reactor will be huge for us. For reference Coal : Thorium power ratio for same mass is 1:3.5 Million and its even more efficient than Uranium.

Also Thorium cannot be used for Nuclear Bombs in the sense of a fission unless you drop it at someone complete point blank but at that point its worthless compared to missiles so we can genuinely share this technology all across the world.

Thorium Reactors long term feel the future to me. So maybe I am too bullish on Thorium.

Solar is nice but atleast personally, Investments in Thorium Reactors could make India Energy Independent given 25% of the supply. We also recently found a huge jackpot in lithium and other minerals in Kashmir recently so I suppose long term India can be sovereign in manufacturing batteries for Solar production as well.

There is such a massive possibility in nuclear especially more so for India and general consensus also being within Scientific community that nuclear energy is cleanest forms of energy. The Combination means that, I'd want my govt. to take some risks in nuclear research/projects given how big the reward can be and that's also why I vocally support Nuclear. Much more than Solar. But I'd say that any govt. has their own risk profile and maybe Solar can be boring but works technology for Energy Independence so I just hope that Solar & Thorium both show some good numbers long term as well. So it isn't as if I am anti Solar as much as I am very pro nuclear energy long term.

Relevant Video: Thorium Reactors: Why is this Technology Quite So Exciting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSFo_92cJ-U