Renewables Are True Winners of Iran War
Coal's Resurrection Foretold, But Hath Not Come
The Iran War is a geopolitical blunder and humanitarian catastrophe with very few true winners. But it has generated one rather unexpected loser—the philosophy of energy historian and energy transition pundit Vaclav Smil.
Since the start of the Iran War, Heatmap News—a rigidly dogmatic Smilite publication that routinely underestimates wind, solar, and storage—has run an extended series of articles rapturously celebrating its prediction that the conflict would ignite a new era of coal-burning as Liquefied Fossil Gas (LFG)-dependent nations switch to the dirtier but more accessible fossil fuel.
One headline heralded the solution to the energy crisis as “more coal.” Another called the Iran War “gravy” for the coal industry.1 A full reading reveals an almost libidinous fervor at the prospect of a coal revival. One cannot help but envision the reporter racing to their nearest coal-fired power station, shovel in hand, ready to load the thick, black gravy directly into the boiler and light the pyre themselves.
Yet thus far, Heatmap—and the conservative conventional wisdom it represents—has been dead wrong. Analysis of the relevant data reveals that power-sector coal consumption will indeed likely increase in 2026—but the effect will be minimal.2
In late April, energy think tank Ember released a report debunking the idea that coal use will explode in the wake of the Iran War. Their analysis—based on reams of real-time and historical data and sophisticated modeling—showed that the increase in power-sector coal consumption globally would be no more than 1.8% in 2026.3
This figure is explicitly an upper bound to their estimate, and the median scenario is likely to be lower. The reason for such a modest effect is basic Economics 101.
“Coal fleets are smaller, older and increasingly uneconomic,” Christine Shearer, manager of Global Energy Monitor tells Carbon Brief, “while wind, solar and storage are becoming more competitive and widespread.”4
Since Ember’s report, the headlines have gotten worse for the “coal shall overcome” thesis. In Asia, higher coal prices and stricter export rules have limited cross-border trade.5 The year-on-year growth in Asia’s power-sector coal use was less than 3% in May.6 A Chinese coal mine also exploded that month, killing 82 miners—a politically unpalatable toll underscoring that coal, too, comes with its own set of political risks.
In Europe (a massive LNG importer predicted to rush back to coal), power-sector coal use was essentially flat in May, falling 0.26% YoY.7 Renewables filled the gap instead. Coal’s decline was 11% in the United States over the same period—despite a herculean political effort to prop up the industry. Last month, for the first time in history, solar generated more electricity than coal in the United States on a monthly basis.8
Carbo non urendus est
The Iran War isn’t over. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that its worst effects on energy markets are yet to come. Nevertheless, it is highly probable the same people who said “wind and solar are cute but will never scale” got this one wrong too.
And it’s worth exploring why. A central pillar of Vaclav Smil Thought is that “dense” energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear are always and everywhere cheaper and more useful than “diffuse” sources like wind and solar. The only possible reason to adopt such technologies, therefore, must be to engage in a hippie-inspired, Birkenstock-adorned, granola-fueled climate crusade.
This theology was challenged in the later half of the 2010s, when the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of wind and solar energy fell below that of nuclear, coal, and fossil gas in most regions of the world.
The argument thereafter shifted. Yes, wind and solar may be cheaper on one narrow measure, the adjustment went, but this cost advantage is outweighed by their intermittency—which is not accounted for in standard LCOE calculations. On a 24/7 basis, nothing beats good ol’ fossil gas and coal or a grid mixed with generous proportions of clean firm resources like hydro and nuclear. Yet, increasingly, this weaker formulation of the Smilite Creed is proving equally false as the cost of battery storage plummets.
Grids powered mostly by intermittent sources like wind and solar are now producing electricity prices competitive with those dominated by firm sources.9 A mass, global replacement of imported LNG with coal thus fails on economic grounds alone.
Additionally, the Smilite reaction to the Iran War and the subsequent energy crisis entirely ignores the externality delta of switching from gas to coal rather than to renewables like solar and wind. Places like China, India, and Southeast Asia already have more air pollution than their fragile political systems and social contracts can handle. There exists, therefore, an enormous policy incentive to pursue the cleanest possible solutions to the energy crisis. And policymakers the world over respond to incentives.
China has been executing a pivot away from coal for over a decade—coal generation as a percentage of electricity peaked in 2007. It has not been doing this to appease Greenpeace and Greta Thunberg. Rather, burning coal created an air pollution crisis that threatened social stability. Genuine motivations to solve climate change, acquire soft power abroad, and turn the energy transition into an export opportunity were also important—but very much secondary—considerations.
The idea that the world would fully ignore coal’s economic uncompetitiveness and environmental externalities and pivot back to the barbarous relic was never serious. It was indeed the sort of analysis only a blind ideologue could have birthed.
The evidence is clear: the future belongs to wind and solar. The future belongs to the undense.
https://heatmap.news/energy/iran-coal
Data analysis has never been a Smilite strong point
https://www.carbonbrief.org/world-will-not-see-significant-return-to-coal-in-2026-despite-iran-crisis/
Ibid.
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/asia-coal-prices-hit-2-year-high-on-indonesia-export-rules
https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?entity=United+States&temporal_res=monthly&date=2026-05-01&date_from=2025-04-01&fuel=coal
https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?entity=Europe&temporal_res=monthly&date=2026-05-01&date_from=2025-05-01&fuel=coal
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/us-solar-coal
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/decoupled-how-spain-cut-the-link-between-gas-and-power-prices-using-renewables/