Utilities and governments weighing multi-billion-dollar power-plant investments now face a stark economic signal: solar and wind electricity costs have dropped below those of new coal generation across most of the world. The International Energy Agency confirmed in its Breakthrough Agenda Report 2025 that renewables remained the most cost-competitive option for new generation in 2024, a finding that sharpens the financial risk attached to any coal project still moving through approval pipelines. That cost advantage, visible in both IEA modeling tools and earlier IPCC assessments, is reshaping how planners evaluate long-term energy bets.
Why cheaper renewables shift investment risk right now
The core tension is timing. Coal plants typically operate for 30 to 40 years, locking in fuel costs and emissions profiles across decades. When the levelised cost of electricity, or LCOE, for solar and wind falls below coal on a per-megawatt-hour basis, every new coal commitment becomes a wager that future fuel prices, carbon regulations, and technology trends will not erode its economics further. The IEA’s own modeling framework, which publishes downloadable cost assumptions covering weighted average cost of capital, plant lifetimes, and fuel price trajectories through its techno‑economic inputs, allows analysts to stress-test exactly that wager across regions.
A practical hypothesis sharpens the point. If the IEA’s public LCOE calculator is run with 2025 fuel prices and standard WACC values, solar or wind should beat coal in at least 65 percent of countries even before any carbon price is applied. That threshold is testable because the agency’s interactive tool lets users adjust technology, region, and financing parameters. The claim rests on the direction of recent cost curves rather than a single snapshot, but the tool itself offers a reproducible check that any energy ministry or investor can perform.
For households and businesses, the consequence is direct. Where renewables are cheaper, electricity tariffs built around new coal capacity carry a premium that ratepayers eventually absorb. Governments that approve coal plants despite lower-cost alternatives risk stranding public capital or requiring ongoing subsidies to keep those plants running against market forces.
IEA and IPCC data anchoring the cost comparison
Two authoritative bodies supply the strongest evidence behind the headline claim. The IEA’s Breakthrough Agenda Report 2025 states plainly that renewables remained the most cost-competitive option for new generation in 2024, drawing on weighted-average LCOE values compiled with reference to IRENA data. That finding applies to utility-scale solar photovoltaic and onshore wind measured against new-build coal and gas plants on a global weighted basis.
The IEA also maintains a separate Levelised Cost of Electricity Calculator that lets users compare technologies country by country under transparent assumptions. This interactive calculator exposes the discount rate, capacity factor, and fuel cost inputs so that results can be challenged or confirmed by outside analysts. Because the tool is publicly accessible, it functions as a living reference point rather than a static report finding.
Separately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change compiled ranges of LCOE from multiple studies in its Sixth Assessment Report. In its Working Group III chapter on energy systems, Figure 6.18 shows that solar PV and onshore wind occupied the low end of recent LCOE ranges circa 2020, while coal and gas generation sat higher. The IPCC figure draws on a multi-study synthesis rather than a single model, which gives it breadth but also means its data points do not extend past the studies available at the time of publication.
Together, these sources build a layered case. The IPCC establishes that the cost advantage was already emerging across multiple independent analyses by the early 2020s. The IEA’s 2025 report confirms that the trend held and widened through 2024. And the IEA’s interactive calculator offers a mechanism for anyone to verify the comparison under current assumptions.
Gaps in the data and what to watch next
The evidence, while strong in direction, has clear limits. The IEA’s LCOE calculator produces results interactively but does not publish country-by-country outputs in downloadable tables. That means the “most of the world” claim relies on aggregated weighted averages rather than a transparent country list that researchers can audit in bulk. Until the agency releases granular, machine-readable LCOE tables by country and technology, the exact share of nations where renewables beat coal remains an exercise in running the tool manually, one country at a time.
The IPCC’s Figure 6.18 carries a different limitation. Its LCOE ranges reflect studies available through roughly 2020 and projections made at that time. Solar module prices and wind turbine costs have continued to fall since then, but the figure itself has not been updated with post-2023 plant-level cost records. Readers relying on the IPCC data should treat it as a directional benchmark rather than a current price tag.
A third gap involves the underlying plant-level cost data that feeds both sets of assessments. Many power-purchase agreements and financing terms for large projects remain confidential, which means modelers must infer some inputs from industry surveys or anonymized data. That opacity makes it harder to pinpoint how much of renewables’ advantage comes from technology learning curves versus financing conditions such as concessional loans or state-backed guarantees.
Despite these caveats, the direction of travel is clear enough that investors and policymakers cannot credibly claim uncertainty as a reason to delay decisions. The remaining questions are more granular: in which specific regions do coal projects still appear marginally competitive, and for how long will that window remain open as solar and wind costs continue to evolve?
Implications for policy and project pipelines
For governments, the immediate implication is to tighten screening criteria for any new coal proposals. Ministries evaluating generation plans can use the IEA’s publicly documented cost assumptions alongside their own fuel-price forecasts to test whether a coal project would remain in the money under plausible downside scenarios. Where renewables already undercut coal on LCOE, adding a modest carbon price or stricter pollution controls typically widens the gap further.
Utilities and state-owned enterprises face parallel choices. Continuing to advance coal plants that are likely to become uneconomic within a decade risks saddling balance sheets with stranded assets. In contrast, scaling renewables paired with grid upgrades and storage spreads risk across a portfolio of shorter-lived, modular investments that can track technology improvements more closely.
There are also implications for international finance. Multilateral development banks and export credit agencies increasingly reference LCOE comparisons when setting eligibility criteria for energy lending. As evidence accumulates that renewables are the least-cost option in most markets, justifying public support for new coal becomes harder, especially where cheaper alternatives are available but underdeveloped.
How planners can make the comparison more robust
To move beyond high-level statements, planners can adopt a few practical steps. First, they can replicate the IEA’s LCOE calculations using local data on solar irradiation, wind speeds, construction costs, and financing terms, rather than relying solely on global averages. Second, they can run sensitivity analyses that vary fuel prices, discount rates, and carbon costs to see how resilient each technology’s advantage remains under stress.
Third, they can integrate system-level considerations such as flexibility needs and transmission constraints. While LCOE offers a useful starting point, least-cost planning ultimately depends on how different assets interact on the grid. Even so, when one technology is consistently cheaper on a per-megawatt-hour basis across a wide range of plausible assumptions, the burden of proof shifts heavily onto any proposal that would lock in a higher-cost alternative for decades.
The combination of IEA modeling tools, IPCC synthesis, and ongoing market data does not answer every question about the future of coal. It does, however, send a clear economic signal: in most places, new renewables already beat new coal on cost, and the gap is unlikely to close in coal’s favor. For decision-makers tasked with stewarding public resources and ensuring reliable power, ignoring that signal now carries financial risks that will be increasingly hard to defend.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
