Abstract
Hydroclimatic risks, such as increased water temperatures and water shortages, can impair the cooling efficiency of thermal power plants, threatening energy security. These risks worsen when decommissioning strategies for the low-carbon transition prioritize retiring smaller but lower-risk plants while keeping larger yet higher-risk ones. Yet, how hydroclimatic risks interact with these strategies remain poorly understood. Here we develop a global unit-level, capacity-specific framework to systematically assess hydroclimatic risks to thermal power generation under climate change. This framework maps risk intensification and risk-level escalation, and evaluates how integrating hydroclimatic risks into decommissioning plans can enhance energy security. We find that by the 2…
Abstract
Hydroclimatic risks, such as increased water temperatures and water shortages, can impair the cooling efficiency of thermal power plants, threatening energy security. These risks worsen when decommissioning strategies for the low-carbon transition prioritize retiring smaller but lower-risk plants while keeping larger yet higher-risk ones. Yet, how hydroclimatic risks interact with these strategies remain poorly understood. Here we develop a global unit-level, capacity-specific framework to systematically assess hydroclimatic risks to thermal power generation under climate change. This framework maps risk intensification and risk-level escalation, and evaluates how integrating hydroclimatic risks into decommissioning plans can enhance energy security. We find that by the 2050s, ~60.5% of global thermal power capacity would face greater hydroclimatic risks under SSP370, as indicated by declining usable capacity ratios (UCRs)—the share of nameplate capacity that remains operable under hydroclimatic constraints. Integrating unit-level hydroclimatic risk constraints into decommissioning strategies could effectively raise the average UCRs of priority-retention units by 26–37 percentage points, although these units are typically slightly older. Our findings underscore the importance of incorporating hydroclimatic risks into decommissioning decisions to balance energy security and climate mitigation goals.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Additional access options:
Data availability
Numerical results for Figs. 1–5 are provided with this paper as Source data. Monthly meteorological variables are available from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project 3b-protocol (ISIMIP3b) at https://www.isimip.org/outputdata/?simulation_round=ISIMIP3b. Global thermal power units are available from the WEPP database of S&P Global Market Intelligence at www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence. Any further data that support the findings of this study can be found in Supplementary Information.
Code availability
The analysis and visualization in this study were conducted using Python v.3.9.13. The associated code is publicly available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17369544 (ref. 68).
References
World Energy Outlook 2023 (International Energy Agency, 2023); https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023 1.
Elwardany, M., Nassib, A. M. & Mohamed, H. A. Advancing sustainable thermal power generation: insights from recent energy and exergy studies. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 183, 617–644 (2024).
Tong, D. et al. Targeted emission reductions from global super-polluting power plant units. Nat. Sustain. 1, 59–68 (2018).
Qin, Y. et al. Flexibility and intensity of global water use. Nat. Sustain. 2, 515–523 (2019).
Qin, Y. et al. Global assessment of the carbon–water tradeoff of dry cooling for thermal power generation. Nat. Water 1, 682–693 (2023).
Mills, A. D., Wiser, R. H. & Seel, J. Power Plant Retirements: Trends and Possible Drivers (Berkeley Lab, Energy Markets and Policy, 2017); https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/power-plant-retirements-trends-and 1.
Song, F. et al. Review of transition paths for coal-fired power plants. Glob. Energy Interconnect. 4, 354–370 (2021).
Liu, Y. et al. Visualization and analysis of the transformation and development of thermal power plants under the low-carbon policy. Energy Sci. Eng. 11, 4039–4053 (2023).
Zhang, S. et al. Targeting net-zero emissions while advancing other sustainable development goals in China. Nat. Sustain. 7, 1107–1119 (2024).
Schill, W.-P., Pahle, M. & Gambardella, C. Start-up costs of thermal power plants in markets with increasing shares of variable renewable generation. Nat. Energy 2, 17050 (2017).
Wang, Y. et al. Vulnerability of existing and planned coal-fired power plants in Developing Asia to changes in climate and water resources. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 3164–3181 (2019).
van Vliet, M. T. H., Sheffield, J., Wiberg, D. & Wood, E. F. Impacts of recent drought and warm years on water resources and electricity supply worldwide. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124021 (2016).
Liu, L., Hejazi, M., Li, H., Forman, B. & Zhang, X. Vulnerability of US thermoelectric power generation to climate change when incorporating state-level environmental regulations. Nat. Energy 2, 17109 (2017).
van Vliet, M. T. H. et al. Vulnerability of US and European electricity supply to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 676–681 (2012).
Behrens, P., van Vliet, M. T. H., Nanninga, T., Walsh, B. & Rodrigues, J. F. D. Climate change and the vulnerability of electricity generation to water stress in the European Union. Nat. Energy 2, 17114 (2017).
Zhang, C. et al. Thermoelectric power generation and water stress in India: a spatial and temporal analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 4314–4323 (2021).
Bartos, M. D. & Chester, M. V. Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the Western United States. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 748–752 (2015).
Miara, A. et al. Climate and water resource change impacts and adaptation potential for US power supply. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 793–798 (2017).
Byers, E. A., Coxon, G., Freer, J. & Hall, J. W. Drought and climate change impacts on cooling water shortages and electricity prices in Great Britain. Nat. Commun. 11, 2239 (2020).
Grant, D., Hansen, T., Jorgenson, A. & Longhofer, W. A worldwide analysis of stranded fossil fuel assets’ impact on power plants’ CO2 emissions. Nat. Commun. 15, 7517 (2024).
Wang, P. et al. Location-specific co-benefits of carbon emissions reduction from coal-fired power plants in China. Nat. Commun. 12, 6948 (2021).
Zhang, W., Ren, M., Kang, J., Zhou, Y. & Yuan, J. Estimating stranded coal assets in China’s power sector. Util. Policy 75, 101352 (2022).
Zhang, W. et al. Quantifying stranded assets of the coal-fired power in China under the Paris Agreement target. Clim. Policy 23, 11–24 (2023).
Peng, W. et al. Managing China’s coal power plants to address multiple environmental objectives. Nat. Sustain. 1, 693–701 (2018).
Freese, L. M., Chossière, G. P., Eastham, S. D., Jenn, A. & Selin, N. E. Nuclear power generation phase-outs redistribute US air quality and climate-related mortality risk. Nat. Energy 8, 492–503 (2023).
Tong, D. et al. Health co-benefits of climate change mitigation depend on strategic power plant retirements and pollution controls. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 1077–1083 (2021).
Li, J. et al. Incorporating health cobenefits in decision-making for the decommissioning of coal-fired power plants in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 13935–13943 (2020).
Cui, R. et al. A plant-by-plant strategy for high-ambition coal power phaseout in China. Nat. Commun. 12, 1468 (2021).
Yan, X. et al. Cost-effectiveness uncertainty may bias the decision of coal power transitions in China. Nat. Commun. 15, 2272 (2024).
Africa Energy Outlook 2022 (International Energy Agency, 2022); https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022 1.
Latin America Energy Outlook 2023 (International Energy Agency, 2023); https://www.iea.org/reports/latin-america-energy-outlook-2023 1.
Karatayev, V. A. et al. A well-timed shift from local to global agreements accelerates climate change mitigation. Nat. Commun. 12, 2908 (2021).
Zhou, J., Zhang, L., Zhu, L. & Zhang, W. A data-driven operating improvement method for the thermal power unit with frequent load changes. Appl. Energy 354, 122195 (2024).
Bosmans, J. et al. FutureStreams, a global dataset of future streamflow and water temperature. Sci. Data 9, 307 (2022).
Liu, J. et al. Timing the first emergence and disappearance of global water scarcity. Nat. Commun. 15, 7129 (2024).
Galelli, S. et al. Advancing the representation of human actions in large-scale hydrological models: challenges and future research directions. Water Resour. Res. 61, e2024WR039486 (2025).
Hill, J., Kern, J., Rupp, D. E., Voisin, N. & Characklis, G. The effects of climate change on interregional electricity market dynamics on the U.S. West Coast. Earths Future 9, e2021EF002400 (2021).
Marshall, A. M. & Chen, J. M. Impacts of changing snowfall on seasonal complementarity of hydroelectric and solar power. Environ. Res. Infrastruct. Sustain. 2, 021001 (2022).
Miara, A. & Vörösmarty, C. J. A dynamic model to assess tradeoffs in power production and riverine ecosystem protection. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 15, 1113–1126 (2013).
Luo, T. et al. A framework to assess multi-hazard physical climate risk for power generation projects from publicly-accessible sources. Commun. Earth Environ. 4, 117 (2023).
Xu, L. et al. Resilience of renewable power systems under climate risks. Nat. Rev. Electr. Eng. 1, 53–66 (2024).
Zhang, X. et al. China’s coal-fired power plants impose pressure on water resources. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 1171–1179 (2017).
Power Plant Cooling and Associated Impacts: The Need to Modernize U.S. Power Plants and Protect Our Water Resources and Aquatic Ecosystems (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2014); https://www.nrdc.org/resources/power-plant-cooling-and-associated-impacts 1.
Wang, L. K., Wang, M.-H. S., Hung, Y.-T. & Shammas, N. K. in Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering (eds Wang, L. K. et al.) 195–228 (Springer, 2021). 1.
Michie, L. E., Hitchcock, J. N., Thiem, J. D., Boys, C. A. & Mitrovic, S. M. The effect of varied dam release mechanisms and storage volume on downstream river thermal regimes. Limnologica 81, 125760 (2020).
Sudalaimuthu, P., Sathyamurthy, R. & Elshiekh, A. Nuclear power plant waste heat opens a window of next-generation desalination hybridization: a SOAR-based review. Water Sci. Technol. 91, 1–11 (2024).
Qin, P. et al. Analysis of recoverable waste heat of circulating cooling water in hot-stamping power system. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 15, 741–746 (2013).
Slameršak, A., Kallis, G. & O’Neill, D. W. Energy requirements and carbon emissions for a low-carbon energy transition. Nat. Commun. 13, 6932 (2022).
Tang, L. et al. Substantial emission reductions from Chinese power plants after the introduction of ultra-low emissions standards. Nat. Energy 4, 929–938 (2019).
Liu, F. et al. High-resolution inventory of technologies, activities, and emissions of coal-fired power plants in China from 1990 to 2010. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15, 13299–13317 (2015).
Dunne, J. P. et al. The GFDL Earth System Model Version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): overall coupled model description and simulation characteristics. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2019MS002015 (2020).
Boucher, O. et al. Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR Climate Model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2019MS002010 (2020).
Gutjahr, O. et al. Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.2) for the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP). Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 3241–3281 (2019).
Yukimoto, S. et al. The Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: description and basic evaluation of the physical component. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. II 97, 931–965 (2019).
Sellar, A. A. et al. UKESM1: description and evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 4513–4558 (2019).
Lange, S. & Büchner, M. ISIMIP3b bias-adjusted atmospheric climate input data. ISIMIP Repository https://doi.org/10.48364/ISIMIP.842396.1 (2021). 1.
Müller Schmied, H. et al. The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2e: description and evaluation of modifications and new features. Geosci. Model Dev. 17, 8817–8852 (2024).
Miara, A. A.-O. et al. Climate–water adaptation for future US electricity infrastructure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 14029–14040 (2019).
van Vliet, M. T. H., Wiberg, D., Leduc, S. & Riahi, K. Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 375–380 (2016).
McCall, J., Macknick, J. & Hillman, D. Water-related Power Plant Curtailments: An Overview of Incidents and Contributing Actors (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013); https://doi.org/10.2172/1338176 1.
Yalew, S. G. et al. Impacts of climate change on energy systems in global and regional scenarios. Nat. Energy 5, 794–802 (2020).
Hoekstra, A. Y., Mekonnen, M. M., Chapagain, A. K., Mathews, R. E. & Richter, B. D. Global monthly water scarcity: blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS ONE 7, e32688 (2012).
Liu, J. et al. Water scarcity assessments in the past, present, and future. Earths Future 5, 545–559 (2017).
Schröder, A., Kunz, F., Meiss, J., Mendelevitch, R. & Hirschhausen, C. v. Current and prospective costs of electricity generation until 2050, DIW Data Documentation, No. 68, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/80348 (2013) 1.
Gambhir, A. Powering past coal is not enough. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 117–118 (2023).
Implementation Plan for the Retrofit and Upgrade of National Coal Power Units (in Chinese) (National Development and Reform Commission, 2021); https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/202504/content_7018738.htm 1.
DeAngelo, J. et al. Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation. Nat. Plants 9, 45–57 (2023).
Li, S. & Qin, Y. Code_for_global_thermal_power_hydroclimatic_risks. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17369544 (2025).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 42361144876, 42471021, 42277482 to Y.Q.). S.L. acknowledges support from Peking University-BHP Carbon and Climate Wei-Ming PhD Scholars Program (WM202413). J.L. acknowledges support from the 111 Project (Grant No. D25014), the National Foreign Experts Program (Category S) (Grant No. S20240116), the Henan Province Foreign Scientist Studio for Synergistic Management of Water, Food, Energy, and Carbon (Grant No. GZS2024013) and research projects (254000510004). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Key Laboratory of Water and Sediment Science, Ministry of Education, Peking University, Beijing, China
Shiyu Li & Yue Qin 1.
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of All Material Fluxes in River Ecosystems, Peking University, Beijing, China
Shiyu Li, Yong Liu, Qingsong Jiang & Yue Qin 1.
College of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China
Shiyu Li, Yong Liu, Qingsong Jiang & Yue Qin 1.
Institute of Carbon Neutrality, Peking University, Beijing, China
Shiyu Li, Yong Liu & Yue Qin 1.
Southwest United Graduate School, Yunnan, China
Yong Liu 1.
Yellow River Research Institute, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, China
Junguo Liu 1.
South China Institute of Environmental Sciences, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Guangzhou, China
Gang Yan 1.
Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution and Greenhouse Gases Co-control, Ministry of Ecology and Environment, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing, China
Gang Yan & Yixuan Zheng 1.
Institute of Physical Geography, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Hannes Müller Schmied 1.
Senckenberg Leibniz Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK–F), Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Hannes Müller Schmied 1.
Department of Earth System Science, Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Steven J. Davis 1.
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
Amir AghaKouchak 1.
Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
Amir AghaKouchak 1.
United Nations University, Institute for Water,Environment & Health (UNU-INWEH), Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Amir AghaKouchak 1.
Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Niko Wanders 1.
Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Joyce Bosmans 1.
School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
Xin Liu 1.
Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Ecological Remediation and Carbon Sequestration, Institute of Environment and Ecology, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China
Chaopeng Hong
Authors
- Shiyu Li
- Yong Liu
- Junguo Liu
- Gang Yan
- Hannes Müller Schmied
- Steven J. Davis
- Amir AghaKouchak
- Niko Wanders
- Qingsong Jiang
- Yixuan Zheng
- Joyce Bosmans
- Xin Liu
- Chaopeng Hong
- Yue Qin
Contributions
Y.Q. designed this study. S.L. led the data analysis. H.M.S., Y.L. and Q.J. provided data. Y.L., J.L., G.Y., H.M.S., S.J.D., A.A., N.W., Q.J., Y.Z., J.B., X.L. and C.H. contributed to the discussion and interpretation of the results. S.L. and Y.Q. wrote the paper with inputs from all co-authors.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Yue Qin.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Sustainability thanks Adrienne Marshall, Patrick Ray and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, S., Liu, Y., Liu, J. et al. Global hydroclimatic risks and strategic decommissioning pathways for thermal power units. Nat Sustain (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01692-9
Received: 30 April 2025
Accepted: 22 October 2025
Published: 09 December 2025
Version of record: 09 December 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01692-9