?非經(jīng)合組織區(qū)域有1.1太瓦的煤炭產(chǎn)能正在建設(shè)或開發(fā)中。分析表明，目前約有：在建200億瓦，在建900億瓦。?在非經(jīng)合組織區(qū)域正在開發(fā)的9億瓦特中，分析表明，計劃使用約5億瓦特的高效率、低排放（HELE）技術(shù)。?分析表明，到2040年，亞臨界燃煤發(fā)電量可能占增量燃煤發(fā)電量的43%。從全球應對氣候變化行動的角度來看，顯然有必要將增量煤炭發(fā)電能力進一步從亞臨界轉(zhuǎn)向HELE技術(shù)。?從2015年到2040年，將開發(fā)中剩余的4億千瓦容量轉(zhuǎn)換為HELE技術(shù)將花費約310億美元，并節(jié)省60億噸二氧化碳。?有很大的機會影響開發(fā)人員選擇的技術(shù)類型。但由于開發(fā)銀行提供的融資選擇有限，開發(fā)商可能會接受較低的效率和較低的排放率，因為亞臨界和HELE技術(shù)之間的前期資本成本差異。?到2040年，每年節(jié)省的二氧化碳量將達到11億噸。?從2015年到2040年，將400千兆瓦亞臨界和300千兆瓦超臨界容量轉(zhuǎn)換為超超臨界容量將花費約810億美元，并節(jié)省130億噸二氧化碳。?鑒于煤炭預計仍將是滿足日益增長的電力需求的最經(jīng)濟的選擇（以美元/兆瓦時為基礎(chǔ)），沒有其他低能耗發(fā)電技術(shù)能夠為相同的投資提供相同的兆瓦時發(fā)電量。?在2035年，根據(jù)我們對非經(jīng)合組織亞洲的基本情況假設(shè)，超超臨界比聯(lián)合循環(huán)燃氣輪機便宜30%至45%，比大型太陽能光伏便宜25%至30%（以平準化電力成本計算）。?此外，鑒于可再生技術(shù)的較高資本成本和較低的負荷系數(shù)，在大多數(shù)地區(qū)，向HELE技術(shù)的轉(zhuǎn)化是最低的二氧化碳減排替代方案（以美元/噸為基礎(chǔ)）。?在2035年，根據(jù)我們對非經(jīng)合組織亞洲的基本情況假設(shè)，通過超超臨界二氧化碳的避免成本比聯(lián)合循環(huán)燃氣輪機低40美元/噸至75美元/噸，比大型太陽能光伏發(fā)電低10美元/噸至35美元/噸

? There are 1.1 TW of coal capacity under  construction or in development in non-OECD  regions. Analysis indicates that there is around: – 200 gigawatt under construction  – 900 gigawatt in development. ? Of the 900 gigawatt in development in nonOECD regions, analysis suggests that around  500 gigawatt are planned to use high-efficiency,  low emission (HELE) technologies. ? Analysis suggests that by 2040 subcritical coalfired power generation capacity could comprise  43% of incremental coal-generation capacity. From  the perspective of global action on climate change  there is a clear need to shift incremental coalgeneration capacity further away from subcritical  and towards HELE technologies. ? The conversion of the remaining 400 gigawatt of  capacity in development to HELE technologies  would cost around $31 billion and save 6 billion  tonnes of CO2 from 2015 through to 2040. ? There is a significant opportunity to influence  the type of technology that developers select.  But with limited financing options available  from development banks developers may accept  lower efficiency and poorer emissions rates due  to the upfront capital cost differences between  subcritical and HELE technologies. ? By 2040, the tonnes of CO2 saved will amount to  1.1 billion per year.? The conversion of both 400 gigawatt of subcritical  and 300 GW of supercritical capacity to ultrasupercritical capacity would cost around  $81 billion and save 13 billion tonnes of CO2 from 2015 through to 2040. ? Given that coal is expected to remain the most  affordable option to meet increasing power  demand (on an $/MWh basis), no other lowemission generation technology can provide  the same terawatt-hour of generation for the  same investment. ? In 2035, under our Base Case assumptions for  non-OECD Asia, ultra-supercritical is between  30% and 45% cheaper than Combined Cycle Gas  Turbines, and between 25% and 30% cheaper  than large-scale solar PV (on a levelised cost of  electricity basis). ? Furthermore, given the higher capital costs of  renewable technologies and their lower load  factors, in most regions, conversion to HELE  technologies represents the lowest CO2 abatement  alternative (on a $/tonne basis). ? In 2035, under our Base Case assumptions for  non-OECD Asia, the avoided cost of CO2 through  ultra-supercritical is between $40/tonne and  $75/tonne lower than Combined Cycle Gas  Turbines, and between $10/tonne and $35/tonne  lower than large-scale solar PV.