Over the past four years, Serbia has imported coal worth a total of one billion euros, according to data from the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. For the general public, this might have remained just another statistical figure attracting little attention were it not for another piece of data showing that between 2018 and 2021 coal imports amounted to around €61 million – fifteen times less.
Large-scale coal imports began in 2021 following a major breakdown at the Nikola Tesla Thermal Power Plant, where more than half of Serbia’s electricity is generated. The accident occurred due to poor-quality coal, when mud and clay from the mines entered the boilers together with the coal. The mixture clogged the mills and shut down the thermal power plant’s units, causing an immediate collapse of the system.
As a result, Serbia was forced into massive and costly imports of electricity and coal in order to bridge the production gap. The director of Electric Power Industry of Serbia, Milorad Grčić, was compelled to resign due to evident management failures and the company’s lack of preparedness for the winter season, which resulted in damages estimated at around €1.8 billion.
The problems continued in the following years despite the efforts of EPS employees to improve the situation, as the highest-quality coal seams in the Kolubara Basin had already been depleted, while new ones had not been prepared in time. As a consequence, domestic lignite is still frequently blended with higher-quality imported coal in order to achieve the calorific value required for boiler operation.
Asked why large quantities of coal are still being imported, EPS told NIN that foreign coal is used exclusively to improve the calorific value and quality of Kolubara coal, while stressing that imports are being reduced year after year.
“In 2025, EPS imported 1.97 million tonnes of coal, which is significantly less than in 2024 and half the amount imported in 2023. Last year, 94 per cent of coal was secured from domestic production, while only six per cent was imported,” the company stated.
They added that through optimal use and careful planning, coal stockpiles at thermal power plants were continuously maintained throughout last year at levels ranging from around 1.7 to as much as 2 million tonnes.
“At the same time, production at EPS mines increased, so in 2025 a total of 32.8 million tonnes of coal was produced, seven per cent more than in 2024. In the first four months of this year, 94 per cent of coal came from domestic production, while imported coal accounted for only six per cent,” EPS said.
The company also announced that the largest assembly operation in the history of the Kolubara Mining Basin is nearing completion, involving four mining systems for the “Radljevo” and “Field E” mines, with a total value of €450 million. The new mining machinery is expected to ensure the long-term stability of coal production.
Work is also underway on spatial planning, investment, and project documentation for the new Western Kostolac mine, from which additional coal supplies for this part of Serbia are expected.
Recoverable coal reserves in the Kolubara Mining Basin amount to 1.44 billion tonnes, while reserves in Kostolac stand at 517 million tonnes. EPS points out that the highest-quality sections of the mining basin have already been exhausted, and that the calorific value of the coal is now 20 per cent lower than in earlier periods of exploitation. Energy expert Željko Marković told NIN that the main reason EPS continues to import coal despite its own production is the failure in previous years to prepare new mining fields in time.
“This led to lower coal production in the Kolubara Basin. In addition, the coal in this basin itself is of poor quality because the opening of new mining fields – which were supposed to provide sufficient quantities of better-quality coal – was delayed,” he explained.
He added that almost all imported coal is intended for the needs of EPS.
“Historically, Serbia imported around one million tonnes of high-calorific coal annually for industry and households, and imported coal can still be found on the market today for individual heating systems. EPS did not participate in those imports because it secured all its coal from its own mines. When problems emerged at the thermal power plants in Obrenovac, larger-scale coal imports began in 2022, almost entirely for the needs of thermal power plants, primarily TENT in Obrenovac,” Marković says.
He explains that annual coal production at EPS until 2020 ranged between 37 and 39 million tonnes – as was the case that year, with between 27 and 30 million tonnes coming from Kolubara and between 8 and 10 million tonnes from Kostolac.
“Coal production in Kostolac remained stable over the previous five years, at around 9 to 10 million tonnes, but coal production in Kolubara declined sharply. In 2022, production amounted to 25 million tonnes, while over the last three years, output has ranged between 22 and 23 million tonnes. From this alone, it is clear that the shortage from Kolubara had to be compensated for, and EPS had two options: either reduce electricity generation at TENT and purchase the missing electricity on the market, or begin importing coal in order to maintain production at TENT,” Marković explains.
According to him, the choice between these approaches depends on economic calculations, given that both coal prices and electricity prices fluctuate on the market.
“Therefore, depending on profitability, EPS used both methods. Imported coal was used to generate electricity when market electricity prices were high, while during periods of low electricity prices, energy was purchased in order to reduce the need for coal imports. Consequently, these percentages varied over the previous period. By way of illustration, record coal imports were recorded in 2023, when around 4.5 million tonnes of coal were imported into Serbia, accounting for 12.67 per cent of total supplies that year,” Marković says.
He notes that coal in the Kolubara Mining Basin is currently extracted from three surface mines: Field E, Tamnava-West Field, and Field G.
“The Radljevo mine is the newest, and work is currently underway to uncover the coal seam. As for expansion, EPS has initiated procedures for expanding Field G, although there are obvious delays in opening the new Radljevo mine as well, due to delays in procuring equipment envisaged under the main mining project. These expansions will certainly reduce imports, though not immediately or dramatically,” Marković states.
According to him, domestic experts estimate that Serbia’s coal reserves of satisfactory quality for thermal power plant operation are sufficient for approximately another 50 years of operation.
“Of course, the question is always how much of that coal is currently accessible for extraction, and at what cost. Lignite buried deep beneath overburden cannot be used until that overburden is removed, and that requires years of planning and investment. On the other hand, since we will have to decarbonise our energy sector by 2050, this means we will be able to rely on coal exploitation for a much shorter period than reserve estimates alone would suggest,” he explains.
Marković says Serbia’s thermal power plants were designed for a specific calorific value of coal. As the calorific value decreases, the efficiency of the power plants also declines, reducing output while increasing the cost per kilowatt-hour generated. This is why domestic and imported coal are blended together.
Indonesia is currently the largest supplier of coal to the Serbian market, with annual deliveries of around two million tonnes.
Coal from Indonesia reaches Serbia by ship via the ports of Constanța and Bar. From Romania, it is transported to Obrenovac by barge along the Danube, while shipments from Montenegro arrive by rail via the Belgrade–Bar railway line. The use of two separate routes ensures an uninterrupted supply even when river water levels are low.
Alongside Indonesia, significant quantities – exceeding one million tonnes – continue to arrive from neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina, primarily from mines in Republika Srpska. Montenegro and Bulgaria are also important partners, supplying several hundred thousand tonnes each, while between 100,000 and 150,000 tonnes are procured from Romania.
According to Željko Marković, Serbia will continue to struggle in the future with both coal consumption and the cost of extraction.
“Even before we exhaust the reserves, we will face a situation in which generating electricity from lignite becomes economically unviable, especially with ageing, low-efficiency thermal power plants and poor-quality coal. An alternative must certainly be found,” says Marković.
Asked what that alternative might be, he explains that, given the baseload role of thermal power plants, nuclear power plants are the leading candidate for carrying out the transition and replacing unprofitable coal-fired facilities.
“Therefore, the optimal solution would be to build a nuclear power plant as soon as possible. However, since the development of such a project takes longer than a decade, it would already be a success if Serbia could have a nuclear plant operational by 2040 and begin the final shutdown of lignite-fired thermal power plants,” says Marković.
As he adds, Serbia is currently considering which type of nuclear facility would represent the optimal solution.
“The question arises whether it is more cost-effective to build a large nuclear power plant or to opt for installing a smaller nuclear reactor at an existing coal-fired facility with the technical capability to support it. My view is that Serbia, if 2040 is a realistic completion date, should today orient itself towards large third-generation reactors as the primary option, because such nuclear plants are commercially available and regulator-approved, while simultaneously monitoring the development of small modular reactor technology,” says Marković.
He adds that after 2040, Serbia could then consider adapting some existing thermal power plants into nuclear facilities by installing small modular nuclear units.
“In any case, we must not waste time, and a decision must be made as soon as possible if it is to remain relevant to the energy transition,” he emphasises.
He also points out that although renewable energy sources are supplementary rather than baseload — meaning they cannot replace coal-fired electricity generation on a decisive scale – they too must be expanded.
“We cannot sit idly by waiting for a nuclear power plant that, in the best-case scenario, will arrive in fifteen years. We must actively and intensively work on expanding renewable energy generation and transitioning our power system towards renewables, which is the global trend; we risk being left without sufficient energy. Naturally, the development of renewable energy plants must also be accompanied by the development of energy storage systems. Alongside the construction of major storage facilities such as the reversible hydroelectric power plant Bistrica Reversible Hydropower Plant, we must also build battery energy storage systems,” Marković concludes.
(NIN, 19.05.2026)
https://www.nin.rs/ekonomija/vesti/112708/imamo-uglja-za-jos-50-godina-a-uvozimo-ga-iz-indonezije