China vs Republic of Korea: Coal consumption, per square kilometre

China
0.0027 terawatt-hours per square kilometre
in 2023
Republic of Korea
0.0087 terawatt-hours per square kilometre
in 2023
China rank
5th
Republic of Korea rank
2nd

Coal consumption, per square kilometre over time

  • China
  • Republic of Korea
00.0030.0050.0070.01196519942023

How they compare

Republic of Korea currently reports 0.0087 terawatt-hours per square kilometre against 0.0027 terawatt-hours per square kilometre in China, a difference of 0.006 terawatt-hours per square kilometre.

That makes Republic of Korea's figure about 3.2 times China's.

Across all 59 years both countries report, Republic of Korea has been ahead every year.

China ranks 5th and Republic of Korea ranks 2nd of 205 countries.

Republic of Korea has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade China Republic of Korea Difference Ahead
1960s 0.0001 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0006 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0005 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Republic of Korea
1970s 0.0003 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.001 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0007 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Republic of Korea
1980s 0.0005 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0024 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0019 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Republic of Korea
1990s 0.0008 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0037 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0029 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Republic of Korea
2000s 0.0015 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0068 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0053 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Republic of Korea
2010s 0.0024 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0101 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0078 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Republic of Korea
2020s 0.0026 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.009 terawatt-hours per square kilometre 0.0064 terawatt-hours per square kilometre Republic of Korea

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher coal consumption, per square kilometre, China or Republic of Korea?
Republic of Korea, at 0.0087 terawatt-hours per square kilometre against 0.0027 terawatt-hours per square kilometre in China as of 2023.
What is the difference in coal consumption, per square kilometre between China and Republic of Korea?
0.006 terawatt-hours per square kilometre, with Republic of Korea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for China and Republic of Korea?
59 years are reported by both, from 1965 to 2023.
How do China and Republic of Korea rank globally for coal consumption, per square kilometre?
China ranks 5th and Republic of Korea ranks 2nd of 205 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Coal consumption, per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

China vs Republic of Korea: Coal consumption, per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 30 August 2026, from https://energy.statizoid.com/compare/coal-consumption-per-square-kilometre/china/korea-rep/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://energy.statizoid.com/compare/coal-consumption-per-square-kilometre/china/korea-rep/">China vs Republic of Korea: Coal consumption, per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Coal consumption, per square kilometre
Unit
terawatt-hours per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
205 places, 9,288 data points, 1965–2023
Last refreshed

Coal consumption divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.