Don't forget the power generated from the 3 Gorges Dams...that will also take away a good portion of coal fired plants in the central part of the country.
I don't think it is only the coal fired plants...there are also a multitude of factories that are powered directly by coal...most notably cement factories in this area. Add to that the millions of homes that are using the coal 'hockey pucks' for heating and cooking.
But...I've got to admit. From 1996 when I first arrived, to today, the pollution is far less/better than it was back then. The amount of construction and the use of leaded gasoline was a huge cause of the most of it.

You have a pount, GZ Expat, although this would merely reduce the increase in the number of coal-fired plants rather than result in any decommissioning. The unfortunate thing about even the new coal-fired plants in China is that many of them are still very 'dirty' by any standard.

I am very surprised that you've found pollution to have gotten better - here in Hong Kong the pollution has gotten much worse since I came back in 1995. The number of bad air days is far more, and pollution median indices much worse, than ten years ago. While about half is internally generated, it seems the highest growth in pollution is coming from north of the border.

The government's plans for expanding power from hydro call for the equivalent of a 3 gorges project every two years, and then they've got the wind power plans (admittedly still a bit pie-in-the-sky). Perhaps the biggest change will be in gas though - currently there are very few gas powered stations, but that's likely to change in the next decade as the gas from these multi-billion dollar deals with places like Australia and Iran starts flowing in. Still, it's not like coal's going to go away, so we'll have to hope that they get serious on the scrubbing technology...

Oh...nobody told you about the giant fans they have installed which blows all the crap to the south then, eh?

My anecdotal observations...
1. We can actually see blue sky more than one day in a row now. In 96, we'd be lucky to get a day of it.
2. Birds...lots of them. When I first moved to GZ, I lived in the city. No birds. None. Lots of bats, though. We moved north of the city in 1997...no birds. When we moved back in 2004 to the same location as we lived from 97...we are awakened in the morning by the songs of birds.
3. Stars. The only stars we would ever see at night was the moon and venus. Today, you can see a handful of stars at night from the city.

Now...if you were to visit me today, you'd think I was totally full of it, because the pollution today is brutal. Rains are coming.

Yes, GZ Expat, I did notice that Guangzhou's pollution yesterday was off the charts. I was not going to comment on just one data point though.

Duncan, I hope you're right about the gas-powered stations - now if we can just keep gas prices low enough we might have a solution. Hydro power is great too although the effects on river traffic, silting, agriculture and the environment may yet prove too problematic.

As you say, wind-turbine generators are not really dependable, and can only be put in a few places that consistently get wind. My office window faces the one on Lamma island. I don't see it turn much, sadly.

Gas, unfortunately, is probably the fossil fuel which will run out first. Nuclear power has the same problem, only more so, due to even more limited stocks of uranium. This can be circumvented through reactors, with the unfortunate side-effect of producing lots of plutonium. Hydro-electricity is not very applicable to HK, and big dams like those in the 3 gorges project tend to silt up rather rapidly and lose much of their capacity.

Solar power is looking better, as it's an improving technology which is likely to become reasonably economical (especially when alternatives become more expensive. Plus, less smog = more sunshine = more solar power.

Realistically, however, coal is it, with all their emission problems (including fallout - 'dirty' coal-burning stations spray out considerable amounts of radioactive material contained in coal). The only way forward is through technological emmission reduction (liquidised bed combustion, emission scrubbing requiring large amounts of processed limestone, deep carbon capture, etc.).

Unfortunately, these all cost more than not using them. No power company in their right mind will reduce their profit margin if not coerced into it by a regulatory body.

BTW - none of this particularly concerns me, because I expect to be long gone by the time the glaciers of Greenland finally slide into the North Atlantic. It would be nice to be able to see across the harbour, though.

EDIT: Sorry, fist paragraph should say, "fast breeder reactors".

Are there any solutions for this enegy related air pollution problem?

FYI

rank in terms of cleanliness:
hydro/wind/tide/solar, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, gas, oil, coal

the energy generated by class one (natural) is limited, nuclear fusion is still under development (not in the near future).
so that give nuclear fission (U/Pu) the best alternative.

the last 3 classes are fossil fuels. they will last for a few more century, but not forever.

in contrast, the amount of Uranium can support human being for another few milleniums, at least.

so

argleblaster's comment has a few mistakes.

e.g.
1. nuclear energy can last human being for a few billion years.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/whatif.html

2. Plutonium can be re-used as fuel. that is what Iran is trying to do now.

for more technical info see this
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/whatif.html

I don't dispute that plutonium can, of course, be used as fuel. However, what worries most governments is that it can also be used for nuclear weapons.

As regards uranium reserves, beware of dubious internet referencing. Billions of years? That exceeds even the most optimistic estimates of the nuclear industry. From the International Atomic Energy Agency:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Development/devfifteen.html

"There are proven reserves of coal sufficient for some 200 years, of natural gas for 60 years and of oil for 40 years. New technologies to increase fossil fuel extraction could be developed, but financing and price volatility could then become leading concerns. Known uranium reserves ensure a sufficient supply for at least 50 years at current levels of usage. Recycling of separated plutonium from spent fuel would increase the energy potential of today's uranium reserves by up to 70 times, enough for more than 3000 years at today's level of use. Uranium used in a complete fuel cycle not only maintains itself but also significantly increases the resource base."

The key is "current levels of usage" - growing energy demand in China, India, South America and (in the future) Africa will considerably reduce these forecasts. There are undoubtedly considerably more reserves of uranium in the Earth's crust, but it is not a naturally-occuring mineral and the energy costs of extraction may outweigh the energy gain from its use. The practicality of fast breeder reactors has not been proven after many decades and millions of dollars spent on research (my old environmental science lecturer admitted this, and he had spent 25 years doing that research).

As regards fossil fuels, there is another problem which outweighs the availability of reserves. Even if no further reserves are discovered, buring all available resrves at today's rates of emmission is very likely to cause an unacceptable rise in CO2 within the atmosphere.