Slashdot Mirror


UK's Coal Plants To Be Phased Out Within 10 Years (bbc.co.uk)

AmiMoJo writes: The UK's remaining coal-fired power stations will be shut by 2025, Energy Secretary Amber Rudd has announced. They will mostly be replaced with gas. Currently, coal provides 28% of the UK's electricity. Japanese/European nuclear plants built in the UK are also expected to contribute. The big question is how to ensure gas plants are built to replace it. Only one large plant is under construction today. Another, which secured a subsidy last year, is struggling to find investors. The government cut renewable energy subsidies earlier this year, which led to questions about the government's commitment to tackle climate change.

6 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Typical Liberal Thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, the British Conservative Party are such mindless Liberals, aren't they?

  2. Re:Typical Liberal Thinking by MacTO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Read the bloody article.

    The first hint that this isn't purely about "liberal demoncrap" is that it is filed under business, not environment. The second hint is that they're talking about aging plants that won't be shut down if they are upgraded with carbon capture. It is also possible that other upgrades or maintenance is necessary, but unmentioned. In other words, cost is a factor here. The third hint are mentions of economic and political issues, such as energy security.

    There are other subtle (as in subtle as being hit by a sledgehammer) issues being mentioned, none of which indicate that environmental considerations are secondary issues.

  3. Re:Typical Liberal Thinking by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's lots of reasons to dislike all of the parties.

    Thing is though now that the Tories have shed the lib dems, they are showing their true face and engaging in a massive slash and burn spree. I'd say the lib dems were the most under rated party I've ever seen in power.

    To all the defectors who pissed and moaned because the coalition didn't behave like perfect lin dems (no shit, they were the minor party): congratulations, you've now got the government you deserve.

    Trouble is of course, the rest of us are also stuck with the government they deserve.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Re:Typical Liberal Thinking by Zobeid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Natural gas is a stopgap -- and a highly useful one. I would compare natural gas to a hybrid car, like a Prius. It still burns petroleum fuel, but not as much, and it still pollutes, but not as much, and it can help fill the gap until pure battery electric cars are perfected and take off.

    In the case of natural gas power plants. . . For now, they're much better than coal. For the future, solar power and nuclear fusion will eventually kill them off.

  5. Re:Typical Liberal Thinking by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What really upset me was that they formed a government with the Tories in the first place. Ideologically they are far closer to Labour, and could have built a working coalition with them. A minority government was even an option. Instead they enabled the Tories.

    I don't know how anybody can think this: the maths weren't there. They could form a stable coalition with the Tories, or cobble together a highly fractured coalition with almost everybody that wasn't the Tories, the so-called "rainbow coalition". It would have seemed hugely undemocratic, and allowed a clearly voted-out Prime Minister to stay on. A minority coalition would have lasted 5 minutes - it would have to agree internally and *then* try to find agreements with other parties.

    The LibDems are closer to Labour, but they had very little choice. To stay out of coalition would have led to a minority Conservative government that wouldn't have to last long, just long enough for another election when the polls swung slightly their way.

  6. Re:Three "blackout" warmings. None due to renewabl by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the easiest zero-CO2 replacement for a coal plant is a nuclear power plant

    Except it isn't. While well managed nuclear at scale with current technology holds a lot of promise it requires a large amount of capital and quite a bit of infrastructure. The will to do that does not currently exist so whether we like it or not we'll have to wait for 1950s style prosperity before it is going to be given serious consideration - as China did recently.
    To boil things right down, a windmill or two requires little effort or action on the part of people in politics while nukes would require actual work.
    Are you getting the picture now? The question - "where is my network of power stations with GenIV reactors" can be filed with "where is my flying car" for now.
    Pretence that it is easy is going to be met with various levels of disbelief by anyone with a clue.