Slashdot Mirror
Britain Set For First Coal-Free Day Since Industrial Revolution (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The UK is set to have its first ever working day without coal power generation since the Industrial Revolution, according to the National Grid. The control room tweeted the predicted milestone on Friday, adding that it is also set to be the first 24-hour coal-free period in Britain. The UK has had shorter coal-free periods in 2016, as gas and renewables such as wind and solar play an increasing role in the power mix. The longest continuous period until now was 19 hours -- first achieved on a weekend last May, and matched on Thursday. Hannah Martin, head of energy at Greenpeace UK, said: "The first day without coal in Britain since the Industrial Revolution marks a watershed in the energy transition. A decade ago, a day without coal would have been unimaginable, and in 10 years' time our energy system will have radically transformed again." Britain became the first country to use coal for electricity when Thomas Edison opened the Holborn Viaduct power station in London in 1882. It was reported in the Observer at the time that "a hundred weight of coal properly used will yield 50 horse power for an hour." And that each horse power "will supply at least a light equivalent to 150 candles."
China is the world leader in solar installations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As of 2014 China had 23% of total electricity generated by renewables:
http://www.iea.org/statistics/...
You are either a shill or a troll to offer 19th century solutions to 21st+ century problems when they have obviously had long term negative effects on us all.
China is the number 1 user of coal, and they have recently shut down 103 coal plants, while investing $600 billion into solar power.
That 'developing nation' America is the 2nd largest user of coal, and is ignoring the future while promising to bring coal back from the dead. Solar will produce hundreds of thousands of jobs, compared to the 6,000 or so coal jobs that will ever exist.
The idea of encouraging coal power production when solar provides cheaper power is just short sighted, or self interested at the cost of everybody else
The UK is still using LNG for electricity.
I really don't understand why people bought the idea that LNG is a good thing.
It's still fossile!
On top of this, nuclear power is in the cross hairs despite having close to the lowest CO2 emission of all types.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC.2C_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources/
It's also the only thing we can run 24/7 without sending wast amount of CO2 into the air.
In short scrap all "renewable" hippie-power and go all nuclear with hydro as regulating power (or buy from your neighbors)
(That said, hydro isn't the best thing either for local ecosystems)
I see you didn't bother to read your own link before posting an extremely obvious too-good-to-be-true claim.
Let me copy-paste from our own link:
---
the average electricity consumption mix of a Norwegian household was 36% renewable.[4]
As per the European Union's 2009 Renewables Directive (later added in the EEA Agreement), Norway has established a national goal for renewable energy - 67.5% of gross final consumption
--
So 36% of what they *use* is renewable. What they *produce* is hydro and wind. Where do they get the electricity the use? They buy nuclear-generated electricity from Sweden.
Does that mean they don't use fossil fuels? Well no, transportation and everything is still fossil fuels, but their *electricity* doesn't come from fossil fuels. It comes from Sweden's nuclear plants amd Norway's mountains by way of hydro.
Hydro IS great in places with lots of mountains far from people. When you put your hydro upstream from populations, you eventually get Banqiao (200,000 dead, 11 million displaced). So don't do that. But where you've got lots of mountains and no towns downstream, hydro is great. It's not powering 99% of Norway, though. 36%, according to your link.
The link to the source for your 36% on the wikipedia page is dead, but anyway, Norway is producing more clean electricity than they consume (https://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/statistikker/energiregn/aar-forelopige/2015-05-06?fane=tabell&sort=nummer&tabell=226241). Whether they sell their clean electricity abroad for others to use or they use the clean electricity themselves doesn't make a shitload of difference. The net effect is the same. Are you splitting hairs or am I missing a valid point here?
If you include transport, heating, etc, the picture is as you point out, a bit different. But even then, the majority comes from renewables.
OP was clearly talking about electricity.
The 36% number comes from the Guarantees of Origin scam. It's an economic system which disconnects the production and consumption of energy from the buying and selling of it. It basically allows renewable energy to produce double the amount of clean conscience, for the same amount of clean energy:
Also, I suspect that the "67.5% of gross final consumption" includes stuff like gas for vehicles, wood for heating, etc, not just electricity, which makes it meaningless in this discussion.
Complete and utter fucking bullshit kid. Go ask your dad instead of making shit up. The plastic bags were a shitload cheaper, around an order of magnitude, than paper ones and that was the reason.
Bad health caused by sooth and smog makes you poor too, as does the other negative impacts burning coal has on the environment. Coal has tremendous hidden costs, but them being hidden doesn't mean you get to pretend they are non-existent.