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."

Comments

19th and 20th century powerhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain's rise in the mid-19th century was due to coal. And major cities in the UK are still present around strategic coal fields. Moving away from coal is inevitable, but the British economy benefited greatly from this dirty energy source. And the West is currently denying those benefits to the third world, isn't it convenient that coal is bad now that the first world has exhausted theirs and no longer needs it. But the natural resource is plentiful in Africa, India and China and every step is being taken to prevent them from using it. Maybe Britain would be less full of shit if they started contributing to building of the infrastructure of Africa, if they are so keen on denying them the use of coal power. Solar panels have a very large capital expense, they are cheap in the long run, but they are not feasible for running industry in poor countries.

Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse

[AmiMoJo]

For this argument to be compelling, you have to demonstrate that there was no alternative to coal. That doesn't seem to be the case, it was just the cheapest and most readily available option at the time.

Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse

[quenda]

now that the first world has exhausted theirs and no longer needs it.

Most of the world's coal exports are from developed countries, notably Australia, USA and Russia.
You are twisting facts to your political agenda.

Maybe Britain would be less full of shit if they started contributing to building of the infrastructure of Africa,

Britain build a great deal of Africa's infrastructure. Unfortunately most of it has fallen into neglect and decay since independence.

Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse

[religionofpeas]

Solar panels have a very large capital expense

Not really. With solar panels you can start small. Even a single panel can provide a few hundred watts in the African sun. That's enough to run some small equipment that you can use to manufacture stuff, and slowly build up. Try that with coal.

Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse

[nospam007]

"Britain's rise in the mid-19th century was due to coal. And major cities in the UK are still present around strategic coal fields."

It's kinda cute that you think any 'major city' in GB was built in the 19th century.

Which Koch brother are you?

hypocrits

[Anonymous Coward]

The West built their wealth on cheap dirty coal, several major British cities grew around large coal fields. But the West is quick to condemn the use of coal in Africa, India and Asia. The so-called third world is encouraged to purchase renewable technology, at great capital expense, which delays growth. As long as the third world is unable to find access to cheap energy, they will be unable to build the industry they need, and bring in wealth to raise the standard of living among people. Europe and America are ready to hold the rest of the world under their boot for as long as possible. The key problem with this strategy is that change will come as a sudden upset, and it will utterly destroy the West.

How about imports?

[virtig01]

I've seen this story posted on environmental sites touting this as a success. But it's really just no coal on the island... when electricity imports should also be considered (there are interconnections between continental Europe, and also Ireland). And then there's the other big coal user: steel. A lot of British steel has left the island; it's just produced elsewhere and imported.

So good for British air-breathers, but it's not exactly green energy transformation as some may believe.

Re:Still uses gas

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

" go all nuclear "

Why do people think of nuclear power as "clean" power? The waste lasts for hundreds of thousands of years, far longer than any co2 we produce. Its the same human mentality that got us into this mess, externalities not being considered for an immediate gain in the moment. (in this case possibly dumping waste on hundreds of generations into the future)

Zero waste is solar, tidal, geothermal, wind and water. The only way forward. Nuclear was a horrible mis-step by humanity and the problems will be easily visible to all in one hundred years. Especially if we have zero waste fusion developed in the next century. All your arguments will seem rather quaint, i hope.

Re:Still uses gas

[chihowa]

Yeah? What's the half-life of CO2? Would you be happy living on Venus?

The radioactive waste that lasts for hundreds of thousands of years isn't particularly dangerous due to its radioactivity (as heavy metals, it's chemically more dangerous). The volume of waste is not horribly difficult to deal with if we could actually do that instead of cutting corners and basing our decisions on profits and hysteria.

Solar, tidal, geothermal, wind and water may directly produce little waste, but they each also have environmental impacts to varying degrees. A fusion reactor will irradiate its containment vessel and produce scary radioactive stuff, too.

TANSTAAFL. The best approach is to make rational decisions with the goal of fulfilling rational objectives.

Re:WHO and many other sources

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually we don't know how many cases of what ever cancer there has been.
The numbers are locked down and not public.

However about 20,000 children where treated in Germany for Thyroid Cancer ...