Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Britain Set For First Coal-Free Day Since Industrial Revolution (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the blast-from-the-past dept.

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."

16 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. 19th and 20th century powerhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse by trabby · · Score: 5, Informative

      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/...

    2. Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    3. Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:19th and 20th century powerhouse by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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?

  2. How about imports? by virtig01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Still uses gas by cycler · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

    /C

    1. Re:Still uses gas by E-Lad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not /just/ about CO2, however. LNG is still fossil, yes, but given a choice between the two I'd rather have it over coal any day lest we continue to spew heavy metals, particulate matter, and other toxins into the air by continuing to burn coal.

    2. Re:Still uses gas by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " 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.

      --
      -
  4. 36% Read your link. They buy nuclear from Sweden by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:36% Read your link. They buy nuclear from Swede by bwashed75 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:36% Read your link. They buy nuclear from Swede by zarr · · Score: 3, Informative
    No, in most years, Norway produces more electric energy (virtually 100% renewable) than it consumes. See the first table in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

    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:

    • Norwegians feel good, because they use locally produced clean energy.
    • Germans feel good because they pay a premium for Norwegian 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.

  7. Re:Many examples, if you remember history by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

    Decades ago, Americans brought all their groceries home in paper bags. Environmentalists freaked out over all the paper being wasted and cried over all the murdered trees, so they helped urge the shift to plastic bags.

    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.

  8. Re:WHO and many other sources by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.