Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Enjoyed 'Greenest Year For Electricity Ever' in 2017 (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the marching-forward dept.

The UK has achieved its greenest year ever in terms of how the nation's electricity is generated, National Grid figures reveal. From a report: The rise of renewable energy helped break 13 clean energy records in 2017. In June, for the first time, wind, nuclear and solar power generated more UK power than gas and coal combined. Britain has halved carbon emissions in the electricity sector since 2012 to provide the fourth cleanest power system in Europe and seventh worldwide. In April, the UK had its first 24-hour period without using any coal power since the Industrial Revolution. The government is committed to phasing out unabated coal by 2025 as part of efforts to cut the UK's greenhouse gas emissions in line with legal obligations. Separate findings from power research group MyGridGB show that renewable energy sources provided more power than coal for 90% of 2017, figures up to 12 December show.

72 comments

  1. 100 percent green energy by 2025 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It's not really that hard. You just retrofit any existing coal plants for cogeneration to bridge the gap, and then replace all fossil fuel energy with a mix of renewables and energy storage (hydro, compressed air, battery, flywheel, even biofuel and hydrolysis for fuel cells).

    And you aim for 120 percent green energy, with opt-in microgrids that make you more resilient to climate change driven 100-year storms.

    The problem is that we set up all these tax exemptions, incentives, fleet subsidies, deductions, and other mechanisms to artificially subsidize fossil fuels. Kill every single one of those, including home heat subsidies.

    The main problem is capital. Use the recaptured money from the above tax giveaways to pay for those.

    Then laugh as your new energy systems cost far far less than the old subsidized fossil fuel infrastructure did when you add up all those subsidies.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, just saying it will cost less does not make it so.

      Your list of storage solutions, for example, is a very expensive list even if you already had the intermittent overcapacity required to use it in a significant manner.

    2. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for offering these simple and obvious solutions. Its amazing how the experts haven't figured it out.

      Sincerely,

      Dunning and Kruger.

    3. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

      China, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia all have numerous scientific papers proving it is cheaper.

      But, hey, let's go with your Seven Words Banned concepts while the rest of the world actually does stuff.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But unfortunately real world demonstrations, such as the efforts in Getmany, tell us it is very expensive. Utopian paper writers don't need to demonstrate, people will just believe because they want to.

    5. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that's because Getmany is a fake news nation, and has no actual scientific publications.

      I stand by my statement, based upon various scientific journals of long repute.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    6. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      U wot m8? You're 'aving a fucking giraffe!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Total power generation in 2013 was 213.4 TWh, which comes from coal (38.4%), natural gas (31.1%), nuclear (18.8%), solar and wind (4.5%), co-generation (3.4%), oil (2.3%) and pumped-storage hydro (1.5%). In 2012, Taipower purchased 7,652.1 MW of electricity from Taiwan's current nine IPP.[9] Taiwan has seen an annual growth of 4.4% in terms of electricity generation in 1992â"2012.

      In terms of price to produce electricity, the average generation cost of electricity in Taiwan was US$7.0 cent/kWh, which consists of US$1.9 cent/kWh for nuclear, US$5.8 cent/kWh for coal and US$11.25 cent/kWh for natural gas.[10]

      Taipower operates three types of power plant based on the generation characteristics, which are peaking power plant, load following power plant and base load power plant.[11]

      In 2012, the base load power source constituted for 42.4% of the total power generation in Taiwan, below the expected level of 55-65%. Over the past decade, the capacity of peak load energy sources was between 10.3-14.8%, slightly lower than the expected 10-15% value.[9]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      They're phasing out nuclear too, much to my dismay. All that will do is make Taiwan more vulnerable to a blockade of fossil fuel imports by the massive fascist dictatorship over the water openly plotting an Anschluss. More nuke plants is what Taiwan needs, not fewer. A few more solar cells wouldn't hurt either.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      But unfortunately real world demonstrations, such as the efforts in Getmany, tell us it is very expensive.

      This is irrelevant because you're comparing decade-past investments with future investments in a field where prices drop by two digit percentages year-by-year. Therefore, the German experience only tells you that it *used to be* expensive. It can't tell you that it is, or that it will be.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stand by my statement, based upon various scientific journals of long repute.

      Neither you nor AC have offered anything to back your statements up.

    9. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      He's right though, those kind of storage solutions are either very inefficient or require huge amounts of money spent of building the infrastructure.

      there are storage solutions, such as Vanadium redox flow batteries that are perfectly suited to grid-scale storage, but even they are expensive at the moment. The good news is that they have hit the target price for long-term storage so its starting to be used, but generally for local generation that is not grid-connected.

    10. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. It will happen. The question is how much damage will be inflicted by the dinosaurs before then.

    11. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by labawi · · Score: 1

      I don't think I would classify huge pools of vanadium as green. There will be spills and vanadium isn't exactly benign
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

      I believe there are flow batteries with less toxic chemistries.

    12. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Taiwan is switching to Wind and Solar, like everyone else.
      So why would it need nukes? When it in parallel reduces need for oil/coal etc. anyway?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    13. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's not even clear that power in Germany really is expensive. You have to factor in the return on investment on the technology that benefits the German economy and tax revenue. You have to consider the externalised costs of fossil fuels. You have to compare the tax subsidies that are instead made plain to see on the German bill.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would Taiwan need nuclear power? Arithmetic, that's why. Find the size of the island. Find the amount of energy that can be harvested from the sun and wind per area. Compute the amount of solar and wind power they can harvest on the island. Divide this number by their current usage. If the number you compute is less than one then they need nuclear power.

      Since they are in the proximity of some very hostile nations they cannot simply put wind and solar collectors out into the sea, that's disputed waters. Attempts to put infrastructure out at sea could be seen as provocative. Not only that, windmills mess with radar. They need radar for navigation of air and sea travel, as well as detecting military action against them. North Korea has "Rocket Man" in charge now and he's got all kinds of places in mind to drop bombs.

    15. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Taiwan is switching to Wind and Solar, like everyone else.

      No it's not. Renewables and nukes have stayed flat and fossil fuel usage has increased enormously. Getting rid of nukes will just result in more fossil fuel usage

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    16. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      one bomb on a nuclear plant would suffice to power down the island, much easier than trying to take out millions of distributed power sources

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "The government of Taiwan has embarked on an ambitious plan to embrace the renewable energy revolution. As part of President Tsai Ing-wen’s plan to phase out nuclear power plants and reduce the use of fossil fuels, the government intends to invest as much as $56.6 billion, and to raise the percentage of renewable energy in Taiwan’s energy mix to between 20% and 25%. "
      http://www.senseandsustainabil...
      https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    18. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      nothing is truly benign, but I think vanadium is a lot better than the stuff they make other batteries from.

    19. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      5.6xct per kwh, how is that expensive, shut up fool.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    20. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      It's bollocks, german electricity is not expensive at all they just pay crazy 80% taxes and overheads and they apparently like that!
      .

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    21. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Germany *did* voluntarily decide to pay a lot of money to early adopters of wind and solar power generation equipment, and these payments are ongoing and substantial and a part of the retail electricity pricing. The problem is that these payments have no bearing on what *new* capacity costs, be it in Germany or anywhere else.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      They may well of done but that doesn't change the fact that their electricity is cheap with a ton of fees and taxes to the point where those fees and taxes are 80% of the total for residential customers.
      composition-average-german-household-power-price-2006-2017.png (PNG Image, 1132 x 800 pixels)

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    23. Re:100 percent green energy by 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming that is true it doesn't change the arithmetic. There is not enough land on the island to have sufficient wind and solar to meet their energy needs and they cannot spread out into the ocean for collecting energy as that is disputed waters.

      Nuclear power plants can be buried deep in the ground if they must to keep them safe. Windmills and solar panels are open to the elements, and by definition must be open to the elements. This also makes them open to attack. I wonder what damage an air-burst weapon could do to windmills and solar collectors. These are not complex weapons for use against hardened targets but weapons used against personnel and soft armored vehicles. If they can break windows then I imagine they can bust up a lot of solar collectors and windmills. Such a weapon may not do permanent damage to the grid but it'd create quite the cost of repairs and demoralize the people due to lost power.

      I'll also dispute that taking out a single nuclear power plant would send the island into darkness. A quick search on Wikipedia tells me that they have 41 GW of generation capacity right now. That capacity includes four nuclear power plants, each capable of producing more than a GW of power. The loss of perhaps 2 GW of generation capacity is not likely to send them into darkness. Taking out two plants, a loss of perhaps 10% of their generation capacity, might cause some hardship but again not likely darkness across the island. Let's assume that they had all of their electricity from nuclear power, and they all have containment domes like in the USA. These domes are designed to withstand a direct impact from a passenger jet, and you can find YouTube videos of these tests. What kind of a bombardment would it take to disable these nuclear power plants? To the point that even large portions of the island was in the dark? That'd be quite the bombardment. If the goal is to send them into darkness then is the attack on hardened nuclear power plants even wise? If the power was from rooftop solar and a "smart" electric grid then would not the sending of people into darkness mean bombing houses? Is that an improvement? I don't think so.

  2. Just think, we could have been, could be leaders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Drill Baby Drill. And there're three coal miners in WV that need jobs. Can't be any old jobs. Have to coal mining jobs.

    #MAGA

  3. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    The US is second in renewable power generation. We are great already.

  4. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is probably what's causing the record-smashing cold winter. It was double-digit below zero here this morning. Records are falling all over the country right now. We need to go back to fossil fuels and we need to do it NOW. People are probably dying because of all this unprecedented cold weather we're experiencing as a result of plummeting carbon dioxide production.

  5. Misleading headlines by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2
    And in the summary, as well. For example, we see:

    In June, for the first time, wind, nuclear and solar power generated more UK power than gas and coal combined.

    But in the article we find:

    Renewables overall - including wind, solar, biomass and hydropower - beat fossil fuels for only 23 days of the year.

    So fossil fuels were used every day, and managed to have more output for just 23 of 365 days - 6%. At least they are bundling nuclear in with the "green" power sources...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good catch. biomass burning is certainly renewable, but its a carbon emitter, and good percentage of their renewable generation.

    2. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we've gotten into the habit of checking you out.

      Please present your findings. Exactly what was the lie, and what information did you use to determine it?

    3. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all "renewable". The timescales vary somewhat however.

    4. Re:Misleading headlines by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Do remember that nuclear is not considered a renewable. But since it doesn't emit CO2, it's considered "green" if you're not a rabid anti-nuke.

      So, "wind, nuclear, and solar power" can quite easily generate more power than gas and coal combined, while at the same time, "renewables overall, including wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower" only beat fossil fuels 23 days....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re: Misleading headlines by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Biomass burning is a carbon emitter but it's pretty much all recently captured carbon, instead of fossil fuels which releases carbon that was locked up millions of years ago. Burning biomass can be considered carbon-neutral if you regrow whatever it is you burned,

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    6. Re: Misleading headlines by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      I think that, as long as the biomass comes from new-growth forests, then one can consider it carbon-neutral.

      The real issue with biomass use in the UK is that much of it comes from North America and the transportation is a significant carbon emitter.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read your own history.

    8. Re: Misleading headlines by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      In some ways, you're correct. Biofuel is a net negative carbon emitter, if done properly (e.g. Brazilian crop waste, Forestry waste, things that would decompose or burn and emit various climate change gasses).

      The thing is, if done to replace the current waste, it does reduce emissions quite a bit, which is a good thing, provided the energy is captured and used for processes which need energy, as it then replaces those inputs.

      Cradle to grave, my friend. Everything is cradle to grave. For nuclear, for example, you have a very very long tail and a destructive mining and operational impact. If you only measure during operation, nuclear looks green, but in the real world, the impacts at the extraction and processing and storage ends are a nightmare.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re: Misleading headlines by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Not even that, but the biomass that is waste from logging, say, would release carbon into the atmosphere even if left on the ground as it decays. Better to get energy from it.

    10. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Biomass releases carbon that is in the shot-term carbon cycle and would have mostly been released anyhow as bio matter breaks down in rubbish dumps, forest floor etc. Burning coal releases carbon that was safely locked up a long time ago and not likely to be released any time soon.

    11. Re: Misleading headlines by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      See I have a fan base because people don't like those who actually think for themselves. Easier to heckle and ridicule rather than discuss and use rational thought!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It says renewables beating coal, not fossil fuels overall. Roughly half the fossil fuel generation is gas.

    13. Re: Misleading headlines by jezwel · · Score: 2

      It is all "renewable". The timescales vary somewhat however.

      The development of lignin & cellulose eating biota around 300 million years ago means all those coal and oil fields are not really 'renewable' any more.

    14. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making up your own 'facts' is not thinking for yourself. Especially if your just parroting AM radio.
      It's easier to heckle and ridicule you because we have rational thought. You are incapable of discussing most things because of your previously mentioned alt-facts that you cling to.

    15. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, the self-important posturing is totally his own work.

    16. Re:Misleading headlines by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      It is showing that renewable power generation is on the increase, i don't know why people expect it to be close to 100% overnight when it still a new and developing technology - some places still don;t even have fossil fuel power generation after a few hundreds years of it being around.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re: Misleading headlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/2... What will you do? It's China, so it's bad, but it's the good part of China, so it's OK?

  6. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by lazarus · · Score: 1, Informative

    According to this you are 16th in the world. You need to take into account total power generation (and the US has much more generation than many countries in the world).

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  7. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    I don't "need" to do anything you say. The US is second in renewable power generation at 650Gwh.

  8. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    My guess is it is the wind caused by all the wind turbines that are making it cold. A better solution would be to spin the turbines the other way, just like you do to ceiling fans in the winter.

  9. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by lazarus · · Score: 0

    No, what you need is a lesson in how math works.

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  10. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    "Math" doesn't work just because you want to define it some arbitrary way. You don't "need" to "take into account total power generation". Just shove it. The US produces 650Gwh of green energy every year. Only one country produces more. Even if I used your definition, the US would be around 50th in the world in terms of percentage of total production. So you are wrong again. Have a nice day. You just got taught a lesson.

  11. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In POF, America is by far the largest generator of clean energy (nuclear, hydro,wind, solar, geothermal). No other nation even comes close. And America continues to increase our clean electricity since coal plants continue to be shut down and replaced by either nat gas, wind/solar or combination of the two.
    Now,in terms of CO2 / kwh, or efficiency, we are lower than we should be, but fortunately, we ARE decreasing our CO2, overall. And with EVs coming in a big way, it will drop fast.

    Windbourne( moderating ).

  12. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    In POF, America is by far the largest generator of clean energy (nuclear, hydro,wind, solar, geothermal).

    It's also the largest consumer of anything among the larger nations. That means even "less clean" countries in terms of electricity generation could still be less polluting.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  13. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would total power generation matter when measuring total renewable power generation?

  14. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by gnick · · Score: 1

    ...spin the turbines the other way...

    Putting those turbines up wasn't cheap. Turning them all 180 degrees won't be either.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  15. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    California will be 50 percent renewables soon. Most of the NE and West already are between 10 and 25 percent renewables. Part of why it's cheaper to manufacture in these areas: cheaper energy.

    Fossil fuels are rapidly disappearing. Even Texas uses both wind and solar.

    Adapt. Nobody is saving fossil fuels. Your day is over.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  16. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obligatory counter-point.

  17. Re:u wot m8 by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Lawks a mercy, pity we ain't got shooters like them freedom lovin' yankie-doodles, or yer could 'av plugged the bounder, what?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  18. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Think it's like them thar pussentigees. Like if a city of a million people has a hundred crimes and a town of 10,000 has one that's equal.

    Commie propaganda.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. See how we are doing now by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

    The G.B. National Grid Status provides an overview of where the electricity is coming from.

    1. Re:See how we are doing now by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Is this for Great Britain or the UK? I find this confusing as someone who lives in the UK but not in Great Britain.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  20. In the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't care about your fancy schmancy wind power saving you bookoo bucks.
    We still drive our super colossal giant gas guzzling pick-em-up trucks everywhere and burn all that "Clean Coal" for our power.
    Nosireebob. Our leader, bozo the clown, says you all stupid. Everything's great here in merka.

  21. Re:Important question for the left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This particular part of "the left", prefers to concentrate on the generation of electricity: to whit, the topic of this conversation. May I courteously suggest that you piss the fuck off back to where your kind of blatant idiocy is tolerated? Thanks.

  22. Re:Important question for the left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Murder racists cunts like you

  23. Nuclear Should Not Be Included by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuclear accidents destroy land for centuries which should disqualify them from consideration. Coal may kill you by ripping out your lungs or heart or causing some weird cancer problems just as nuclear may kill you due to contamination in seafoods fom the leaking reactor in japan. Wind and solar do not tend to have a lot of human bodies in their wake.

  24. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not sum all the renewables over the whole EU and see if the USA is first? Just being bigger isn't necessarily an important metric, although it is still good to see the USA greening its generation. I suspect China will eclipse the USA at least in installed base in a few years, though.

  25. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why should I care about pussentigees when asking who produces more.

    your also talking about per capita not pussentigees retard. i am sure a 500 iq genius like yourself will know why they are different. retard.

  26. Re:Just think, we could have been, could be leader by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

    It's percentages that really matter. The US has a low percentage of renewable power.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"