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.

11 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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"
    3. 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...
    4. 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! --
    5. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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! --
  5. 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
  6. 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."