Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 09 2019, @04:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the smug-in-a-smog-free-world dept.

BBC:

Britain has gone a week without burning any coal to make electricity - the first coal-free week since [...] the Industrial Revolution. [...] The world's first coal-fired power station was opened in London in 1882.

According to data, no coal has been used by power stations in Britain since around 1pm on 1 May. Instead, other sources of power have taken over, such as wind turbines, gas and nuclear power.

"We believe that, by 2025, we will be able to fully operate Great Britain's electricity system with zero carbon," said a spokesperson for the National Grid.

Time for British Prime Minister Theresa May to celebrate with more flights to Brussels?

Also at: Financial Times (Paywalled), Bloomberg, Ars Technica, and Fox News.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by The Shire on Thursday May 09 2019, @05:12PM (10 children)

    by The Shire (5824) on Thursday May 09 2019, @05:12PM (#841420)

    Coal fired plants only account for roughly 10% of electical generation. Right now, it's spring - not much heating going on, not much air conditioning going on. Electrical demand is down more than 10% which means they don't need the coal plants right now. This isn't an active measure on their part, it's just that economically the coal fired plants are a backup for peak demand that they don't need right now. When that demand goes back up in the heat of summer, those coal plants will come right back online.

    Meanwhile, their primary energy source is natural gas which they are still burning at the usual rate. So if this article is meant to indicate Britain has attained some utopia where they aren't producing any more CO2, then it's a bald faced lie. Nothing has changed except the energy demands went down for a week.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @05:52PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @05:52PM (#841446)

    Isn't Britain kind of almost synonymous with the United Kingdom, and England, Scotland, and Wales? That heat of summer probably gets all the way up to 85 degrees F? Or, were we talking about a different Britain?

    Looks like my estimate of 85 is on the high side: https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/United-Kingdom/temperature-july.php [currentresults.com] Average summer temps in London is a mere 74 F. Weather in the 70's is great weather. I mostly want to wear a shirt, but when I start doing some work, I shed the shirt, and work in a T-shirt. And, no air conditioning, thank you very much. Open the windows, and let the breeze, if any, blow through the house.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday May 09 2019, @06:46PM (2 children)

      by NewNic (6420) on Thursday May 09 2019, @06:46PM (#841471) Journal

      The United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:04PM (1 child)

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:04PM (#841506) Journal

        So when they named Brexit, they implicitly excluded Northern Ireland from it? :-)

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
        • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday May 10 2019, @07:58AM

          by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 10 2019, @07:58AM (#841751)

          That's also why it's not been finished yet.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @06:00PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 09 2019, @06:00PM (#841453)

    That's probably a bit short-sighted. What you describe is a seasonal effect and would therefore occur every year. But as the fine article states: this has not happened for a long long time. So there are other factors than what you describe at play as well.

    • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:16PM

      by The Shire (5824) on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:16PM (#841512)

      That's true, wind power seems to be picking up a lot of the slack. But as I stated, coal has only been at most 10% of their power generation. Cutting into that margin is not terribly hard and during luls in energy consumption the coal plants can stand down. But even if they were shutdown permenently, the co2 savings are insignificant when compared to, say, China's output. It's great they're doing this, but it's not a landmark achievement by any stretch.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday May 09 2019, @06:21PM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 09 2019, @06:21PM (#841466)

    > Nothing has changed except the energy demands went down for a week.

    It means that the other sources have grown significantly, and all the other sources are better than coal.
    It also means that coal plants, which are usually base load, can be off without the grid falling apart at tea time.
    It means that the massive wind farms can be managed to be more than just symbolic gestures.
    It also means that the new nukes being built, as well as the new wind and solar, will continue to reduce the time coal is needed, from "not during the best days of the spring/fall" to "not most days of the year", with the final goal being "never". While gas is a significant amount of the solution, it still is a lot better than coal.

    That took a lot of changes. The low point in demand is a symptom. The fact those records keep getting longer is a great sign.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Shire on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:10PM (2 children)

      by The Shire (5824) on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:10PM (#841509)

      > Coal plants which are usually a base load

      Totally not the case. Coal hasn't been a base load generator since the 50's.
      Even in the US where coal is promoted, energy production from that source only amounts to 14% of the total. Coal fired plants are used to pick up heavy energy demands, not as a primary.

      > It means that the massive wind farms can be managed to be more than just symbolic gestures.

      60% of their energy is from natural gas. Half of the "renewable" energy is from biomass - sewer gas.
      Wind is great but it has been fully capitalized across the country now and still only accounts for ~15% of total production.

      > It also means that the new nukes being built, as well as the new wind and solar, will continue to reduce the time coal is needed

      The two major corporations that were investing in nuclear have pulled out. Scotland has said they will not allow any new plants to be built. So like wind, it appears nuclear isn't going anywhere fast.

      So what we're left with is that nuclear is capped, wind has already been fully capitalized, solar will never provide a significant amount. Basically it's natural gas and sewer gas keeping the lights on and turning to coal when demand gets high. This is not a revolutionary achievement.

      If there was any substance to a large scale rollout of nuclear, that would be a significant move towards emissions reduction, but right now this is just a brief lul in consumption that someone is spinning as a massive achievement. Britain still relies primarily on fossil fuels.

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:43PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:43PM (#841533)

        > Britain still relies primarily on fossil fuels.

        no question, and that's gonna be true for a while.
        But "not coal" is still better than any coal, especially for people downwind. That's the achievement being touted, after over 130 years of spewing nasty stuff.
        It's also happening for longer periods. It's called a trend. Highlighting positive trends is good.

        Conversely, TFA's "We believe that, by 2025, we will be able to fully operate Great Britain's electricity system with zero carbon," is likely bullshit, and I am totally looking forward to being proven wrong on that.

        > > Coal plants which are usually a base load
        > Totally not the case. Coal hasn't been a base load generator since the 50's.

        Coal isn't rapid response. It takes hours to get started, and hours to shut down, and in between it produces massive amounts of power with limited variability in output.
        Not being in that industry, I call that base load. There might be an intermediate category in the specialized terminology, but coal ain't a peaker plant thing.

        > The two major corporations that were investing in nuclear have pulled out.

        My Google-fu must be rusted, because it seems that Hinkley Point C is still under construction.
        The economics given the projected costs are amazing, but at last check, they haven't pulled out. Which one of us is relying on incorrect information ?

        • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Thursday May 09 2019, @10:38PM

          by The Shire (5824) on Thursday May 09 2019, @10:38PM (#841579)

          > But "not coal" is still better than any coal

          Of course, but I think the headline makes it seem more like a major shift away from coal when in fact coal was never a major player in the first place. Sure, it's a step in the right direction but the article really over sensationalizes the whole thing, that's my issue.

          > Coal isn't rapid response.

          Neither is Wind or Solar - in fact those two can't be relied on for consistent power at all, let alone to cover increases in load.

          Coal fire plants are brought online when power increases are anticipated - cold weather, weekly fluctuations. You'd be amazed how well these guys can anticipate loads.

          > it seems that Hinkley Point C is still under construction

          Yes, and has been off and on since 2008 with a projected completion in 2025. And as the name suggests, Hinkley C is basically an expansion of A and B. But I'm talking about new reactor approvals rather than decade old ones. Three other proposed reactors were scrapped. [theguardian.com]