SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Britain Goes a Week Without Coal Power for the First Time in 137 Years
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You will have domestic happiness and faithful friends.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 09 2019, @08:43PM (1 child)
> 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
> 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]