UK Enjoyed 'Greenest Year For Electricity Ever' in 2017 (bbc.com) 72
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Lawks a mercy, pity we ain't got shooters like them freedom lovin' yankie-doodles, or yer could 'av plugged the bounder, what?
100 percent green energy by 2025 (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
Re: 100 percent green energy by 2025 (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's bollocks, german electricity is not expensive at all they just pay crazy 80% taxes and overheads and they apparently like that!
.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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) [cleanenergywire.org]
Re: (Score:2)
5.6xct per kwh, how is that expensive, shut up fool.
Re: (Score:2)
U wot m8? You're 'aving a fucking giraffe! [staticflickr.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
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/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.senseandsustainabil... [senseandsu...bility.net]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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/... [wikipedia.org] .
I believe there are flow batteries with less toxic chemistries.
Re: (Score:2)
nothing is truly benign, but I think vanadium is a lot better than the stuff they make other batteries from.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...spin the turbines the other way...
Putting those turbines up wasn't cheap. Turning them all 180 degrees won't be either.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
According to this [drax.com] 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).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
No, what you need is a lesson in how math works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's percentages that really matter. The US has a low percentage of renewable power.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Misleading headlines (Score:3)
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...
Re: (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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Misleading headlines (Score:2, Interesting)
Good catch. biomass burning is certainly renewable, but its a carbon emitter, and good percentage of their renewable generation.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Misleading headlines (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3)
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....
Re: (Score:2)
See how we are doing now (Score:2)
The G.B. National Grid Status [templar.co.uk] provides an overview of where the electricity is coming from.
Re: (Score:2)