Clean Electricity Overtaking Fossil Fuels In Britain (bbc.com) 155
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: For the first time since the Industrial Revolution, Britain is obtaining more power from zero-carbon sources than fossil fuels. The milestone has been passed for the first five months of 2019. National Grid says clean energy has nudged ahead with 48% of generation, against 47% for coal and gas. The rest is biomass burning. The transformation reflects the precipitous decline of coal energy, and a boom from wind and solar. National Grid says that in the past decade, coal generation will have plunged from 30% to 3%. Meanwhile, wind power has shot up from 1% to 19%. Mini-milestones have been passed along the way. In May, for instance, Britain clocked up its first coal-free fortnight and generated record levels of solar power for two consecutive days.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, s/anthropomorphic/anthropogenic/. It's late and I'm still on duty. :-/
Scientists are a minority (Score:3)
Also, not sure about the UK but in America skipping a day or two of school is a major sacrifice. No, I'm not joking. Life over here's gotten hyper competitive because you basically can't get a job better than fry cook or Walmart w/o a college degree. There's little factory work and we're not building anything so there's not much construction. And not everybody can be an HVAC repairman, plumber or welder, we just don't need that many (remember, not
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your kid won't be left behind if it joins the protest marches, as the whole school is closed anyway.
But I get your concern. How does it come your kid is nuts like that?
Re: (Score:2)
But I get your concern. How does it come your kid is nuts like that?
Generation Z saw what happened to Millennials and the smart ones are determined not to suffer the same fate.
Unfortunately for them, they have no more control over their fates than the Millennials did, half of whom were utterly smashed monetarily by the worst economy since the 1930s, which was induced exclusively by Baby Boomers in charge of banks. The Trump recession will do similar damage to the first cohorts of GenZ. Guess who's still in charge at the banks? Yeah, same fucking Boomers.
Here we go again.
Re: (Score:3)
"most can't read of write at a 10th grade level, forget about math."
Half of them have an IQ under 100, that doesn't help either.
Re:Climate emergency rhetoric (Score:4, Insightful)
The effects are reversible in principle, but of course it's going to take a long time before we might achieve that in practice. This isn't exactly news when we're looking at targets as far away as 2050 just for breaking even and discussing further global temperature rises of 1.5-2 degrees as a baseline. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still be aiming for drastic reductions in emissions as quickly as reasonably possible and considering measures like reforestation to help capture some of what is already out there.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean we shouldn't still be aiming for drastic reductions in emissions as quickly as reasonably possible and considering measures like reforestation to help capture some of what is already out there.
That'll be difficult considering North America already has returned to the level of forestation of 100 years ago [mnn.com]. We're running out of room for forests. Yes there are 14 million hectares of fallow land in the US, but the US government actively works to keep them, in case a massive crop failure requires emergency planting.
No government in the world is going to give up their fallow land buffer to plant much more forest. Global climate change is a minor inconvenience compared to the risk of starvation. Whe
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way to avoid geoengineering to sequester existing carbon. We are as gods, and had better get good at it.
Nuclear FTW (Score:1)
Couldn't have done it without 18% nuclear in the zero-carbon column. Atoms win again.
Also could not have done it without the 6% "zero-carbon imports". Forgive my ignorance on this particular taxonomic term, but what os this exactly? Did Blighty ship in somebody else's sunlight, or is that just the hot air from Tumps's recent visit?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
actual data (Score:2, Informative)
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, look up the story of Drax, the enormous coal-fired plant that was moved over to the magic green column by switching to imported American wood chips. This is the Trumpian accounting standard, but with carbon rather than money.
Re: (Score:2)
UK has past a new law requiring new houses be heated in an eco friendly way as of 2025. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/sci... [bbc.co.uk]
Unfortunately this has not been matched by improvements in requirements for insulation in new homes AFAIK, and funding for insulation of existing ones has declined.
Re:Nuclear? (Score:5, Informative)
No, 48% is “clean, CO2 free”, and includes nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
And imported, which is likely significantly nuclear.
Reality wake up (Score:1)
and then you have got a a reality wake up [electricitymap.org] looking at France.
Wind, hydro, and nuclear (Re:Reality wake up) (Score:2, Insightful)
Would you look at that link in the parent post? Click around a bit on all those nations in green on the map, tell me what the top three green energy sources are?
You know what they are, wind, hydro, and nuclear. That's where we need to be spending our money and efforts. Wind, hydro, and nuclear. That's because they are proven technologies. We should ABSOLUTELY be spending money on research for other technologies like solar but don't forget where we've been getting the bulk of our low CO2 energy for the
Re: (Score:3)
"You know what they are, wind, hydro, and nuclear. That's where we need to be spending our money and efforts. Wind, hydro, and nuclear. That's because they are proven technologies."
If nuclear is so 'proven' why can't they get insurance, any insurance?
Re: (Score:2)
It's proven to be uneconomical, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
If nuclear is so 'proven' why can't they get insurance, any insurance?
Citation needed. I'll need to see something to show that they can't get insurance. Currently operating nuclear power plants must have some kind of insurance, otherwise I'd expect it would be difficult to find people willing to work there, people willing to invest in the business, banks willing to manage its funds, etc.
Here's a better question, how is it that coal power plants can get insurance? Any kind of insurance? I presume they must be getting insured, because we are still seeing them getting built.
Re: (Score:2)
If nuclear is so 'proven' why can't they get insurance, any insurance?
Citation needed. I'll need to see something to show that they can't get insurance. Currently operating nuclear power plants must have some kind of insurance, otherwise I'd expect it would be difficult to find people willing to work there, people willing to invest in the business, banks willing to manage its funds, etc.
Of course nuclear plants can get private insurance - for some things. Health insurance for their employees, various types of business and property insurance no doubt, but what they can't get is insurance for accidents involving the nuclear reactors. In the U.S. the government provides this type of insurance via the Price-Anderson Act [naic.org] for which plant operators make payments (required by law).
Re: (Score:2)
The UK can have more hydro as soon as it can build more rivers and mountains. And solar? In the UK?
The UK has time to consider their options. (Score:2)
The UK can have more hydro as soon as it can build more rivers and mountains. And solar? In the UK?
I did give three options, did I not? What was that third option? If they can't have any of those three then they will just keep burning natural gas. They'll probably run out of that eventually, that being centuries from now. So, they have time to look at options if that third option is kept from them for political reasons.
Re: The UK has time to consider their options. (Score:2)
Yes, last time I visited the UK I saw every little Cumbrian village fighting the NIMBY battle over a handful of wind turbines. If they just added generating capacity at Windscale, where the holy war on nuclear has already been fought, all of those villages could be left pristine and the monstrosity at Drax could be closed for good.
Re: (Score:2)
Drax is discussed elsewhere in this thread. It was enough of a monstrosity in its coal-burning years, but converting it to firewood, which has to be imported from overseas, so that it can falsely be advertised as clean, makes it even more so,
When (Score:1, Insightful)
That hydro is pumped.
When the wind is at the correct speed.
After that "clean" energy stops the 24/7 production lines have to pay for more "traditional" energy.
Re: (Score:2)
After that "clean" energy stops the 24/7 production lines have to pay for more "traditional" energy.
Which in this case is natural gas turbines.
We should be seeing natural gas combined cycle power plants humming along 24/7 at 60% efficiency. Instead in the UK they run single cycle natural gas turbines for 16 hours per day at 30% efficiency, with wind and solar running for the other 8 hours per day. Why not run combined cycle plants for those 16 hours? Because they take a very long time to heat up all that water into steam so that they can reach that 60% efficiency. Keeping them hot burns a lot of fuel,
Re: (Score:2)
How long do you think it will take to build a new nuclear reactor, even assuming Boris the Liar signs all necessary decrees and permissions the second they arrive at his desk?
Who? Never mind, that's not important. Let's take a look at some nuclear power plants built in the US Midwest, near where I live.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Construction began August 1, 1975
Commission date Unit 1: July 29, 1988
Unit 2: October 17, 1988
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Construction began April 1, 1975
Commission date Unit 1: September 16, 1985
Unit 2: August 2, 1987
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Construction began October 1, 1975
Commission date November 24, 1987
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Construction began March 25, 1969
Commission date Unit 1: August 28, 1975
Unit 2: July 1, 1978
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Construction began May 22, 1970
Commission date February 1, 1975
That's something like from 5 to 13 years. We better get started then, no?
How many of them would you need anyway?
There's about 100 nuclear power reactors in the USA right now, providing about 20% of our electricity output, so... about 500? I'm a
Re: (Score:2)
So, what is stopping the construction of nuclear power plants?
No, the all-powerful hippies that rule corporate America with their organically-nourished hemp-clad fists of iron aren't doing it.
Instead of lamenting that "we aren't building nukes" what is your proposal to change the situation, to replace existing coal and gas with nuclear power?
Utilities that want to build nuclear power plants can get the licenses they need through a stream-lined accelerated process (the Combined Construction and Operating Lic
Re: (Score:2)
So, what is stopping the construction of nuclear power plants?
Democrats.
Instead of lamenting that "we aren't building nukes" what is your proposal to change the situation, to replace existing coal and gas with nuclear power?
Vote for Republicans, ask everyone else to do the same, and tell the Democrats why I'm doing this.
It's pretty much that simple. Democrats have been holding up nuclear power since Jimmy Carter put on a sweater in the Oval Office and had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. They've complained about the piles of nuclear waste getting higher at nuclear power plants while voting against any funding for reprocessing that fuel and building waste disposal sites. They've been openly ho
Price Anderson (Score:2)
No, I'm proposing the federal government stay as far away from the nuclear power industry as possible.
Well if you were sincere you would lobby to repeal the Price-Anderson act.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent Up.
After agreements had been reached on construction in 2008 fourteen licenses for new generation power plants, mostly the Westinghouse AP-1000, have been issued.
You've identified a vector for utilities companies to take advantage of a very lucrative tax incentive under the US ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 [congress.gov]. Sec. 638 refers to cost covered in relation to the delays those licenses is $750M per approved license. I also noted input tax credits in there.
For anyone who is interested simply search around the document for keywords like solar, wind vs nuclear and see how the funds are divided for yourself. It's irrelevant who is in power, the energy policy enact
Re: (Score:2)
How long do you think it will take to build a new nuclear reactor...
Have Parliament bring back the Frame-Breaking Act so you can hang some Luddites (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Stocking_Frames,_etc._Act_1812)
And it shouldn’t take long. With any luck, it will be while there still some glaciers left.
Re: (Score:2)
One could use wind and solar energy surplus during the day to pump water upstream in reservoirs and use that water later on to generate electricity when the wind don't blow or during the night. Those water reservoirs can be considered as large batteries.
How much material would it take to build these reservoirs? How much material and land area would the UK need for these windmills and solar panels? How does this compare to using nuclear power as part of the energy supply? It certainly would be nice if someone calculated that all out.
Oh, wait, someone did.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Perhaps there are some nations on this planet that have the luxury to do a
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly would be nice if someone calculated that all out.
This is the peer reviewed report [stormsmith.nl] used by the European Parliament that shows there is a very low "Energy Return On Energy Invested" for nuclear power. The probably the main reason investors are steering clear, they don't get their money back.
Good on Britain for their efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
"The sun is out."
Almost never. In Scotland, the sun currently doesn't set until 11 pm and rises at 2 am.
Re: (Score:2)
We're addicted to oil, resistance is futile. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We're addicted to oil
We're not addicted to oil any more than we are to food and water. We'll switch to an alternative if a better one presents itself. Find a cheap source of carbon free energy and we'll be making diesel fuel for our cars and trucks by recycling that CO2 in the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I have an idea on where we can get that energy, I'll give you three guesses.
Again no (Score:1)
For the tenth time this year you are comparing shoulder months. Wait until summer.
Re: (Score:2)
For the tenth time this year you are comparing shoulder months. Wait until summer.
Because solar works best during the winter?
Re:Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
"A few birds probably get killed at times but its nothing like the effects of fossil fuel pollution."
Or glass buildings, that kill thousands of more birds than a Wind generator.
Even a single cat kills more birds than half a dozen of those generators.
Re:Lies (Score:4)
Even a single cat kills more birds than half a dozen of those generators.
Domestic cats don't eat eagles, eagles eat domestic cats. Windmills kill eagles, cats don't.
Many of these large bird species are already endangered. What happens to them after a Green New Deal?
Re: (Score:2)
Many of these large bird species are already endangered. What happens to them after a Green New Deal?
We give them a coup de grâce rather than turning their habitats into an arid wasteland and causing them to slowly and painfully starve to death?
Maybe think about why they are already endangered before invoking a boogieman.
Re: (Score:2)
We give them a coup de grÃce rather than turning their habitats into an arid wasteland and causing them to slowly and painfully starve to death?
Maybe think about why they are already endangered before invoking a boogieman.
I have thought about it, as have many others. Have you?
What human activities would deny wildlife their natural habitats? Would not the spinning blades of a windmill disturb their habitat? Would not also paving the countryside with solar collectors? Lets consider how much land is needed for wind and solar power.
Solar power: 10 W/m^2
https://www.withouthotair.com/... [withouthotair.com]
Wind power: 2 W/m^2
https://www.withouthotair.com/... [withouthotair.com]
Nuclear power: 1000 W/m^2
https://www.withouthotair.com/... [withouthotair.com]
Then there is the mining involve
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is the mining involved. Nuclear uses a fraction of the raw materials of wind and solar, look at Figure 2 on the article below.
Aaaah, not this bullshit page again, using CO2 data from 2001 and unrealistic material usage figures overblown at least for solar power by a factor of several.
You still haven't been able to find a better resource, I see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The claim is dubious because it includes nuclear. Nuclear isn't very clean - it emits more CO2 than the renewables it is competing with (particularly wind and solar), as well as killing more birds and other animals, and of course you end up with large amounts of contaminated waste that the UK doesn't really have a good plan for dealing with.
Re: Lies (Score:2, Informative)
Does it? Wikipedia presents a table from a study which compares the cradle to the grave global warming potential unit (measured in grams of CO2 per kWh). It shows that nuclear (type II reactors) have a median of 12, only 1 more than onshore wind, and equal to offshore wind.
Hydropower is 24.
Concentrated solar is 27, rooftop solar is 41, utility scale solar is 48.
Geothermal is 38.
Dedicated biomass is 230.
Gas is 490, Coal is 820.
Furthermore the nuclear one also includes restoring the site back to greenfields c
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the life’s-cycle carbon for nuclear comes from the containment concrete, which is also why hydro rates so high on this scale. Floating nuclear designs substitute steel for most of the concrete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear isn't very clean - it emits more CO2 than the renewables it is competing with (particularly wind and solar)
I don't believe you.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Dr. Malhotra found a source that shows nuclear has the lowest CO2 output, even compared to wind and solar. Wind and solar also causes more human deaths than wind and solar, as well as requiring more materials. This material cost means more mining in the earth for ore and other raw material.
Nuclear is the cleanest energy source we have, and by a wide margin. If we are going to stop global warming then we should include in this effort the best option to
Re: (Score:2)
I find the IPCC figures more reliable than some random blog.
In the UK specifically the CO2 emissions for nuclear are on the high side, due to how we store and reprocess fuel, and the locations of the plants.
Re: (Score:2)
I find the IPCC figures more reliable than some random blog.
Okay then, what does the IPCC say?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Looking at the IPCC data nuclear power has a lower median carbon footprint than hydro, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Nuclear and wind have the same carbon footprint. If you believe co2 output from nuclear power in the UK is "on the high side" then I'd like to see some data to support that conclusion.
Also, the data on that "random blog" is from Lancet. I link to the blog because it's a nice chart from a print source. If I could find a l
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like my sources then provide some of your own.
The IPCC's sources use data from a manufacturer of Nuclear power named Vattenfall [vattenfall.com] to make that claim about carbon instead of the peer reviewed report used by European parliament. [stormsmith.nl]
When you follow the source of their claim you find that a large carbon input to nuclear fuel is diesel to drive rock crushers processing hundreds of tons of rock to get a kilo of ore.
Instead Uranium miners switched to In situ acid leach mining [wikipedia.org] which trades the externality of carbon for an externality of megalitres of radiactive
Re: (Score:2)
A concern is the reducing quality of uranium ores.
Indeed. The smaller the yield per ton nuclear power becomes less and less viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fuel is cheap. The Japanese have demonstrated that you can extract uranium from seawater at about $240 per kilo or something. Which does not appreciably add to running costs. Heck, Uranium could costs thousands per kilo and not make a huge dent in energy prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fuel is cheap. The Japanese have demonstrated that you can extract uranium from seawater at about $240 per kilo or something.
I've checked this technology extensively and the sheer volume of sea water that has to be filtered really makes it hard to believe it can be achieved for $240 a kilo of uranium. $240 per kilo of seawater, maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, what?
So you want "alternative facts" I take it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wind Turbines have been reported as being cheaper to install new and than to repair.
Reported by whom? They are frequently repaired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Solar Panels are not recyclable. It has been reported many times. (IIFC, even on /.)
Quickly, someone should tell the French! [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, troll, that's not accurate.
Solar manufacturing exhausts rare earth materials. Once those are gone, so is PV solar. Those damn panels better be recycled when they end their life.
Wind on the other hand is pretty much durable, and if the materials become harder to come by, just recycle the older worn out ones. Wind will be around forever, but it's not the most efficient option.
The most efficient option is Geothermal, but Geothermal is really only viable around the ring of fire (eg Alaska, BC(CA), WA, OR, C
Re: (Score:2)
Solar manufacturing exhausts rare earth materials.
Solar manufacturing doesn't require any rare earth materials. It mostly requires such materials as silicon, aluminum, glass, steel. Perhaps the most resource-limited component is silver for PV cell contacts (around 20 g per panel). There are cells designs like SunPower's Maxeon that use zero of it, though.
Re: (Score:2)
"Solar manufacturing creates a huge pile of toxic crap "
Worse than this?
https://environmentaldefence.c... [environmentaldefence.ca]
I'll take a "pile" over "entire landscape".
Tar sands are not our fault (Score:3)
You do realize that those tar sands are from a natural process, don't you?
How are these desolate landscapes in any way related to an industrial waste site?
I'm no fan of them digging up the sand for oil but let's be honest here. We have laws on controlling erosion and environmental protection. They'll dig up this tar sand, clean the oil from it, put the sand back, and then plant some grass and trees on top. They'll turn this "entire landscape" into a grassland.
If you don't like them digging up the sand th
Re: (Score:2)
Solar manufacturing creates a huge pile of toxic crap they don't know how to safely dispose of
Actually, they do. They recycle it back into silicon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed. Well played.
Re: (Score:3)
strange how idiots make claims without checking the article first.