UK's coal plants to be phased out within 10 years | Hacker News Reader

UK's coal plants to be phased out within 10 years

bbc.co.uk

34 pointsljf19 comments

That's one caveated headline. The United Kingdom's coal plants will be phased out within ten years provided:

1. the plants do not "install carbon capture and storage (CCS)";

2. gas-fuelled power can be found to "fill the void created by closing [the] coal-powered stations"; and

3. this proposal passes.

Can't help thinking the BBC is pushing an agenda here on behalf of the UK government. The other day this "documentary" appears on iPlayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06q4z6j/power-to-the-p...

The overall tone of the documentary feels like both an advert for Scottish and Southern Energy and thinly veiled propaganda. I'm waiting for episode two where they push the argument for more nuclear power and fracking.

The BBC has had a definite right-bias over the past couple of years, their treatment of Corbyn has brought it to the forefront of many commentators, including the BBC's own Nick Robinson, who has recently started talking publicly about bias at Aunty.

http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/nick-robinson-tackl...

I'd say that it's less right/left wing, it's a pro-establishment bias, with the BBC operating in Defence of the Realm mode since Greg Dyke resigned in 2004.

Nick Robinson is a hypocrite. During the Scottish Independence referendum the BBC London media stars, such as Nick, got a bit of a jolt because of an ICM/Telegraph poll showing a lead for the Yes campaign just days before the vote. Nick and his colleagues "big footed" all over BBC Scotland's coverage and was content to repeat the ridiculous scare stories about what would happen should Scotland vote for independence. Particularly telling was his report from a news conference hosted by Alex Salmond for national and international news organisations.

Robinson asked a question and Salmond spent a good three or four minutes answering. Robinson edited the response to suit his own (and the BBC's) agenda:

http://wingsoverscotland.com/out-in-the-open/

Robinson also compared pro-independence campaigners to being like something out of "Putin's Russia", which is up there with Theresa May's ridiculous and alarmist "SNP-Labour pact would spark biggest constitutional crisis since the abdication of Edward VIII" comments during the 2015 general election:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/nick-robinso...

I could go on.

edit:

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/anger-at-bbc-bias-as-me...

http://www.thenational.scot/news/salmond-renews-his-criticis...

According to Wikipedia SSE aren't involved in nuclear or fracking.

Not yet they aren't.

The UK has abundant coal reserves, but my understanding is that their natural gas situation is not nearly as secure - does this effectively mean they're choosing to become more dependent on Russia (main source at least for continental EU) for LNG delivery?

Gas is a smokescreen. What establishment lobbies really want is a big expansion of nuclear, which has partially been approved but is still facing strong resistance on the ground. By removing alternatives (they also slashed subsidies for wind and solar), the government is basically leaving the country no choice but to build new nuclear plants.

I'm no fan of Nuclear but I am a fan of our biosphere. Coal is the absolute most poisonous, most dangerous, and most environmentally destructive source of energy we have.

Replacing coal with any-of-the-above is a net win.

Coal power plants also spread radioactive material.

Still way better than relying on fossil.

They are partnering with China to get more nuclear power plants built.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/business/international/hin...

We do have large coal reserves but they aren't being mined at scale anymore, most of our coal is imported.

The US is building several LNG terminals for the export of LNG via tankers.

The article title is very misleading. It's just a proposal, couched on whether enough gas plants could be built in time to make it a reality.

Only difference between UK coal phaseout and 'business as usual' is that a couple of old plants might shut a couple of years early. Source: https://twitter.com/countcarbon/status/667467474280062976

Well, and no new ones will be built.

CCS seems like the best short-term fix for pollution, yet we don't do it. Is it too expensive? Does it not work very well?

As demand for coal from power generation dries up in the UK, what will happen to the steam railways that rely on its availability? Are the volumes they use significant enough to warrant imports?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com