Britain passes one week without coal power for first time since 1882
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Also worth keeping in mind that a many coal power plants have just switched over to burning "biomass", which is a lovely sounding euphemism for burning wood, but is "green energy" and thus eligible for massive subsidies. Drax, the largest CO2 emitter in the UK, burns more wood than the UK produces, so a lot of it comes from forests being chopped down in the US.[2]
[0]: https://www.coalaction.org.uk/2018/03/protection-camp
[1]: https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/saving-druridge-...
The carbon from trees is part of the short term cycle, it was 'already in the environment'. The idea being of course that you burn biomass that is produced on purpose, or the byproduct of industrial activities, instead of massively cutting down trees in wild forrests. In this case, yes you're stil releasing carbon into the atmosphere, but the thing you're burning absorbed the carbon before so it's neutral.
Good filters are of course needed to prevent soot and particulates from polluting the air.
http://www.carbonneutralcommons.com/glossary/short-long-term...
> These Southeastern coastal forests in the US are home to bears, endangered red wolves, salamanders and a number of bird species as well as many endemic plants. According to a 2015 report by the National Resources Defense Council, the potential pellet sourcing area for existing and proposed pellet mills includes “critical habitat for 25 species that are federally listed as endangered or imperilled”. The area has been classified as a biodiversity hotspot, meaning that it contains an unusually high level of biodiversity (2000 endemic species in all) and that it is threatened. The threats here come from forest degradation and fragmentation, caused by urbanisation and ‘forest industries’ such as biomass.
[0]: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/pellets-introduction/
Without protection everything's a useful asset to someone.
It’s a natural process, but still dirty and wasteful.
It might need supports between the inner and outer walls, causing heat to leak, and hence multiple layers of vacuum with supports to be required for containing the heat...
Industrial load will also play a factor, as will lighting homes during the dark hours.
Absolutely breathtaking inside that place.
Kryten: Are you sure, sir? It does mean changing the bulb.
2,675 MW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses_Niagara_Power_Pla...
1,997 MW: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Adam_Beck_Hydroelectric_Ge...
"Water enters the forebay via tunnels from the Niagara River controlled via the International Control Dam upstream of the natural falls. Water in the forebay is then either pumped up into the upper reservoir or immediately sent down over the escarpment downstream of the natural falls into the Robert Moses Power Station turbines."
So, it's like more like Malus pumila (Domestic Apple) to Malus sieversii (Wild Apple).
Worth a visit https://www.visitcruachan.co.uk/ and if you go by train it's discounted
Not correct. Nuclear power is pilotable, even if not as much. It's used as a base load because it's more profitable.
Clicking the little France icon top left switches to the French equivalent. At the moment ~92% nuclear and ~11% hydro!
What really depresses me is looking at the Australian electricity generation mix:
https://www.energymatters.com.au/energy-efficiency/australia...
There is a ridiculously high amount of black and brown coal here.
Great Britain: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
No affiliation, just a huge fan of the folks at Tomorrow who put it together. If you don't see your local geography supported, contributing a scraper is possible via their Github repo [1].
[1] https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib#adding-a-n...
Why doesn't Australia use the massive potential of Solar? They must have million square miles to spare which has year-round (very strong) sunlight?
Even at relatively low yields, it would be huge.
Edit: just realised it's 0200 there and it's a live graph! It looks like solar made up almost 10% in 2018 - most of this is small-scale rooftop systems.
Further, setting up solar panel infrastructure is high up-front capital expense, and the Australian banks that might finance such expenditures are notoriously risk averse, and likely have plenty of assets tied up in the coal industry, so they'd have no interest in disrupting it. Toss in the idea that cheap coal probably equals cheap electricity, whereas solar would be relatively expensive (most countries get with now-mature solar industries circumvent this by subsidizing nascent solar generators).
That's a killer recipe for maintaining the status quo.
To some extent it's also about jobs. Where I grew up, in the Hunter Valley, coal mining is a major employer. The export boom in commodities fueled the economy and lifestyle of tens of thousands. Shut down that industry a lot of people are going to hurt financially. Politicians just won't do it.
It's a case of short term electoral thinking at the expense of the environmental future.
A poorly maintained grid and a storm bringing down some infrastructure, and then the government steadfastly refusing to bring a power station online in peak demand were the causes of the power outages; renewables had nothing to do with it.
Renewables haven’t actually been the cause of any of our recent blackouts. Even back in the big storm a few years ago when they were blamed by conservative politicians and journalists, the actual reports came back showing it was more to do with the wind downing critical transmission lines, one of the interconnectors being out of service, grid management issues, etc. - that a bunch of wind turbines tripped due to safety settings was basically meaningless given all the actual problems.
More recently, coal and gas plant failures have been much more of a problem, like in the recent Victoria when over a GW of fossil fuel generation was out of service. It would been a lot worse without solar and hydro, as well as unexpectedly good wind conditions that took up a lot of the shortfall.
I highly recommend carbonbrief in general
This has lead to stunts such as an MP saying “coal is good for Australians”, and bringing a lump of coal to parliament. The current conservative government desperately trying to approve the Adani coal mine despite the consistently falling price and demand for coal and the fact that they would need to seriously damage the Great Barrier Reef to build it. Another MP wearing a hi-vis vest of a coal mine into parliament, the current government spouting all sorts of lies about “clean coal” and how “nobody really cares about climate change”.
Australia and Germany?
https://www.electricitymap.org/ provides a global map view.
https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/alex.rogers/gridcarbon/ has apps that calculate the carbon intensity.
https://carbonintensity.org.uk/ is my current favourite. It's an API that provides GB data broken down regionally and with a forecast powered by ML.
I wrote more here: https://unop.uk/your-planet-needs-you/
If you want to get involved start here: https://climateaction.tech/
As I write this, the UK is importing 3% from Belgium, 4% from France and 3% from the Netherlands. Belgium and France aren't burning coal, but I think the Netherlands is. 1% of Belgium's electricity is also imported from the Netherlands.
1. https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&rem...
But I wonder where Drax, the largest CO2 emitter in the UK fit in there? As far as I'm aware, they burn coal and wood only.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/uk-now-burning-33-of-worlds-wood...
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/13866/uk-wood-pellet-imp...
Is it better or worse than coal?
Just like how ireland "recycles" most of its plastic by shipping them to china.
https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-plastic-waste-3786393-Jan2...
And of course how norway is doing wonders by buying electric cars and investing in "clean" energy using the money they got by selling oil.
I just can't stand the self-aggrandizing bullshit from northern european countries.