
Britain adopts 2050 net zero emissions target - saravana85
https://phys.org/news/2019-06-britain-net-emissions.html
======
2T1Qka0rEiPr
An interesting little "gotcha" to this (unless I'm mistaken, please correct if
so) is that imported energy is not taken into account. The UK recently ran 2
weeks "without using coal" [1], but this completely ignored any imported
energy _which did_ [2].

So, this is great - provided we don't simply pass the buck (like by sending
all of our plastics to Asia).

Edit: Provide citations [1]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48473259)
[2] [https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-
mb10...](https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/britain-coal-record-mb1079/)
(11.8% imported)

~~~
RobAley
At 2.15pm today, the UK was importing ~11% via it's euro interconnects
(biggest 3.8% from the Netherlands). It of course varies depending on demand
and weather, and sometimes we export back to the continent.

According to [1], the UK imported ~6% in total in 2018 :

[1] [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-
generati...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-electricity-
generation-2018-falls-to-lowest-since-1994)

~~~
2T1Qka0rEiPr
Awesome - thanks for the link

------
hannob
The problem with such long-term plans is of course that none of the
politicians who decided this today will be around in 2050.

The most relevant question is: What are they going to do in the next 1-2 years
to make the first steps? That's far more relevant than any long-term goal.

~~~
mytailorisrich
2050 is not long term. To reach that goal in time lot of things have to be
planned and started right now.

~~~
freehunter
It's long term when it comes to the service life of a politician. How many
currently-serving politicians will still be around in 30 years to take the
blame if we miss the targets?

~~~
mytailorisrich
That's irrelevant and comparing apples and oranges.

30 years is not a long time for such a comprehensive change and it is sensible
and needed to have plans and objectives over such timescale.

I don't understand the point of trying to create an argument on this. It's
quite obvious that this comes along with actions over 1, 2 years and beyond
from now. And we see that happening every day.

If people think that the goal is achievable within 5 years they do not live in
the real world.

~~~
maccard
Why isn't it a long time? 30 years ago the internet didnt exist, we've gone
from making 100 million tonnes of plastic to 400 million tonnes (and 30 years
before that, we were making almost 0 plastic). The entire US highway system
took 60 years. We've made it to Mars in less than 10 years. After WWII, vast
amounts of Western Europe were rebuilt in a decade. The entirety of the UKs
coal mining industry was decimated in 5 years.

30 years is an absolute eternity.

~~~
mytailorisrich
Random statistics do not prove a point.

Net zero emissions over the whole of the UK is a very profound change and I am
not even sure that the technologies exist today to make it happen sustainably
or at all.

I think many people really do not realise how profound and far reaching that
is, bearing in mind that the aim is not to destroy the country's fabric and
economy in the process.

------
astonex
2050 is too late. Make it 2025 at the most otherwise no one in power now will
have to deal with it, and it's right now that we need to start making big
changes.

~~~
RawChicken
But then they would have to deal with it.

------
sambe
I don't know what is going on in the UK:

* On the one hand, supposedly one of the best users of clean energy ([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48711649)). Side question: where does it all come from? The UK doesn't have a lot of sunshine, nor do I see a lot of wind farms compared to other EU countries. Maybe north and around the coast? Wind seems likely given all the news about record wind output when speeds pick up. Wikipedia's number for zero-carbon production seem quite different than BBC's though.

* Government makes a vague declaration for the distant future, but Chancellor says we can't afford to do it.

* UK criticized for coal subsidies and lack of transparency ([https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-s...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2130231-uk-government-subsidises-coal-sector-with-356-million-a-year/))

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Coal has declined markedly, in good part thanks to the EU (2020/2025?) target
to cease coal burning. Drax is now mostly biomass not coal. Biomass that's
mostly imported US pellets from mature woodland, so far from as green as it's
painted. Still counted in the renewables total though. Drax remains the UK's
largest single emitter.

Something like 20% of UK energy is now wind, mainly offshore. There's about
20GW capacity, with 5GW more planned or being built. Many of those are Danish
owned or E.On. This is happening _despite_ the government not because of.
They've effectively made onshore wind impossible now, hence all the offshore.

Solar is about 5% of the total. Nuclear about 20%.

We already had a 2008 Act committing to 80% reduction by 2050, all Theresa has
done is add the rest.

~~~
sambe
Biomass is actually listed as a separate category (at least on the BBC report
I linked).

Coal progress looks great but feels contradictory with the New Scientist link.
Not a lot of people talking about the large gas dependency...

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Gas is the big elephant in the room as it's about 40% of the total, and a
chunk of coal was replaced by gas thanks to rush to gas some years back. I
think about 5 or 10% of gas is landfill recovery - small, but surprisingly
noticeable. More than I would have guessed, anyway. The rest is a mix of other
sources including hydro, pumped hydro, and the interconnects.

Biomass seems to get included whenever a piece, or Downing Street press
release, wants to tout UK generation at over 50% renewable. Separate when it
wants to point out that our biomass sources aren't ideal, or the real
breakdown of progress. :)

This is a rather nice page that shows the decline of coal in recent years, how
long since last used, with real time updates:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-
interactive/2019/...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-
interactive/2019/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-
run)

Drax capacity is 2/3 biomass, 1/3 coal, but coal now seems to be used as
generation of last resort to meet demand when other sources can't. Not sure
how or why the subsidies are paid. Maybe some is to keep plants run ready but
idle - but that's a complete guess, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find
it's just free money for no good reason. I do know Drax got a subsidy to
convert that last third to biomass when the total coal phase out comes...

It's all rather embarrassing for the UK. There is _clear_ creative accounting.
Progress since the coalition in 2010 has been more via (reluctantly) abiding
EU targets and industry building renewables for simple economics than UK
policy. The cross-party committees on climate change have been on the ball but
that's not policy. Government tries to take full credit for all of course, but
in truth is holding progress back.

------
als0
Doesn't feel ambitious enough, but here's hoping that other countries promptly
follow suit.

------
reizorc
Too little, too late.

------
ptah
interestingly ecotricity (green) is cheaper than EDF(nuclear) for my home.
[https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-
elec...](https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/our-green-electricity)

------
HaukeHi
Brits' environmental footprints are less than 3% of the global total—and
declining. Three percent is the upper bound of how much the UK can reduce
emissions itself. Reducing 90% of UK emissions by 2050 will cost roughly $5
trillion. But this barely makes a dent in the current global emissions
trajectory.

Because of diminishing returns, it is very hard to imagine reducing UK
emissions to zero. This would mean replacing every last lightbulb with LEDs
powered by zero carbon energy and having everyone fly in electric planes. It
is much easier to conceive of an UK scientists or engineers improving
technology, say, carbon capture technology so that the diffuse benefits reduce
global emissions by >3%.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Every nation needs to hit net zero. No ifs. No exceptions. The UK Chancellor's
knee-jerk estimate is a quarter of yours. Even that was quickly called
ridiculously high by the chair of government's own committee on climate that
spent a couple of years drafting the plan.

It's going to be far easier to persuade reluctant nations, perhaps via
sanctions, once much of the world is progressing or already there. Hoping for
a magical future technological deus ex machina is as convincing as it normally
is in novels. CCS has yet to be shown to have any viability at scale, yet may
very well be needed _as well_ to achieve net negative.

Fortunately the sensible plan put forward last month is far more than LED
light bulbs, which are mostly LED already.

------
Bantros
Absolutely no need for this

