
Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power - willvarfar
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52973089
======
renaudg
Every time there's a thread on the topic, I like to share this fantastic
realtime map of the carbon intensity of electricity production in various
countries :

[https://www.electricitymap.org/map](https://www.electricitymap.org/map)

As I write this, the UK's intensity is 326 gCO₂eq/kWh, which is nothing to
write home about.

This is better than the worst European offender (coal-loving Poland : 652g) as
well as Baltic countries, the Netherlands and Germany (373).

But it's far from the best in class : Nordic countries (around 20-30, thanks
to hydro) or for a more comparable country, France (around 60, thanks to
nuclear)

Germany is interesting because it consistently has one of the worst carbon
intensity figures of all developed countries, in spite of a record-setting
share of renewables that its green activists like to boast about, and hundreds
of billions of € in subsidies poured into them in the past 20 years.

That's of course the consequence of its decision to phase out nuclear power in
the early 2000s. Wind/solar are intermittent and there's no way around that
(battery storage isn't nearly mature enough).

That leaves 4 options for handling the base load : nuclear, hydro, gas or
coal. Only 2 of those are low-carbon. And if you don't have the geography for
hydro (like the Nordics do) but still decide to go nuclear-free for political
reasons, guess what you're left with ?

IIRC, German coal power plants have 7 spots in the top 10 worst air pollution
emitters across the EU. Coal-related air pollution causes an estimated 10.000
extra deaths each year across the continent. Radiation caused one direct death
in Fukushima. Thanks, Die Grüne.

~~~
jasoncartwright
>As I write this, the UK's intensity is 326 gCO₂eq/kWh, which is nothing to
write home about.

Yeah, that's true, but you've taken a reading there at the worst time of day
whilst it's not windy here. The other week we achieved the second lowest
carbon intensity daily average ever (the lowest was in the summer last year).

Here's what the UK carbon intensity of electricity looks over a larger time
scale (8yrs) [https://electricityproduction.uk/carbon-
intensity/?t=8y](https://electricityproduction.uk/carbon-intensity/?t=8y)

Also, I don't believe that (whilst I love their visualisation) the Electricity
Map UK gCO2/kWh measurement is very accurate. For starters, they don't appear
to separate out different types of gas plants. The CO2 intensity of OCGT is 3x
that of CCGT.

~~~
pfdietz
> The CO2 intensity of OCGT is 3x that of CCGT.

The efficiency of OCGT is about 40%. The efficiency of CCGT is about 60%. So,
no, the CO2 intensity is not "3x".

~~~
jasoncartwright
My apologies, you're correct. I use 394 gCO2/kWh for CCGT and 651 gCO2/kW for
OCGT in my calculations

------
leonardaustin
Hummm, not sure wood pellets are carbon neutral. I think the UK has just
offshored its CO2 emissions to the US. Great video below explaining in more
detail.

[https://youtu.be/6RP-jYDgiMg?t=100](https://youtu.be/6RP-jYDgiMg?t=100)

~~~
torpfactory
Wood pellet burning is a temporary distraction and distortion caused by
regulation that allows it to be counted as "renewable". I believe you can make
a reasonable argument wood burning is carbon neutral. Unfortunately, land used
for growing forests of fuel represents a terrible opportunity cost - you could
grow food or let the forests absorb atmospheric carbon, provide animal
habitat, re-wilding, etc.

However, there is no long-term future in which wood pellets are used for much
other than limited residential space heating. Cutting down a forest,
processing it into pellets and shipping them half way around the world isn't
going to be the cheapest option for bulk power production.

Don't let the foolishness of wood-burning being counted as "renewable"
distract you from the broader story of the quickly improving value proposition
of solar, wind, and (soon, hopefully) battery storage.

~~~
totalZero
I'm not sure you _can_ make a reasonable argument that burning wood is carbon
neutral, unless you want to open the door to saying that any CO2 emission is
carbon neutral because the carbon can be reclaimed when it is converted into
plant matter. It is kind of an absurd argument, unfalsifiable because it also
applies to kerogen-based fuels like petroleum and natural gas, both of which
begin their long life cycles as organic matter.

 _Burning wood to generate energy puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than
burning fossil fuels to create the same amount of energy, because wood has a
lower energy density. Under ideal conditions, most of that CO2 can eventually
be reclaimed, if the forest is allowed to regrow. That takes decades, however,
during which atmospheric CO2 is higher than it would be otherwise. This
creates harms from climate change, including some that are irreversible, like
ice-sheet melt and permafrost thaw. But emissions from burning wood are only
partially reclaimed by forest regrowth, because:_

 _\- harvesting trees results in release of CO2 from soils, which continues
for decades;_

 _\- burning natural hardwood forest and replacing with fast-growing forest
plantations (a common practice), permanently elevates atmospheric CO2 because
plantations don’t store as much carbon as natural forests;_

 _\- cutting and processing wood uses energy, which generally results in CO2
emissions._

[https://whrc.org/burning-wood-for-energy-is-not-carbon-
neutr...](https://whrc.org/burning-wood-for-energy-is-not-carbon-neutral/)

~~~
clomond
(note, not defending Biomass)

While Biomass should not be treated as 'renewable', the key difference between
burning biomass versus coal is that the inherent carbon in biomass could be
treated as a cycling of carbon that already exists in the carbon cycle
(assuming where it is harvested is then replanted with trees, which many of
them are) - versus the burning of coal (or any other fossil fuel) which takes
'stored carbon in the ground' that has NOT been part of the carbon cycle for
millions of years and increases the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere &
the overall 'natural carbon cycle'.

So - 'in the fullness of time' (decades) it is 'carbon neutral'.

But the tragedy in Biomass is not just the destruction of forests as you
mention (sometimes old growth) or the loss of an active carbon sink - the
carbon dioxide is still released and will be sitting around when we least need
it to - it will still warm the planet.

Hopefully, the EU and other countries will abandon the Biomass retrofits and
jump ahead to accelerated Solar, Wind and Energy Storage deployments.

------
iguy
This is a good discussion of the accounting of biofuels, with a guy called Tim
Searchinger (there is a transcript if you don't want to listen):

[https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/11/manifold-
podcast-23-ti...](https://infoproc.blogspot.com/2019/11/manifold-
podcast-23-tim-searchinger.html)

One takeaway is that you should think of farming trees as fuel as a competitor
for land use. If it displaces growing food crops, then they will be grown
elsewhere, possibly in newly cleared rainforest. Even if none of your wood
comes from there.

Edit -- I may have mis-remembered slightly... the food competition story would
more obviously apply to corn ethanol, which could otherwise be turned into
beef.

~~~
VBprogrammer
That doesn't pass a smell test to me. Land which is used for forestry is
usually not suitable for growing crops. Usually because it's on too great a
slope and on poor quality soils.

~~~
fred_is_fred
This is especially true in the US where the article says they are sourcing
from. US forest cover has been increasing for years as marginal farm land is
reclaimed by trees - intentionally or otherwise -
[http://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm](http://www.fao.org/3/x4995e/x4995e.htm)

------
evolve2k
> He says the plant now uses seven million tonnes of pellets sourced from
> commercial forests in the US a year and says Drax will phase out coal
> entirely by March next year.

Anyone know more about using ‘compressed wooden pellets sourced from the US’?

First time I’ve heard of an _easy?_ transition option for existing coal power
plants, achieved by changing the fuel burnt.

~~~
Jerry2
It's called "biomass" and it's a massive scam that harms the environment.
Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs released a recent documentary on it [0] that was
censored by the "green" industry. As you watch the documentary, do some fact
checking on your own [1].

[0] [https://vimeo.com/423114384](https://vimeo.com/423114384)

[1] [https://planetofthehumans.com/fact-check-
bible/](https://planetofthehumans.com/fact-check-bible/)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
That's the first time I heard that the "green" industry gets to censor what I
watch.

Comments like yours make me doubt objections to biomass. There is no need to
use this sort of language if you have some real arguments against it.

~~~
Jerry2
They did censor it.

[https://deadline.com/2020/05/planet-of-the-humans-pulled-
you...](https://deadline.com/2020/05/planet-of-the-humans-pulled-youtube-
michael-moore-jeff-gibbs-censorship-1202942938/)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
That isn't censorship.

------
praveen9920
Bhutan is actually carbon-negative for a while but this is significant. A
complete country going off coal. To compare this with one of the biggest
contributors to pollution, India, has around 50% of electricity generated by
coal.

Of course, Britain's electricity consumption may not be comparable to India,
or COVID has some effect on this. This certainly is the first step towards a
better future

~~~
noir_lord
Britain's electricity consumption isn't comparable to India for many reasons -
We use ~4 times as much per person but have only 5% the population.

1) We are geographically tiny by comparison 2) Our population is tiny by
comparison 3) Our temperatures don't require active cooling in our homes (most
of the time) though we do use electricity for heating 4) We are a developed
economy which means for the most part highly energy intensive processes
(aluminium and steel production) have moved offshore...to places like India.

However per capita we use 4,795kWh per year, India - 1,181kWh and the mix of
sources definitely matters

For reference: United States 12,000, Iceland: 55,000, France: 6648

You can't however compare it like for like even amongst developed economies,
Iceland uses a lot per capita but they are a cold (tiny population) country
and heavy on renewables, France uses nearly 50% more than the UK but they
built and operate a huge number of nuclear plants so electricity has been
cheap enough for long enough that it's much more prevalent for heating.

If the western world wants to try and influence the energy usage in India and
China et al then we need to get our consumption down while advancing the state
of the art in renewables because can afford to do so exactly because saying
"You need to not have the same living standards as us to save the planet while
we use as much energy as we want" isn't a reasonable argument in the
slightest.

The UK has done somewhat well there, it was within the last decade that our
usage was >6000 so we've dropped 25% per capita so total energy usage has
dropped while we've increased usage of renewables, we are almost uniquely
suited for wind energy and in fact 7 of the 10 largest wind farms in the world
are in the UK and the single largest is currently been off the coast of a town
not 25 miles from where I am now.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsea_Wind_Farm)

The UK has committed to 50GW of Wind capacity by 2030 which is greater than
our current energy consumption (though iiirc that's 50GW if every turbine is
running optimally so we'll still need base-load/grid level storage for when
they aren't) - It's a hell of a thing.

~~~
s1artibartfast
> If the western world wants to try and influence the energy usage in India
> and China et al then we need to get our consumption down while advancing the
> state of the art in renewables because can afford to do so exactly because
> saying "You need to not have the same living standards as us to save the
> planet while we use as much energy as we want" isn't a reasonable argument
> in the slightest.

I don't think this is accurate. As you point out France has a relatively high
power consumption _per capita_ but has nearly half the CO2 emission than China
_per capita_. This is insane.

------
philipkglass
Wind and solar supply much more electricity than wood pellets. This link in
another comment by regularfry shows charts and tables:

[https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-
generation-...](https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-
mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb)

In 2019, wind and solar generated a total of 76.55 terawatt hours. Bioenergy
(which includes wood pellets) generated 31.12 TWh. Coal generated 6.53 TWh and
gas generated 129.99 TWh.

In 2009, wind and solar generated 9.30 TWh. Bioenergy generated 9.61 TWh. Coal
generated 97.80 TWh and gas generated 163.46 TWh.

------
ascotan
"He says the plant now uses seven million tonnes of pellets sourced from
commercial forests in the US a year"

How is this helping? Are we seriously chopping down forests in the US to feed
UK power plants just so people can feel good about not burning coal?

Honestly I think most of 'environmentally friendly' options are just scams to
make people feel better about themselves, but the costs of the 'green' option
is just as bad or worse than the alternatives.

Bio fuels with ethanol sourced from corn comes to mind. It puts land under
cultivation to produce the corn which is never taken into the discussion.
[https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_ethanol_bad_...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_case_against_ethanol_bad_for_environment)

~~~
theptip
Trees are a renewable resource, if managed properly. Is there a particular
concern about using forestry land to produce fuel?

~~~
ascotan
I think having potentially foreign-owned interests coming into the US to buy
up land for commercial logging in order to feed non-coal burning plants is not
a net positive.

~~~
theptip
Why? On the face of it, the US has lots of land to spare, and if the trees are
being harvested sustainably, then why does it matter where they are sold?

Sure, all else being equal I'd rather use solar than coal or wood, but if it's
more economically viable in the short run to switch a coal plant to wood, thus
getting to carbon-neutral, that seems like progress to me.

At some point solar will be cheap enough that the CapEx of replacing the
coal/wood plant will be less than the OpEx of running the old plant, and it'll
get torn down. (Indeed that crossover point has been hit in some markets, c.f.
[https://www.vivintsolar.com/blog/solar-energy-is-now-
cheaper...](https://www.vivintsolar.com/blog/solar-energy-is-now-cheaper-than-
coal.))

I prefer not to make perfect the enemy of the good; I'll take some compromises
if that's what it takes to get our CO2 emissions down.

~~~
ascotan
Commercial logging doesn't protect the environment and it's likely even worse
than digging up coal and burning it. In the end some politician somewhere is
running for re-election and I'm sure this is great press. However, it's not
good for the environment:

Here's a quick article on the uncounted CO2 cost of making wood pellets
exactly for these plants:
[https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215913-logging-
study-r...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215913-logging-study-
reveals-huge-hidden-emissions-of-the-forestry-industry/) "Logging in North
Carolina emits 44 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year."

Here's another discussing why the EUs view of burning trees is off:
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512/...](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa512/pdf)
"Sixth, growth in wood harvest for bio energy causes a steady increase in
atmospheric CO2 because the initial carbon debt incurred each year exceeds
what is repaid. With the US forest parameters used here, growth in the wood
pellet industry to displace coal aggravates global warming at least through
the end of this century, even if the industry stops growing by 2050."

~~~
theptip
Thanks for the links, I appreciate the detailed reply.

------
fersho311
Anyone watch the documentary planet of the humans on YouTube? After watching
that, I’m no longer sure what renewable energy even means anymore, which no
longer gives these accomplishments any meaning. Can someone help with my
disillusionment?

~~~
aksss
I think the only decent criticisms had to do with incremental technological
process, i.e. solar panels are marginally more efficient than they were when
the film was made. On the balance though, I don't think this negates the
points the film made - the amount of mining, manufacturing and transportation
balanced against the in-service life and the energy actually produced make for
a very bad story. Burning biomass is also not good for the planet for the
reasons outlined in that film and in this comment thread.

I'm a Vaclav Smil fanboy, so I get repetitive, but he has criticized the
renewables industry pretty consistently and long before Michael Moore's film,
so his material may be worth a look for those that want a stronger critique
that doesn't have Moore's name in the sentence. "Energy and Civilization: A
History" is a great book of his, and was relatively recently updated.

~~~
pfdietz
Solar panels are much cheaper than when the film was made. It's this reduction
in cost that's driving the energy disruption, not increase in efficiency
(although that helps).

Smil's critique seems off base to me. Yes, replacements of energy
infrastructure take a long time if the replacing technology is developing
slowly. But the cost of PV crashed by a factor of 5 in a decade. This rapid
change will lead to existing infrastructure being ripped out before its normal
lifespan.

(The next cost crash appears to be in electrolyzers, which will be the final
coffin nail for nuclear.)

~~~
dntbnmpls
> Solar panels are much cheaper than when the film was made. It's this
> reduction in cost that's driving the energy disruption, not increase in
> efficiency (although that helps).

Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/medi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif)

The only energy disruption we've had is natural gas in the last few decades.

To show you how insignificant solar is, it only makes up 15% of renewables.
The largest renewable source is wind ( 3X more energy than solar ).

[https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/4-charts-show-
renewable...](https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/4-charts-show-renewable-
energy-rise-america)

~~~
pfdietz
> Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing.

You appear to be confusing the past with the future.

And, really, a reference from 2016? Four years is FOREVER in the energy
business now. PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

~~~
dntbnmpls
> And, really, a reference from 2016?

And what reference did you provide? Other than your supposed ability to
predict the future?

> Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now.

It isn't. Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the
world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground.
Going from insignificant to worthless. But that's probably why you haven't
posted any sources right? So you should be thanking me for using 2016 data
because solar has taken a beating since 2016.

> PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.

Solar was a nonfactor in 2016. Solar is a nonfactor today. Solar will be a
nonfactor in the future. Mindless zealotry won't change the facts on the
ground.

~~~
pfdietz
> Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world,
> especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground.

One need only look at the data to see you are mistaken.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country)

Global installed PV capacity has more than doubled since 2016, and now
accounts for 3% of total electricity consumption.

> It isn't

It obviously is. PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in a decade; that's about a
factor of 2 in four years. You would have us believe that dropping the cost of
PV by a factor of ~2 would make no difference. But this is clearly not true.
We are seeing record low PV bids from all over the world. The most recent eye
opener was from Abu Dhabi, where are 22 km^2 project was bid to deliver
unsubsidized energy at $0.0135/kWh. This is many times cheaper than the power
from the new nuclear plants being constructed in the Gulf region, and is
perhaps the cheapest source of electrical energy on the planet.

[https://cleantechnica.com/2020/06/08/1-35-cents-kwh-
record-a...](https://cleantechnica.com/2020/06/08/1-35-cents-kwh-record-abu-
dhabi-solar-bid-is-a-sober-reminder-to-upbeat-fossil-fuel-pundits/)

> 5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.

You seem to be another person who doesn't understand how exponential growth
works. Solar is 3% of world electric consumption now; we are just 5 doubling
times away from dominance. That's 20 years at the current rate of doubling.
With demonstrated experience curves that will drive the cost of PV energy
below $0.01/kWh in much of the world.

Ultimately, to legitimately gaslight you, your cognitive failure is to assume
that things can't change quickly, and that your prejudices from a few years
ago remain valid, even as the facts that underpinned them have vanished.

~~~
pfdietz
> That's 20 years at the current rate of doubling.

Correction: more like 15 years.

------
wazoox
_And nuclear_. Because Brits know that you can't rely 100% on renewables (30%
is about the maximum for most countries; "wood pellet" isn't actually
renewable, it's forest mining).

~~~
toomuchtodo
The UK's combined wind (23GW) and solar (13GW) generation capacity is at least
3x that of nuclear (9.3GW). Capacity factor aside, nuclear is not a necessary
component of a future UK grid (with the caveat that it can import nuclear
generated power from France over a 2GW interconnector). [1]

There are ~269 renewables projects, roughly 40GW, in the planning stages that
will add to that existing renewables capacity. [2] Hydro imports from
Scandinavia over an underwater HVDC transmission cable would also be a
possibility.

[1]
[https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/GB?wind=false&solar=fals...](https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/GB?wind=false&solar=false)

[2] [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/16/planning-
ap...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/16/planning-applications-
for-uk-clean-energy-projects-hit-new-high)

Note: Edits were made to this comment to the multiplier and the total nuclear
generator capacity based on blibble's comment below.

~~~
08-15
Capacity factor for wind is about 20%, for solar about 12.5%, for nuclear 90%.
So let me restate it for you:

The UK's combined annual wind (40TWh) and solar (14TWh) generation capacity is
still less than 3/4 of nuclear (72TWh).

Capacity factor aside, unreliability aside, seasonal variation aside, real
word aside... you can argue literally anything.

~~~
philipkglass
Your numbers sound out of date.

See the data tables here: [https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-
generation-...](https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-
mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb)

In 2019 the UK generated 51.04 TWh from nuclear and 76.55 TWh from wind and
solar.

------
billpg
I'm old enough to remember strikes and protests for coal mines being closed
down. Now we're celebrating it.

------
abhorrence
The wood pellets are interesting —- if we were growing forests at the same
rate as we consume them via the pellets, would it be close enough to a closed
loop system?

~~~
TheUndead96
This is unfortunately not the case. Lots of wood is imported from the third
world, potentially the Amazon.

Even if it was grown in the country it is consumed in, it would eventually
suffer the same issues that industrial farming does. The soil becomes depleted
and requires fossil-fuel based fertilizer.

Burning the Amazon is now progress, apparently.

Something like fusion, or cleaner nuclear, is our only hope.

I worry about us.

~~~
jjoonathan
> cleaner nuclear

If we (USA) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, and had merely
continued building it at the same pace, our grid would be (approximately)
carbon-free today. Not twenty years from now, not fifty years from now, today.

But no, we collectively decided that no amount of engineering could possibly
make nuclear acceptably safe, and we made the grown-up responsible decision to
pump our atmosphere full of CO2 instead.

Facepalm.

~~~
mywittyname
> But no, we collectively decided that no amount of engineering could possibly
> make nuclear acceptably safe

This is such bullshit. We have reactors that are 40 years old still operating
safely. And in the 40 years since, safety systems have improved considerably.
A modern reactor could probably have a 100 year service life and no accidents.

But such is the world we live in: people are scared of stuff they shouldn't
be, and ignorant of all that should scare them.

~~~
catalogia
As far as I'm aware, the US Navy has operated hundreds of nuclear reactors for
more than 60 years without any major incidents. That's several thousand
reactor-years of positive experience.

(They did lose two nuclear powered submarines, the Thresher and Scorpion, but
in neither case is a problem with the reactors believed to be the cause.
Though the Thresher's reactor is thought to have SCRAMed in response to it's
control circuitry being shorted out, causing a loss of propulsion.)

------
jonnypotty
Burning wood pellets puts out co2. claiming zero carbon output for this means
people could literally burn forests and claim they're being carbon neutral.
It's scandalous. The only option would be forests that are managed and burnt
for fuel. I'd be interested to know what area of forest you'd need to bring
under this sort of management in order to produce say, enough power for a
medium sized city.

But ultimately this is hopeless as a solution, you're basically planning to
burn wood to produce power producing massive amounts of co2. It doesn't solve
anything.

Downvotes edit. Pls correct my math. Copypasta Google. A standard 500 megawatt
coal power plant produces 3.5 billion kWh per year That's 3.5 million MWh.
From [https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-
resources/biomas...](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-
resources/biomass-energy-resources/reference-biomass/facts-figures/potential-
yields-of-biofuels-per-ha-pa/)

Best case here biofuel is 63per hectare. Which means you need around 55,000
hectares of forest to replace one coal fired power station.

Seriously, I hope I'm wrong.

~~~
eloff
The CO2 in wood comes from the atmosphere recently, while the CO2 in coal came
from the prehistoric atmosphere. That's an improvement. That's also how
biofuels work. Wood is a renewable resource when managed sustainably, and
carbon neutral.

How practical it is, is another matter entirely.

~~~
Pfhreak
Wood can even be carbon negative if you bury a portion of the biochar.
Obviously, there's some challenges in scaling a biochar industry in terms of
space, efficiency, etc., but it is _possible_.

~~~
kristianp
You're not going to get any significant biochar from burning the wood pellets
efficiently, are you?

------
macspoofing
Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20%
Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or
wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and
hydro and be done with it.

I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching
100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and
solar are never a significant contributor. If coal is replaced it is ONLY ever
replaced with one or more of hydro, nuclear, natural gas. Are wind and solar
just vanity projects?

~~~
cardinalfang
Britain's energy mix for 2019 had more wind than nuclear+hydro

56 TWh nuclear, 6 hydro, 132 gas, 64 wind, 12 solar, 36 bio

[https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877047/Press_Notice_March_2020.pdf)

~~~
macspoofing
Is that good? Why so much natural gas usage, pray tell?

~~~
mantap
You need something to provide the peak load when the wind isn't blowing.

------
basicplus2
But how much, and what is the generation breakdown of power Britain gets from
Europe?

------
LatteLazy
Great, now we just need to do it for the other 364 days a year,m and when
we're not half closed for a pandemic.

Then remove gas from the breakdown.

Then we'll have solved about 25% of the problem and only have to fix transport
and home heat and industry, all much harder.

------
diogenescynic
They are likely just burning biomass (trees) instead. Is it really a win if we
go from burning coal to burning trees?

------
tpmx
Well, duh, it's June. Get back to us when they do the same "feat" in
wintertime.

------
anonymousiam
Good luck next winter.

~~~
Brakenshire
They currently tend to mothball the small number of remaining coal plants in
the summer, and use them in winter, but even that is being forced out of the
market over time. Over the course of last year coal was only something like
3%.

------
99_00
Good for Britain for going coal free by using hydro and nuclear power.

------
egao1980
Winter is coming...

------
FreeBricklayer
Britain achieves 21% of their power from Nuclear energy. Where is the rest of
the power coming from? Hydro and wind? In the meantime, Germany is phasing
nuclear energy out of its grid and is facing incredible challenges in
attempting to use renewables.

~~~
bengale
We've got huge nuclear issues in the pipeline though. The latest reactor is
going to cost us a fortune and almost all of our existing infrastructure is at
the end of its life.

~~~
regularfry
Well past the original design life, in some cases. Last I heard (and this was
a few years ago, so I'm well out of the loop) we were going to commission a
bunch of gas plants around the M25 to plug the gap.

