
For First Time Since 1800s, Britain Goes a Day Without Burning Coal for Power - af16090
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/world/europe/britain-burning-coal-electricity.html
======
pash
This is an astoundingly vapid article. If you want to understand why and how
the UK has so quickly reduced the amount of coal it burns, Carbon Brief has a
much more informative overview [0].

The basic explanation of what happened is simple: the UK instituted a carbon
tax that made coal more expensive than natural gas per unit of electricity
produced, so British utilities shut down their coal plants and replaced them
with gas plants as quickly as possible.

The backstory is somewhat more complicated, and much more interesting. The
British tax was implemented in 2013 as a local fix to a broken EU carbon-
trading program; that program, called the Emissions Trading Scheme [1],
allocated to electrical utilities in the EU the right to produce a fixed
amount of carbon emissions (and carbon-equivalent emissions), and the rights
were made transferable—a typical cap-and-trade set-up. And then the basic
problem with that typical set-up occurred: the fixed supply of rights to
produce emissions proved higher than the EU's electrical sector's total
demand, a consequence mostly of lower than expected demand for electricity
during the recession that followed the financial crisis of a decade ago, but
also partly due to other clean-energy initiatives and to big changes in world
energy markets. And so the price of emissions rights collapsed.

That wasn't really a problem—no more carbon was being pumped into the air than
the ETS allowed—but it made plain the fact that the ETS was doing nothing at
all to reduce emissions. So British lawmakers decided to implement their own
carbon tax, called the Carbon Price Floor [2], in order to reduce emissions
and support the development of clean energy. The tax rate Parliament set was
one of the highest in the world, and as it turned out it was just high enough
to make coal slightly more expensive than natural gas for generating
electricity, an outcome entirely unforeseen when the policy was decided, just
as global production of natural gas was beginning to boom and its price to
plummet.

So in the end, a bunch of poorly designed policies and their unforeseen
consequences led to a better than expected outcome: Britain has been weened
off coal decades earlier than was thought possible.

0\. [http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-cuts-carbon-record-
co...](http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-cuts-carbon-record-coal-drop)

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trad...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme)

2\. [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-price-
floo...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carbon-price-floor-reform)

~~~
MarkMc
I don't understand why the Carbon Price Floor was a 'poorly designed policy'.
From your description, it had exactly the intended effect - it reduced carbon
emissions. That coal was pushed out so early might not have been foreseen, but
why does that matter?

~~~
curun1r
Where does the UK get its natural gas? If it's like most of Europe, it's now
dependant on Russia for that. And pipeline politics is a huge driver of the
situation in Syria and the refugee crisis. And if reports are to believed,
Russia's meddling is behind Brexit, Trump and the wave of xenophobic populism
that's sweeping the world at the moment.

I'm not saying that coal is better or even a necessary evil, but we shouldn't
pretend that natural gas is some kumbaya solution to pollution and climate
change. Even without the controversy over fracking, natural gas has
consequences that may be even worse than the effects of coal.

~~~
malza
> And if reports are to believed, Russia's meddling is behind Brexit...

D'oh. There was me thinking I made the decision on my own, I even researched
loads of topics by buying books and stuff, only to find out on HN that those
meddling Ruskies did it all along. I will agree with you on pipelines though.

~~~
pm90
Heh, I find it rather amusing when citizens of UK and the US are _shocked_ ,
utterly _shocked_ when a foreign actor _interferes_ in their local politics
when their respective govt. have been doing the same for centuries. Karma is a
bitch, as someone likes to say.

~~~
nbevans
He was being sarcastic... He wasn't shocked; he was mocking the idea that
Russia caused Brexit. They didn't. The UK citizens themselves voted for Brexit
because they're fed up with all the shit the EU brings with it.

~~~
kelnage
Except that's a terrible argument (I wasn't swayed by Russian interference,
therefore no-one was). Yes, the citizens of the UK voted (just) for Brexit -
because it was a referendum - that's how they work (assuming no ballot
stuffing etc). Would everyone have voted the same way without the (alleged)
interference? Possibly not.

~~~
dageshi
There was no talk about russian involvement in brexit until after Trump was
elected then suddenly it was jumped upon as another reason why brexit was
obviously "unjust".

~~~
nextweek2
That is blatantly false. The weaponising of refugees was talked about before
brexit:

[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=russian+bombing+syria+caus...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=russian+bombing+syria+caused+brexit)

------
pierrec
Having an interest in ethnomusicology, my favorite testimony of Britain's
tumultuous dropping of coal is the song _Coal Not Dole_. It's originally a
poem written by the wife of a laid-off coal miner. Dropping coal may be
considered inevitable in retrospect - but it's interesting to see the
perspective of people caught up in these changes, whose lives were disrupted
and sometimes ruined in the process.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk2hGp6HCn8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk2hGp6HCn8)

    
    
        It stands so proud, the wheel so still
        A ghost-like figure on the hill
        It seems so strange, there is no sound
        Now there are no men underground
    
        What will become of this pit-yard
        Where men once trampled, faces hard?
        Tired and weary, their work done
        Never having seen the sun
    
        Will it become a sacred ground?
        Foreign tourists gazing round
        Asking if men once worked here
        Way beneath this pit-head gear
    
        Empty trucks once filled with coal
        Lined up like men on the dole
        Will they e're be used again
        Or left for scrap just like the men?
    
        There'll always be a happy hour
        For those with money, jobs and power
        They'll never realise the hurt
        They cause to men they treat like dirt

~~~
pacaro
It's a social challenge that we still haven't worked out how to meet. Prior to
the industrial revolution there were small rural communities, hamlets,
villages, and towns, in places which grew up to be coal towns. But when the
single economic driver disappears we don't know how to scale these communities
back down.

I've always moved to where the work is, and I see the much same in my family
tree all the way back to the industrial revolution (including mining engineers
and mining machinery makers on my fathers side, who don't seem to have spent
more than 10-20 years in any one coal field). But I know that many people are
much more rooted in place. Forcing people to move isn't palatable in the U.K.,
but waiting for communities to disintegrate and people to move out on there
own seems equally cruel

~~~
untog
It also speaks to the need for purpose. One of the things not discussed enough
in conversation about universal basic income and the like is that jobs give
people a sense of purpose as well as money. It's "coal not dole" because no
one wants to drift aimlessly while being given money for doing nothing, no
matter how great that might sound on the surface.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I wouldn't say it's not discussed - in fact, it's probably the single most
common argument people bring up against UBI.

I personally disagree with it and I don't feel it. Sense of purpose from
contributing something useful to society? Yes. Sense of purpose for doing
random pointless shit I don't like for a master I don't like, so the master
gives me currency I need to not starve? Not really, more like modern slavery.

I realize that some people find purpose in what I just described as modern
slavery; I know such people personally. I respect that, even if it smells like
Stockholm syndrome to me. Still, the future is either UBI or endless invention
of utterly nonsense jobs (dig a hole, fill it up, dig a hole, fill it up...)
just to keep people employed.

The coal story illustrates the point perfectly. I'm grateful for centuries of
miners and engineers (and their supporting families), who together ushered us
to an era of ever more advanced technology. But today, their job is done. In
XXI century, using coal for energy is _wrong_ for many reasons, and those jobs
_need_ to disappear - keeping coal would be _irresponsible_ for a society.

That's why we need the "dole". Because some jobs no longer make sense, and if
people (and communities) need to retrain, "find new purpose", then it's dole
or die.

~~~
bartread
Hmmm... I hate to say it, but spoken like someone who's never been out of work
against their will for any length of time.

I realise you're trying to make an argument in defence of the welfare state
but you sound like you're suggesting that people should just accept their own
obsolescence and be grateful for government handouts. Most people would have a
tough time swallowing that and I can't say I'd blame them.

~~~
cbhl
I guess the thing I don't understand is, if we gave e.g. coal miners UBI,
wouldn't that enable them to continue mining coal for fun? We could just get
rid of the using it for energy part.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Lol, I think an important part of the coal issue is that those who were
employed as miners were comparatively very well paid, like around twice a
teacher's salary (anecdotally: dad was teacher, football coach was miner).
Those that could get jobs were often taking a hefty pay cut too, and a cut in
social status.

Mining had a romantic "powerful men working against nature, and amidst untold
dangers, to 'keep the lights on' for every home and industry" ethos that
cleaning dishes in a pub kitchen doesn't.

Having UBI should mean people have some money to live on but we can't then be
complacent with our resources and waste them mining for a hobby. We need to
redirect people to find esteem in useful work (building community, reducing
waste, generating value).

~~~
pm90
> We need to redirect people to find esteem in useful work (building
> community, reducing waste, generating value).

I think this is the most important revelation. While I'm a proponent of the
UBI as well, I think this is the harder part which we need to find a good
solution to; it seems likely that if you give free money to all the opiod
addicts, its only going to make their problems worse (making a really huge
generalization here; not suggesting all unemployed people are addicts).

------
stygiansonic
Ontario has been coal-free for a few years: [http://www.ieso.ca/power-
data/supply-overview/transmission-c...](http://www.ieso.ca/power-data/supply-
overview/transmission-connected-generation)

There are many confounding factors (recession in 2008-2009) but generally, the
number of days with smog advisories has been on the decline in Ontario as
well:
[http://airqualityontario.com/history/aqi_advisories_stats.ph...](http://airqualityontario.com/history/aqi_advisories_stats.php)

Note that in general, across North America (not sure about the world at large)
electricity consumption per capita has also been on the decline, to the extent
that overall/absolute electricity consumption is down in large areas like
Ontario[1]. I haven't done any research, but I surmise this is due to factors
like more energy-efficient devices and time-of-day usage being pushed onto the
retail user. (In additional to the aforementioned recession causing loss of
manufacturing/factories)

1\. [http://www.ieso.ca/power-data/demand-overview/historical-
dem...](http://www.ieso.ca/power-data/demand-overview/historical-demand)

~~~
jszymborski
Unsure how related it is, but within Canada, Ontario's energy is notoriously
expesive [0]

[0] [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-
electr...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-
cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/)

~~~
jonathonadler
Can anyone please explain why electricity is called hydro?

~~~
jszymborski
Because a large amount of Ontario/Quebec electricity came from hydroelectric
sources, and because the energy utility company in Ontario is Hydro One and in
Quebec Hydro Quebec, "hydro" has sorta become synonymous.

------
delsarto
What's the deal with natural gas? It doesn't seem "renewable"; isn't it
extracted just like petrol? Is it just that it burns cleaner? Doesn't burning
it still produce carbon dioxide?

~~~
krschultz
It's certainly cleaner as mentioned in the other comment.

Another factor is that natural gas turbines can be turned on and off more
quickly than coal fired plants. This is because a gas turbine is literally
burning the gas in the turbine, it's akin to a jet engine on an airplane you
can throttle up and down. A coal fired power plant is really a boiler that
creates steam, and then the steam is fed through a turbine. Heating up all the
water to make steam actually takes a long time.

In an era of renewable energy sources (solar, wind) that fluctuate more
unpredictably, having that "dispatchability" is really valuable.

[http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf)

~~~
stygiansonic
This brings up a very important point. Electricity supply must be carefully
balanced with demand and so that's why most regions have ISO (independent
system operators) to facilitate the coordination needed to maintain system
balance.

Typically coal and nuclear power plants are "base" load stations, providing
always-on capacity. It's not always possible to vary their output to match
demand, so typically (natural) gas power plants are used to match the
remaining variable load. The start up/shut down cycle for these plants is far
less costly.

~~~
ciaranm
There's live stats for the UK's national grid. There's a couple of sites that
show it, e.g. [http://gridwatch.co.uk/](http://gridwatch.co.uk/)

Really interesting to see.

Britain also has the interesting culture of tea drinking in the evenings -
almost all using electric kettles. I believe the grid uses hydro stations to
cover the load of this. Typically peaks during breaks and/or after popular TV
shows in the evening.

~~~
zigzigzag
That used to be the case, yes. Since the arrival of many-channel TV and
changed viewing habits (e.g. lots more internet use) the advert-break-effect
has lessened considerably.

------
beejiu
If you ever get the opportunity to visit a power station, you should
definitely do so. I visited the coal-fired station in Tilbury when it was
running and I was amazed at the sheer scale of the operation. The tour showed
how the coal was processed, the water processing plant, the turbine hall, the
control room and you could even stand at the bottom of an offline furnace and
feel the incredible heat from the other furnace (connected by a tunnel).

------
0xcde4c3db
Did this emerge from routine operations, or was there a directed effort to
have a "coal-free day"? The article didn't seem to clearly say either way.

~~~
jacquesm
Routine operations:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/21/britain-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/21/britain-
set-for-first-coal-free-day-since-the-industrial-revolution)

So simply the result of the shifting energy source mix.

------
sid-kap
> Last year, the share of coal in total power generation dropped to 9 percent,
> down from 23 percent in 2015 and 40 percent in 2012.

How have they done this so quickly?

~~~
peteretep
[http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk](http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk)

Gas

------
Animats
_Some plants have been converted partially to burn biomass, such as wood
pellets._ Worse than coal for pollution.

~~~
konschubert
Better for the climate.

~~~
rleigh
Not when the wood is coming from non-renewable sources. I've read much is
sourced from the US, and is not from quickly-growing softwood but long
established slow-growing hardwood which burns better in power plants. When the
end goal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, destroying carbon sinks and
burning them is one of the most counterproductive activities you could engage
in.

There's a reason we stopped burning wood as our primary fuel source several
hundred years ago. There's not enough to burn, and it doesn't renew fast
enough to satisfy demand. Coal met that demand. Returning to wood makes zero
sense, unless you want to satisfy a short-term legal/policy goalpost at the
expense of missing the bigger picture.

Personally, I think that while reducing coal is a laudable medium-term goal,
this is not better for the climate. Whether you burn wood or coal, both are
producing CO2, but when you burn wood your are also reducing the size of an
important carbon sink.

------
m-i-l
I wonder if they have data going back to the 1800s to actually back this up.
In the 1970s, for example, the country faced day-long blackouts[0] due to
industrial action by coal miners (I think limited electricity was still
generated for hospitals etc. using existing coal stocks, but there were other
sources of energy at the time such as nuclear power plants).

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
Day_Week](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week)

------
corradio
Live view, including other countries:
[http://www.electricitymap.org](http://www.electricitymap.org)

------
johansch
Next up Germany and Poland, please.

[http://www.coalmap.eu/#/climate-problem](http://www.coalmap.eu/#/climate-
problem)

~~~
Safety1stClyde
The Germans switched off their nuclear power "to save the environment", which
is why they have to burn coal, because the solar and wind aren't stable enough
to supply consistent power. They also had to switch off some of their wind
farms.

~~~
oska
Kunze and Lehmann [1] show with facts and figures that your assertion is
false.

> Critics of renewable energy have mocked the Energiewende, claiming that it
> has led to an increase in coal power and related CO2 emissions in Germany.
> But Conrad Kunze and Paul Lehmann of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental
> Research – UFZ show that this is a myth. German coal generation and CO2
> emissions rose not because of but in spite of the Energiewende. They would
> have been even higher if Germany had not phased out its nuclear power and
> embarked on its remarkable renewable energy path. “There is no dark side to
> the Energiewende”.

[1] [http://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-
side/](http://energypost.eu/energiewende-dark-side/)

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Wow, surely that's got to be one of the biggest false dichotomies I've seen in
_years_. No-one is arguing Germany would be better off if they kept their
nuclear powerplants and didn't invest in solar and wind. Rather, the argument
is Germany should have kept nuclear while also pivoting to solar and wind;
that would indisputably have given a much bigger positive effect than the
current version of Energiewende.

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
I'm not sure why HN is so market friendly, but when it comes to nuclear power,
most are very much in favor.

Although nuclear power is the most market distorted energy production there
is. If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't
take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies,
there would be no nuclear power.

If as a startup I'd get that amount of money from our government, I would have
no need for customers.

So hurray for free markets and that Germany stopped this nonsense.

~~~
Safety1stClyde
> If societies - see Fukushima - wouldn't pay for the risks insurers don't
> take and heavily subsidize nuclear power profiting energy global companies,
> there would be no nuclear power.

Nuclear power is much less subsidised than solar power or wind power. The
whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless subsidies.
As for the risks, nuclear remains the safest form of power.

[http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-
energ...](http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-
source.html)

~~~
caf
_The whole solar panel industry would not have existed without endless
subsidies._

That is not literally true. Commercial solar panels for both remote-area power
and spacecraft existed before subsidies aimed at large-scale generation.

On the other hand, the nuclear power industry certainly wouldn't have existed
without entirely state-funded, military nuclear programs.

~~~
jimnotgym
I also feel we have never quite get to the true cost of nuclear. In the UK
there are obsolete nuclear stations where nothing much is happening to
decommission them, and they are already billions over budget in their
decommissioning. I have begun to feel that it is the ultimate in cheap power
now, and the next generation can pick up the cost.

------
pcjedi
Earth doesn't care where its coal gets burned
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China)

~~~
grzm
Yes, a global perspective is important. That said, I think it's appropriate to
regard Britain's going without coal for a day as an accomplishment. It shows
that a country with a history of using coal can go without. Given your
comment, this is something you care about. Do you see nothing positive in this
submission?

~~~
pcjedi
Nothing positive or negative about it. Call me a destructive pessimist but
I've thought a lot about this topic and I'm pretty sure that mankind will burn
up all Cole that it can get its hands on (same for oil, gas and uranium). The
first figure in the Wikipedia article backs me up at this point. On the world
map of Cole reserves, GB is a white spot now. Instead of celebrating such
acomplishments that are neglectable in the Longview we should think about the
implications of burning up all fossils.

