Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Britain has gone a week without using coal to generate electricity.
The last coal generator came off the system at 1.24pm on 1 May, meaning the UK reached a week without coal at 1.24pm on Wednesday, according to the National Grid Electricity System Operator, which runs the network in England, Scotland and Wales.

Coal-fired power stations still play a major part in the UK’s energy system as a backup during high demand but the increasing use of renewable energy sources such as wind power means it is required less.
Read more: Britain passes one week without coal power for first time since 1882

213406

More: UK has first coal-free week for a century
Previous: Britain breaks coal-free power record
 

plat1098

Level 9
Verified
in my country right now, we have a backward-thinking regime that talks about "clean coal" and "drill baby drill."
In your region, there's tons of hot air wafting into the atmosphere every day. Harness that and we'd be set into the next century.

There's two Washington DCs: a good one and an evil twin. I'm from the good DC, the one with the cherry trees and whatnot.
 
Last edited:

jogs

Level 18
Verified
UK was probably the first country to use Coal for generating electricity. Its good so see that its trying to be less dependent on coal.
But its also using Natural Gas for generation, that may not be as polluting as Coal but it still pollutes the environment so as nuclear power.
Ideal situation would have been such that some kind of renewable energy should have been on the top of the table.
And whats imported energy! Is it electricity transmitted from some other county?
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool

Cortex

Level 11
Bituminous coal the UK did use produced large amounts of CO2, however so does Gas, not as much but hardly a clean way of producing electricity though - The UK still has reserves of natural gas but much is shipped from a far to be used in the UK - Also the UK imports huge amounts of goods produced in countries that use ginormous amounts of low grade coal. Wood chippings I believe that are burnt at ex largest producer of CO2 DRAX power station in Yorkshire (I've worked there) are imported from (among other places) the south USA, chopped, dried & shipped half way around the world with the original promise it would be sustainable, it seems its not the case.Carbon capture could be done but it still isn't, the UK government likes to be seen to be doing lots but some is smoke & mirrors.

GB Grid
 

upnorth

Level 34
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
To answer the main question, that's actually a very interesting one or should be anyway if one consider the quality of the air one breath more important then for example what AV is best. :p

Sweden could very well IMO do it and it's on the right track 100% get rid of what's called fossil fuels ( coal etc ) by 2045. But the nuclear plants ( 3 active ) is still a hot topic even if the owners ( Vattenfall ) said many times it's not making enough money from it and is not anything they want invest more in then needed.


By 2045, Sweden will have net zero emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and should thereafter achieve negative emissions. Negative emissions mean that greenhouse gas emissions from activities in Sweden are less than, for example, the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by nature as part of the ecocycle, or less than the emissions Sweden helps to reduce abroad by investing in various climate projects. However, the remaining emissions from activities on Swedish territory will be at least 85 per cent lower than in 1990.

Solarpower grows every year and is used more and more in Sweden but, the use of Electric/Hybrid cars we are far behind Norway.
 

Burrito

Level 20
Verified
Sweden could very well IMO do it and it's on the right track 100% get rid of what's called fossil fuels ( coal etc ) by 2045. But the nuclear plants ( 3 active ) is still a hot topic even if the owners ( Vattenfall ) said many times it's not making enough money from it and is not anything they want invest more in then needed.
I consider myself totally 'green.'

I want to see fossil fuels go the way of the dinosaurs -- so to speak.

Wind, wave, geothermal, limited hydroelectric, solar... it's all good.

But I'm also pro Nuclear. When implemented correctly with the most modern systems, I consider it a good source of clean & green energy.

Our MT cumulative Good Buddy Bill Gates is now involved in Nuclear energy.



Bill Gates thinks he has a key part of the answer for combating climate change: a return to nuclear power. The Microsoft co-founder is making the rounds on Capitol Hill to persuade Congress to spend billions of dollars over the next decade for pilot projects to test new designs for nuclear power reactors.

Gates, who founded TerraPower in 2006, is telling lawmakers that he personally would invest $1 billion and raise $1 billion more in private capital to go along with federal funds for a pilot of his company’s never-before-used technology, according to congressional staffers.
He would make it every bit as good as he made Windows :p;):unsure: