3 ms·

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 Scienti

by sambe 7y ago

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 7y ago
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/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-run https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/... 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.

by sambe 7y ago

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

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/may/25/the-power-switch-tracking-britains-record-coal-free-run https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/... 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.