For the first time in more than 130 years the UK has gone for seven consecutive days without using coal to generate electricity.
According to the National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO) the milestone was reached at 13.24 on Wednesday 8th May (the last coal generator came off the system exactly a week earlier at 13:24hrs on Wednesday 1st May)
This marks the first time since the launch of the UK’s first public coal power station in 1882 (see archive box-out below) that coal has been absent from the energy mix for an entire week.
Coal dominated UK electricity production for much of the 20th century. Indeed, until 1990 it was still responsible for 67 per cent of the UK’s total, But the so-called dash-for-gas, and the more recent emergence of renewable generating capacity has seen coal-use fall dramatically.
According to BEIS figures, in 2017 coal accounted for 4.8 per cent of UK primary energy demand.
The latest news, which has been hailed as a major step towards completely phasing out coal by 2025, builds on a number of recent milestones: in May 2016, solar power produced more electricity than coal for the first time, producing 1.33TWh compared to 0.9TWh from coal, whilst more recently (21 April 2017) had its first coal-free generation day since Victorian times.
ESO Director Fintan Slye said that latest milestone has been achieved through significant investments in low carbon technologies and network infrastructure. “We have been working with industry over the last few years to ensure the services we require to operate the network are not dependent on coal,” he said. “We have been forecasting the closure of coal plant and reduced running for some time – due to us having to manage more renewables on the system. Transmission owners have invested in their networks accordingly and we have refined our operational strategies and real-time operation of the network to ensure continued secure and economic operation.
Slye added that he expects to see many more coal-free periods in the months and years ahead: “As more and more renewables come onto our energy system, coal-free runs like this are going to be a regular occurrence. We believe that by 2025 we will be able to fully operate Great Britain’s electricity system with zero carbon.”
From the Archive: The World’s first coal-fired power station
The Edison Electric Light Station (also known as the Holborn Viaduct Power Station) became the world’s first coal-fired power station when it began operating at 57 Holborn Viaduct, London in January 1882.
Built by Thomas Edison’s Edison Electric Light Company just three years after the invention of the incandescent light bulb, the plant burnt coal to drive a 92kW, 27-tonne generator which produced DC current at 110 Volts.
Reporting on this landmark development, The Engineer wrote: “This machine is intended to supply the current for 1000 Edison lamps of 16-candle power each and is the largest machine hitherto erected. The new machine has been tried with 1360 lamps running for fifteen hours per day for several consecutive days.”
The facility initially provided power for street lighting, until it was closed in 1886 and the lamps were converted back to gas.
While this is true, renewables made a very small contribution and Drax continued to operate at 4 GW with the carbon-magic wood fuel that apparently emits only renewable CO2.
The true price of coal fired generation is approximately £ 30 / MWh while the next cheapest (gas) is £ 50 / MWh, (renewables £ 140 / MWh) so we are not saving any real money by the switch to gas generation, merely a negligible (in world terms) amount of CO2. The demise of coal fired power is costing the UK very dear, while China, India and Germany take full advantage of the lowest- cost source of power.
It is worth pointing out that the stacks are very clean in the photo all of the visible “emissions” are cooling tower steam. This approach is commonly used by people dedicated to demonising coal fired power. The original Edison system mentioned would have really “smoked” as the boilers would be natural draft and without any gas cleaning. Would be great to see a little more detail on the old Edison system: the power plant was designed without much science and a lot of belief.
Visibly clean. You can’t see CO2, SOx or NOx
Demonising coal for generation has and will cost the economy dear. Gullible politicians and media types have fallen for the myth that coal is the major problem. Cleaning up coal fired plant is a lot easier than trying to fix millions of cars, trucks, buses and trains at source. The gasification of coal is an option that still needs to be explored commercially and technically. various studies have suggested the coal reserves in the Durham field alone could be used and provide enough energy for centuries.
Excessive dependency on natural gas from politically unstable parts of the world is a strategic risk.
Renewables have serious limitations (no wind, excessively high wind speeds, hours of darkness limiting solar). Batteries and fuel cells are proposed as storage options but have yet to make any economic sense. Perhaps those advocating total dependence on renewables would like to live their lives without any grid connections, lighting (no candles or oil lamps as these produce CO2), pumped water and sewage and no transport as an example of how truly awful this would be. Is there an agenda to drive us into some pre-industrial agrarian state?
Your post seems to miss the point. Carbon is being phased out of energy generation to save the planet, not to save money.
Yes, I’m aware that China and India are still building coal fired power stations and I’m also aware that they’re investing heavily in renewables.
I’m a keen watcher of http://gridwatch.co.uk/ and its shows that no coal fired sources were on the grid 1-8 May, but the charts also show we were heavily reliant on Open Cycle Gas Turbine generation which are hardly ‘carbon free’. BTW – I think that bulk battery storage systems are themselves a seriously toxic danger to the planet. Why is no-one developing grain-silo sized high inertia – low RPM flywheel storage systems of perhaps 10GJ capacity optimised to return the power over several hours – I have the designs on my desk. Current flywheels storage designs seem to be all low inertia high RPM for energy release <2mins? The high inertia flywheels could be used totally sustainably, reliably, efficiently and for hundreds of year with no loss of storage capacity or performance.
My understanding was much of the base load (and the competition for nuclear) is to do with gas and biomass fuelled generation – which have a net CO2 contribution ( not so renewable…)!
So the crowing about “zero carbon” by 2025 sounds somewhat disingenuous – more of a political aspiration; one CO2 generation system has been replaced with a lesser one – but no path has been described to get to zero.
(A better, though still somewhat misleading comparison might have been comparing solar power (electric) energy with CO2 producing energy)
Yes we can! And not a moment too soon, as CO2 concentration in the atmosphere just reached a record 414.32 ppm, the sixth mass extinction is in full force, courtesy of us using fossil fuels and other “bright” ideas that now we know put life at risk on Earth. What is the price of life, for those who think that money is the ultimate measure? Infinite, that’s the price. Why? Because supply is extremely limited: only on one planet we know of or we’ll ever know of, Earth.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/
Good job UK National grid, you are helping us all switch to 100% clean and renewable energy, urgently.
I wondered if during the week mentioned any electricity was imported from abroad?
How much Coal fired Power was imported through the inter connectors from Europe?
Stuart, I fully agree the the permanent gases are invisible and the media concern is CO2. My complaint is that the media regularly try to demonise coal by showing dirty power stations, i.e. solids emissions by showing cooling towers emitting water. The photo serves no real purpose if it is meant to show CO2 emissions, hence my complaint: The Engineer should know better than to follow the herd!!!
It’s meant to show a fossil fuel-fired power station, which it does. We made no other claim, and we know what cooling towers are.
Really? Based on what science? There are quotes from an unpublished report by the IPBES which appears to be based on the IUCN’s Red List. This certainly dosen’t refer to mass extinction, so I wait to see where they have got their numbers from.
Best regards
Roger
Well a quick Google search found the following countries and places run on 95 – 100% renewable power so it is possible using modern 21st century technology rather than holding yourself back with dirty 20th century technology. Costa Rica, British Columbia, Iceland, Norway, Paraguay, Quebec, South Island – NZ, Tajikistan, Uruguay to name a few…
Well a quick Google search found the following countries and places run on 95 – 100% renewable power so it is possible using modern 21st century technology rather than holding yourself back with dirty 20th century technology. Costa Rica, British Columbia, Iceland, Norway, Paraguay, Quebec, South Island – NZ, Tajikistan, Uruguay to name a few…
That list looks to be small countries with abundant Hydro Power, maybe not a representative sample and may also only refer to electricity not energy in total.
T’au in American Samoa was widely quoted as being 100% Solar Energy but if you read the Govenment report on the project it included 3 off 275 kW diesel generating sets. Things are not always what they are made out to be.
Best regards
Roger
California is on track to hit its SB100 target decades earlier.
http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx
This is one type of competition worth having: getting to 100% clean RE. Should we call it The Champions League of RE? Game on, UK!
The first country to make renewable energy viable will sell their technology to the laggards as it becomes more and more apparent that it is necessary. So invest in the expensive stuff now and be a leader in it.
Good news, reduction in coal use.
But recently, in late autumn 2018, a scientist projected a live government feed of UK energy mix of coal use 14%. At meeting of Muswell Hill Sustainability Group.
Coal is used when there is a colder period. Recent no coal use, was of course during warmer weather.
The archive link will fascinate any engineer involved with power. The 40 HP (30kW) dynamo weighted 22 tonnes and used a massive steam engine. It could light 1000 lamps of 1 candle power each and had a special fuse to prevent fire risks. The modern equivalent would be less than 22kg!
Edison was truly brilliant.
@ Stuart Nathan 9th May 2019 at 3:38 pm
” You can’t see CO2, SOx or NOx ”
Apparently, Extinction rebellion’s new Messiah Greta Thunberg CAN see CO2 !!
“Greta is able to see what other people cannot see; She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.”
According to her mother Malena Ernman in the book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate’ co-written by Greta.
The zero-carbon dream is just a dream
National Grid has announced that it believes operation of a zero carbon electricity system will be possible by 2025, a bold statement that has been taken to mean that 100% renewables is achievable by 2025.
However, National Grid qualifies its claim with the phrase-
“whenever there is sufficient renewable generation on-line and available to meet the total national load.”
Clearly the GB system is a long way from being able to meet demand with 100% renewables – National Grid is only saying it thinks it will be able to manage 100% renewables if it happens, not that it thinks we will be at 100% renewables in the electricity system in the next 5 years.
saveenergy 14th May 2019 at 8:11 am
Thanks for quoting my recent post at the Watt-Logic blog! The way this is being reported is very disingenuous…NG is not saying we will be at 100% renewables by 2025, but articles like this are written to imply otherwise.
I was so surprised to see these comments that I dug out the actual report (“Zero carbon operation of Great Britain’s electricity system by 2025” published on 1 April) and NG is quite clearly are only commenting on its ability to manage whatever generation is connected to the transmission system in 2025, and nothing more. It’s also so unlikely that the GB electricity sector will be at 100% renewables by 2025 that this claim will probably not be put to the test.
The other big problem with this reporting is that there were days last winter when coal was needed to meet almost 20% of GB demand. It’s a great example of how selective use of data can present an extremely misleading impression of the situation. A week without coal in the summer really not as significant as people are making out.
@Kathryn are you saying that you are long on coal and short on RE? Let us know in 2025 how much you made from this investment strategy.
@ Silvia, I’m saying nothing of the sort…I’m not pro-coal, I’m just pointing to actual generation data in GB which indicates we are not currently in a position to manage without coal on a year-round basis, and the prospect of 100% renewables by 2025 is extremely unlikely. I have a chart on my blog that illustrates this, or you could download the data for yourself from the Gridwatch website.
I’m an independent consultant, and my business is about advising clients on how to navigate market changes and adjust their business plans accordingly. To do this it’s necessary to understand how the market actually is and where it is realistically going, rather than where we might hope it would be.
Roger B, while I don’t always agree with everything Silvia posts, she is bang on about mass extinction. I am not going to refer to reports or surveys or scientific data – I don’t have the time – but there is no doubt that directly due to human impact, be it habitat destruction through agricultural intensification, afforestation, chemicals, soil degradation, pollution (including noise and light), invasive species, poaching/hunting, climate change, urban sprawl, gardens being converted to gravel and plastic (don’t get me started on artificial grass), almost every environmental survey and indicator shows massive reduction in volume and biodiversity of all flora and fauna in all continents. Being an ornithologist who surveys and monitors species just in the UK, I have seen and recorded this on my own doorstep. A successful species creates its own demise. Think geologic timescales. The last 50 years is a mere tick and we have created havoc on the grandest scale in just that time…
I think the comments from Kathryn Porter very much make the point that the details of the wording , and context, from the NG do not mean that we will be CO2 free in 2025 and, indeed, possibly not coal free.
The real need is to be CO2 free – which means no coal, no gas and (possibly) no biomass (as some of this is though “RE” contributes CO2).
And we need to be clear if statements may mislead (not the same as untruthful) – and I am grateful to Kathryn on this – otherwise the gaps ,or real issues/possible solutions, are not addressed (such as energy storage or nuclear power, – or perhaps geo-engineering…)
@Kathryn markets are what we all make them to be. As consultants, we have a major role in shaping them, not just enforcing BAU. Because BAU is not possible given the existential crisis humans have created for themselves and for the biosphere.
I consider the likelihood of stranded assets to be very high for the fossil industry and all the downstream industries, because the probability of global 100% RE by 2025 – 2050 is also high. We have the technology, we have the supporting data on why it’s necessary, all we need is the will. Customers, citizens, investors, governments, NGOs can provide the will and the businesses will respond or will go bankrupt. As coal industry already does. New and better opportunities for all the people employed by coal are opening up in RE, as the transformation we are looking for is not about endangering work and a good life for all people, but about work using only clean and renewable inputs, be it energy or materials.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-11/fossil-fuel-industry-risks-losing-33-trillion-to-climate-change
Of course, this is what I and millions others want, including all the youngsters who are out in the streets asking for the future they deserve. I am aware and desperate that it might not happen. But I will continue to advise the abandonment of the carbon economy and the adoption of a 350 ppm CO2 economy, meaning an economy that keeps humans and the biosphere in balance with the planetary natural cycles and its capacity to sustain life in all its forms. I promote one particular model, Open Source Circular Economy, but there are many others that can achieve that target.
Thank you for working to bring women and girls in STEM.
@The Engineer: it would be great to update this article every year, so we’ll find out who got the predictions right and who had the stronger will.
David, Unfortunately I have to disagree with almost everything Silvia posts. She just reads the bits she wants to believe and ignores the rest.
For time frame given in this article UK generation was 49% Gas, 22% Nuclear, 10% Imported (could be anything including brown coal), 10% Wind and 6% Biomass. As a graphic:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/image-41.png
And the raw data:
https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=generation/fueltype/current
So nothing very special, mostly generated by burning stuff, the majority being fossil fuels. OK a bit less carbon from natural gas than coal but not a renewables utopia.
She has in previous discussions been adamant that batteries are a source of power rather than just storage.
I do agree that man has significant impact on the environment by change of land use and pollution and this should be reduced. I do not see climate change having a significant effect, most species have lived through much greater changes in the past and will do so in the future with or without us.
“I am not going to refer to reports or surveys or scientific data – I don’t have the time – but there is no doubt that directly due to human impact” You consider we are approaching a mass extinction event yet can’t be bothered to provide any evidence? That is belief not science.
Best regards
Roger
I am somewhat confused by the way the conversation is veering.
What is BAU? (for example).
I do believe that the role of consultants is to guide but not to mis-lead ; there is a danger that solutions look good to someone might (like an Escher staircase) be bad to another viewer/user.
For instance I believe that thermal energy storage has potential for (affordable & scalable) longer term energy but a financier might prefer the higher prices available for peak matching and the use of batteries.
A geo-engineer might look at the smoke from marine diesel fired tankers or the smog of old London town and see opportunities for temperature reduction (global dimming – due to particulates & aerosols) – though not sure if Londoners would view the return with glee.
The role and methods of consultants is interesting and worthwhile BUT perhaps another article (or 2) could open up this topic? (eg use of headlines or limitations of “Foresight/crystal-ball gazing or the unpicking of propaganda from Big-Green or Big-Coal etc…)
BAU = Business As Usual
Thanks, Silvia. I was wondering too!