Category: News

Posted on

The end of coal powered electricity generation in the UK? Where is the rest of the world on cleaning their power generation

The last coal powered power plant in the UK is having its last day today, before it is closed down

The shrink in the electricity generation in the UK for coal, has been quite astounding. in 2006, coal produced 37% of the electricity for the UK, dropping to zero by 2024.

Holborn Viaduct was the first coal power plant, opened in 1882 (In the early 1800s, coal was used to make town gas for lighting and to fuel the expansion of Britain’s burgeoning railways, but not for electricity).

It is estimated that the UK has burnt 4.6 billion tonnes of coal since this time, emitting a little over 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Greece and the U.K. achieved the fastest coal power reductions — moving at a quicker pace than what’s needed globally but Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Israel, Romania, Germany, the United States and Chile are all not too far behind. However, there is still a huge amount of work to be done. Coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, supplied 36% of electricity generation in 2022. This must drop to 4% by 2030 and then 0% by 2040 if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C and prevent the most catastrophic impacts of the climate crisis. This is frankly an astounding rate of decline, and there are many countries around the world, who will have to be supported, if we are to meet this requirement.

Paradoxically, the USA also appears on the list of countries furthest from phasing out coal, along with India and China. It is quite feasible for the USA to cut its way to coal at a surprising rate (though whether Trump returns to the White house, or Kamala moves from the vice presidents wing, to the presidents wing, is likely to have a big impact on whether coal is left behind in the USA or not)

It is true that coal is the most dirty fuel, but we still have a great deal of work to do as a species, if we are to avoid the worst of global warming. It is thought that we have just 6 years to stop burning gas, and this accounts for around 22% of global electricity generation. In much of the west, gas is also used for heating, and while there are alternative options (we had a heat pump installed this year, after it was clear that our boiler was failing). 73.8% of UK houses are heated in this way, and so there is clearing a big need for the transition to occur faster.

In the UK, all electricity generation is meant to be carbon neutral by 2035, so gas must disappear by then – though as the financial penalties for continuing to burn things and the cost of other electricity generation falls, the financial imperative to end gas power plant use, is only going to increase, so we may well get there far faster. It should be noted, that the government also has a 95% electricity generation target in 2030, so gas must reduce fast over the next 5-6 years.

Currently, wind power generation accounts for 30 gigawatt hours, but the 2030 target is 50, and solar generation is targeting a 5 fold increase in the amount of generation by 2035. These two alone, will greatly outweigh the loss of gas.

Of course, you can save money in almost any part of the world, but installing solar (we nearly have ours working) will not only help in cleaning up the grid, but our investment, is likely to be paid back from savings in around 3 years.

In the global south, it is even easier to make this work.

Posted on

Wind energy grew by 50% in 2023, is it enough?

50% growth in a year, is the fastest pace recorded in the last 20 years. The COP28 has a target of tripling clean energy capacity by 2030, and this speed keeps this target in contention.

Worldwide renewables have now reached 510 gigawatts of energy, which is fantastic, and means that humanity stands a good chance of pushing out fossil fuels in the near future. However, it suggests that renewable power is behind target, with the expected increase being 250% by 2030, rather than 300%.

Still, it is growing, and many countries are only slowly getting round to making their own progress. Another positive, is the increasing number of houses that are putting solar panels on their own roofs – with the huge rewards for investing in solar (and other home generation) and the reducing costs, the finances are increasingly obvious. While this is initially, meaning that well off people in the developed world are doing this, there are large parts of Africa, which are skipping large joined electricity networks, and getting remote communities off grid one by one.

It seems inevitable, that wind and solar are going to supply the majority of our energy needs in the future, however, the faster this happens, the better it is for all of us.

Posted on

Eu cancels nature restoration law and its needed

Back in march, there was plans for the EU to put into laws, that would require 20% of land and sea areas in the EU to be restored by 2030. This was postponed indefinitely, after it became clear that it would not pass.

More than 50% of Romanias ancient forests have been lost in the last 20 years

In the main, two groups withdrew their support. The first group (often touted as pro-wildlife) was farmers, and the second was the country of Hungary.

Firstly: Farmers are often talked about as being pro-wildlife but this is often not the case. Laws on usstainable farm practices (such as crop rotation and reduced use of pesticides have been weakened or abandoned as a result of opposition – despite the vast majority of consumers being for these laws).

Secondly: Hungary – why is Hungary so against recovery of wildlife? This is an important question, though it should be noted, that Hungary is one of around 5 countries in central Europe, that is almost a complete block for wildlife to migrate from Eastern Europe into the little (wildlife) populated areas of western Europe. This can be a problem, as the few populations that hold on, in western Europe, are often small meaning that in order for the wolves/bears/lynx or other species to survive and thrive long-term, they need new members of their species to arrive, in order to widen the genetic base.

If such a small group of people can block this sort of project, it is a problem, as we do not vote to destroy areas.

Posted on

Might carbon neutralization policy eliminate the remaining habitat of the North China leopard (also known as the North-west China leopard)

The Chinese government has introduced a carbon neutral policy, in an attempt to mitigate and reduce the impact of climate change. Under the expected model for what is going to happen to the climate (at the current time) the North China leopard will gain in range, However, with the increase in carbon emissions, this territory is also expected to the reduction, migration, and fragmentation of the suitable habitat distribution of the North China leopard. It should be noted, that under genetic analysis, some authorities merged the north China leopard with the Amur leopard. Many disagree with this.

Havin said this, carbon neutrality policies can protect suitable wild habitats when carefully planned. In the future, the impact of carbon neutrality policies on future wildlife habitat protection should be carried out in depth to effectively promote the construction of wildlife protection projects – for instance, by making sure that planted woodland matches native woodland, and therefore adds to existing ecosystems. In many parts of the world, trees planted for carbon sequestration are often picked for how fast they grow – and thus eucalyptus trees have often been used. The problem with this, is that they are often impossible of supporting local wildlife, from insects to birds and even mammals. This was seen clearly in the UK, where a pine plantation replaced an oak woodland, the number of species supported, dropped from 200 to just 4.

The North China leopard is considered critically endangered, with the population definitely under 400 (given its remote habitat, a clear count is hard to get. It is undeniable that the North China Leopard and the Amur Leopard are genetically close, and quite conceivably closer than they should be for 2 subspecies. Should these 2 subspecies be recognized as one, it would allow us to greatly expand the genetic makeup of both populations. This would likely have a huge impact on both areas, and allow each population to expand rapidly.

It is essential, that as we grow huge areas of forest, to soak up as much of our carbon emissions as possible, that these fit into their ecosystems and are a positive addition. Apart from this appearing to be common sense (why would you not boost endangered species around the world, if we have to plant these forests anyway) but also, should you plant fast growing trees from elsewhere, very often they die, or cause serious issues elsewhere.

The right climate mitigation will have a bigger and longer term impact, something that is essential.

Posted on

Spade-toothed whale washes ashore in New Zealand

The Beaked whales are very hard to see, as they hold the record for length of time holding breath, with some having approached the 2 hour period.

As such, this family of whales are generally only seen occasionally. Assuming 10 minutes at the surface after each dive, you are talking about 2 hours every 24, and they also have very low profiles in the water.

As a result, dead animals washing up on shore from these species give a rare incite into this rarely seen family.

In this instance, one has washed ashore in New Zealand. The last sighting was in 2012, when a mother and calf washed ashore, but this was the first sighting for 150 years. It should be noted, that this species was described from a whale jaw-bone, as one would think, it is hard to describe something that is seen so rarely.

This animal has never been sighted alive. We have no idea if it is on the edge of extinction, or whether there are many of them, swimming deep in the worlds oceans. Below is a news article on this species, where you can see a video of the removal and an image or two.

Click here to visit page

Posted on

Electric car myths: Mike Parry spouting rubbish to Jeremy Vine – Useful as the electroheads do a good job of putting it right (if your hesitant to buy an electric car – this should help)

Jeremy Vine should know better. Mike Parry is an english broadcaster and journalist, I do not know how good a journalist he was, but if he had given his answers in writing for a newspaper article, he should have been fired as it is all rubbish. Look below for a list of the myths and a short outline of the rebuttal (watch the video for the full information)

  • Politicians invented the electric car as a half way house to getting rid of all cars- apart from the absurdity of suggesting that politicians (UK politicians at that) invented the electric car to help control us and get rid of cars is ridiculous. Apart from anything, the electric car was invented in 1832, so they have left it a long time. Furthermore, if politicians were putting their finger on the scales, perhaps they would have stopped combustion engines in the first place. we are unfortunately almost 200 years since the invention of the electric car and just 0.4% of worldwide cars are electric. In 1900 38% of cars were electric in the USA, it is only underhand behaviour that got rid of them (in the same way that the EV1 disappeared in the USA in the 1990s
  • All electric cars require cobalt, and all cobalt is mined by children – obviously false. It is true that in artisan mining in places like the DRC child labour is involved, however more cobalt is used in de-leading petrol. In other words, the combustion engine market is requiring more child labour for mining the cobalt. Furthermore, being expensive, most if not all car companies have reduced or taken care to buy from the right places. Tesla has removed cobalt from its batteries entirely.
  • “Batteries are heavy, electric cars twice the weight of combustion engine cars” – this is rubbish. The video could not find a single car park which had banned electric vehicles. Experts have suggested that heavy cars may require stronger car parks etc. however the simple fact is that all cars have got heavier. The Nissan quashqui is 1600kg, and while a tesla 3 is about 150kg more a bolt weighs less. Furthermore, given the move towards SUVs, the average car has got far heavier. No car park in the UK has banned electric cars from their whole car park (though some have banned from specific sensitive areas).
  • On a similar vein, he suggested that tyres would get shredded into the air, and therefore create particulates. While all cars do slowly wear down, Kwik fit has found that tyres are lasting longer on electric cars. Also using the break pads less (regenerative breaking does much of the work) means less particulates from this, which is thought to produce the majority of the dangerous particulates in the air.
  • Not enough chargers – It is true that it takes more planning to drive an electric car, however it should be remembered that the majority of people charge at home, while they sleep. As such far from having to wait for a charger, it takes less than 30 seconds when you get home to plug in, and 30 seconds to unplug in the morning. It is true that the situation is not the same for everyone – I drive a 2014 tesla, and charging on the go is incredibly simple. The video shows a supercharger stop with a long line of cars, but this is incredibly rare. The car knows when you need a charge, and if you are on a journey that will need a charging stop, it will place it on its route – given they are all their chargers, it also knows which chargers are in use, so generally will reroute you on, to a less busy charger. I think I have only waited for a charger once or twice in over 2 years of driving.
  • Suck all the electricity out of the grid – this is just stupid. Apart from the fact that this is not how chargers work, Were everyone in the UK driving electric cars, their electricity demand would account for roughly 1/3 of UK electricity. While this seems a lot, it is far less energy which is consumed by combustion engines. Through simple time of use charging of electric cars, demand is moved to low use times, like the middle of the night. It is true that if there is 100% adoption, we will need a few more power plants (or indeed a few hundred more wind turbines). The fact of the matter is that while Mike Parry might believe that he is the first to come up with this issue, he is not, and mitigation is already in place. He suggested we would need 10 new nuclear power stations to run the cars.
  • Largest lithium mine in peoples bottom drawer – this is simply stupid. The Tesla s p85d has 7104 batteries in it, so to put this in perspective, if every house in the UK had one of these in a bottom drawer, we would have enough batteries for 3998 tesla s. Even if we were generous, and said that all the cars were tiny with half the battery size, we are still talking about only 8000 cars. Given the UK has sold between roughly 2 million and 3 million cars each year (over the last few years) this means that we would have the batteries for between 0.33% and 0.5% of the batteries required – not to be sneezed at, but not going to make a big difference.
  • Slow charge from a 3 pin socket – this story started talking about someone who bought an Ipace, and was bothered by the fact that its battery took 2 days to charge. Now, if you have jaguar money, you can easily buy a wall connector, which will charge your car overnight – in other words another issue. Of course it charges slowly from a 3 pin socket, an electric car does require a lot of power (moving people does require a lot of power) but far less than the alternative combustion engine car
  • “the battery takes 45 minutes to charge and then 100 miles later bang its empty” – this is another absurd lie. Our car is over 10 years old, we still have 200 miles of range on our car. Do we ever charge for 45 minutes on the road? no, our average charge is perhaps 20 minutes. Shortly after buying mine, I drove to north-west Spain. Most of my charging stops were 10-20 minutes, and generally I was ready for a break. Have we had to change how we drive, well yes, because before a long road trip would only include stops to charge and go to the loo, however on that long journey, I was probably only stopped for an extra hour or so on what I might have stopped, and anyone wanting to eat on route or with children would have needed to stop anyway. It may well mean you have to stop at specific motorway rest-stops but this does not seem a big sacrifice. Now, here is one place where your choice of electric car is important. Should we buy another electric car at some point, we would look for another Tesla. This is because they are so efficient, they have fantastic range. If you have a car which can drive over 200 miles (many can do over 300 miles, the most recent tesla S can do over 400 on a single charge) how often will you actually have to charge on the go? I know there are people who do crazy drives across Europe (as someone who has in the last 15 years driven to Romania Sweden North west spain and Croatia) and therefore will drive more than 400 miles in a day, but it really is not a big hardship to pull into a rest-stop and go have a bite to eat (after all, most people at this point are on holiday).

A further misleading video came from Rowan Atkinson a while ago. As such, while I am writing this article, I thought I would include a dissemination of this video as well

  • Electric car batteries only last 10 years – rubbish. Our car is 10 years old, and it has lost around 10% of its range. This still gives the car over 200 miles of range. It should be noted that the initial article stated that electric cars only last about 10 years, but it was changed to say electric car batteries last upward of 10 years. The article had another 4 big changes, which change what it meant – it is too late. Furthermore, even after taking them out of a car they then have a second and often third life.
  • Greenhouse gas emissions when making electric cars are 70% higher than combustion engine cars (this was changed just 5 days later) – a Volvo stat produced for a COP in 2021. Unfortunately this figure does not take into account carbon payback (or improvements, which are reducing this extra carbon). The so called carbon debt will almost always payback long before the death of the car. Some payback periods can be as low as 6 months. Comparing a long range tesla 3 to a BMW 3 series, the tesla would have to drive 13000 to reach carbon equality, which took less than a year. On a cleaner grid ti can come as low as 8400 miles. If 100% of your electricity comes from coal power plants it takes around 78,000miles ( in other words during the lifetime). On a UK electricity mix, an electric car will emit around 1/3 of the carbon of a combustion engine car over the full lifetime of the vehicle from manufacture to end of life. I should note, that our car was already carbon negative compared to a combustion engine car when we bought. So long as the car lasts 7 years, its cost will also be lower than we would have spent on petrol over the same period
  • the car park claim comes up again (look above to see my explanation as this came up in the last article).
Posted on

BP continue the misleading adverts – “and not or”

I am not sure whether I have been targeted, or whether these adverts that have been irritating me are being seen by everyone as often. I must have encountered these adverts at least once a day for the last month, and if you look at their YouTube channel, their blurb starts.

Our purpose is reimagining energy for people and our planet. We want to help the world reach net zero and improve people’s lives.

 If you do not believe me, click here to load their page and see for your self.
 

Why is this irritating? Because, whether they are intentionally suggesting that their company is green or not, this is the obvious conclusion for their advertising. The only hat-tip to their fossil fuel business, is to say that they will keep these fuels going until they are not needed.

Last year, BP took its second largest profits of $13.8 billion (only beaten by 2022 when they made $27.7 billion). In the same year BP spent $1.26 billion on renewable investments, up from $1.02 billion the former year. What does this mean? Renewables are a green side project: fossil fuels are the main part of BP business. While Shell is not currently yelling (at least on my youtube feed) their investment is similar.
 

 In 2023, BP invested 4.7 times as much money in oil and gas, as it did in renewables

Does it think that and not or, might mean that they can continue to invest more than 90% into fossil fuels and a small amount in renewables (as well as investor returns etc -this is a choice)? What is odd, is generally their renewable investments are good investments yielding returns of 15% a year.
 

As if another story is needed to highlight the absurd position of BP, here is another article from the guardian, on this very issue, only published yesterday, click here to read it

 
I have already been shown this advert twice in the last 30 minutes. I have not tried to complain about this advert, because I am sure it will have no impact. Never-the-less BP must stop pushing this advert, as it is a complete lie.
Posted on

Apologies for quiet and a fossil fuel good judgement

Do not worry, this website is still moving forwards! If you look closely at the maps on the home page, you will find that the number of destinations has been growing over time. I have been working on adding the rest of these.

However, I could not help but report on this GOOD JUDGEMENT

This is fantastic news. The giving of these licences is completely against the governments policies, and in their own assessments, they ignored the carbon footprint of the eventual use of the fuel (only taking into account the carbon emissions of extraction).

Climate activists, and even certain people in both houses of parliament have been pointing out the absurdity of this position- a position I might add, that had to go to the supreme court of the UK in order to be looked at rationally.

What does this mean? Well that is not clear, though it will require the government to explain their contradicting positions.

It is certainly a positive step forwards, as this ruling suggests that the UK courts are not going to allow the British government to make laws, and then make decisions that break those same laws.

Posted on

Uk emissions fell slightly last year, so why is Rishi Sunak trying to encourage a new generation of gas power plants?

Gas

This is a particularly odd behaviour. It is significantly cheaper to generate electricity by virtually any form of renewable electricity. We are making great progress in cutting our carbon emissions (in 2022 UK emissions fell by 3.5%, but this progress will be delayed for some time, and unable to drop as far as they need to) and these power stations will last for 20-30 years, which means that even on the low end, these power stations will be still running in 2050.

As can be seen from all of the renewable sources of electricity, their costs are declining fast. The cost of gas is already more expensive than wind, and that does not account for catching the carbon from it (which will hugely increase the cost per kilowatt hour. Likely making it more expensive even than nuclear power. 

While Rishi Sunak has suggested that we need gas to power the UK, that is rubbish. We have 25 years. Furthermore, renewables are always cheaper over their lifetime, which means that by 2050 we will already have saved money overall. I am confused as to who wins – though given Sunak has included this in the conservative manifesto, suggesting that this is in some way a political move.

We can only hope (at least on this front) that the polls do not change, and Conservatives are pushed out of power. This is thought that in 2022 14% of carbon emissions came from the gas powered power stations we have. Whether Labour will do the right thing and reverse this decision, we will find out in the future.

Posted on

Natural hydrogen at 95.8% purity found at drill site in South Australia

The vast majority of hydrogen on earth is locked into water. While splitting water and then recombining it can be done, and is in some forms can be thought of as a battery, it has long been postulated, that there might be hydrogen deposits in the earths crust. Not considered valuable until recently, few were looking for hydrogen.

This has changed dramatically, and after writing several months ago about a find in the USA, another has been made in South Australia. This find has 95.8% pure hydrogen, greatly reducing the purifying costs (the same company has also found deposits of helium at 17.5% pure).

This hydrogen should not be used for passenger cars, but instead in applications where nothing else can do (like air travel) . Even shipping, currently highly polluting, does not need to be. A mixture of kite sailing, new retractable sails of various kinds, and even electric motors with batteries, means that shipping should be able to rapidly decarbonize over the next few decades. This hydrogen must be used carefully – while these deposits might be large, they are not endless. As such, we want to use this for uses which cannot use batteries.

See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers