45 Comments
User's avatar
Andrew Kitching's avatar

My Dad worked at West Burton power station for many years. That plus the other Trent power stations provided a significant percentage to the national grid.

We are going to need to build a few new nuclear stations fairly quickly aren’t we?

Expand full comment
Adrian Falla's avatar

no, nuclear is neither practical nor preferable.

distributed renewables, solar PV overbuilt-for-curtailment, demand response, improved forecast modeling, microgrids and storage will do the job faster, cheaper and more safely—as long as we also reform the obsolete old-school econometrics which institutionalize numerous perverse incentives.

Expand full comment
Christoph Roettger's avatar

You are theorizing. Your miracle cure will not work. Look at Germany, they are further down that road with catastrophic results.

Expand full comment
Abelard Bronfman's avatar

Germany’s doing well. A little slow building renewable energy, like every other country in the world, but a lot better now that sane people (progressives) are in charge. 4th biggest economy in the world, now 60% renewable electricity & increasing. The other 70 countries with more than half-renewable grids, 23 at or near 100% RE, are doing OK too, at least as well as can be expected in a world collapsing because of climate catastrophe & the larger psycho-ecological crisis.

Expand full comment
Christoph Roettger's avatar

Dream on, Bronfy. Germany‘s economy right now is the worst of all OECD countries, the only one in a recession. And your beloved progressives decided that coal-based electricity is the future. Can it get any better?

Expand full comment
Jim Fitzgerald's avatar

There is no use arguing with the true believers. They have to be defeated politically. The alternative is the death of some nation states. Hopefully, rational people will outnumber and outvote the true believers.

Hang on to your hat. It's gonna be a wild ride. Think "The Reformation" wars.

Expand full comment
Buzen's avatar

Nuclear is the safest power generation source. Overbuilding solar to use up more land area for a diurnal power source is wasteful.

Expand full comment
Abelard Bronfman's avatar

Nukes are a horrific risk. Renewables work together & take less land than the current system, cost less, are safer, cleaner, more democratic, better in every way.

“NREL: How Much Land for Renewables?”

This Is Not Cool, March 1, 2023

“A Fossil Fuel Economy Requires 535x More Mining Than a Clean Energy Economy”

Michael Thomas, Distilled, March 29, 2023

“New Video: Clean Energy = Less Mining”

This Is Not Cool, September 15, 2022

"Mining quantities for low-carbon energy is hundreds to thousands of times lower than mining for fossil fuels”

Hannah Ritchie, Jan. 18, 2023

“More transitions, less risk: How renewable energy reduces risks from mining, trade and political dependence”

Jim Krane, Robert Idel , Rice U.

Expand full comment
Nick Horslen's avatar

Lots more nuclear to come online under construction now.

Fusion is targeted at Burton for the first working demo plant within ten year.

Nuclear is the Best source of energy for sure

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Expand full comment
Abelard Bronfman's avatar

Fusion only exists in stars & bombs, & may never supply energy in any other way. In any case it will be far too late to be anything but a hindrance to solving the current crisis.

Fission is a horrific risk.

Expand full comment
Abelard Bronfman's avatar

No. There’s no such thing in Europe. Britain needs more solar, a LOT more offshore wind. Faster, safer, healthier, cheaper, more democratic, more reliable, more resilient...better in every way.

Expand full comment
Christoph Roettger's avatar

Why not sugar free and vegan, while we are here …

Expand full comment
Abelard Bronfman's avatar

That would certainly help. We do have to switch to low-meat perennials-based organic permaculture.

Expand full comment
Tom Lowe's avatar

Great summary of the changes over the last 150 years. One extra graph could have shown how much Britain was importing coal in recent years.

It'd be great to see a follow up piece on how the supply side flex we've been getting from coal has been replaced by gas. And in future will be replaced by (electric and thermal) storage and demand side flex.

Expand full comment
Jason's avatar

Looks like a good spot for a nuclear plant. Grid-ready.

Expand full comment
Matt Ball's avatar

We can plug small modular reactors into the grid at these old plants.

Good bit by Matt Yglesias at Small Boring today about nuclear.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/noah-smith-is-too-down-on-nuclear

Expand full comment
Just Dean's avatar

Matt, just FYI, neither of those companies is on Britain's short list for their SMR competition. https://www.powermag.com/uk-smr-competition-narrows-contenders-to-four-nuclear-designs/ . Further, Ontario Power Generation is planning to use GE-Hitachi for their Darlington nuclear power station. https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/opg-expects-nuclear-construction-on-first-smr-to-begin-in-2025/#gref . It will probably be the SMR deployed in North America.

Expand full comment
Matt Ball's avatar

I should have said: we can use those spots for nuclear (full stop).

:-)

Expand full comment
Sid Clough's avatar

I went to school in Stanley, Co Durham. I know of many people there for whom UK coal terminated long before yesterday. Decades ago the tumbleweed floated past among the leftovers of the town, thanks to Thatcher.

Expand full comment
Paul Fairburn's avatar

Some wind turbines would look nicer than those cooling towers too.

Expand full comment
Just Dean's avatar

For a more in-depth look, I recommend an article over at CarbonBrief, https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/coal-phaseout-UK/ .

Expand full comment
Just Dean's avatar

Congratulations, UK! Proof that energy transitions are possible.

Expand full comment
The Earthmonk's avatar

How about **nuclear fusion**? It's like the VIP of energy sources, promising to power our civilization with the same process that keeps stars shining bright. Here, we're talking about harvesting energy from hydrogen isotopes, which are abundant in seawater. No need for the messy business of digging up coal or drilling for oil; just mimic the sun's mojo in a controlled environment. It's like getting energy from the universe's own recipe book, and all we need is a pinch of seawater and a dash of technological wizardry. Now, if we could just get that fusion reaction to be as cooperative as a well-trained dog...

Expand full comment
Jim Fitzgerald's avatar

And the UK has deindustrialized and is dying.

I'm going to miss the UK when it's gone.

Germany is next.

Expand full comment
Peter Jacobsen's avatar

Given that CO2 lasts a long time in the atmosphere, I’d like to see the contribution from coal electricity per capita. (That is, essentially the area under the curves.) Granted, coal electricity became more efficient over time periods, and some CO2 disappeared.

No doubt North America has contributed much of the total. How much?

Expand full comment
Leonard Neamtu's avatar

Not only is it a great achievement, but also a great headline and an encouragement for other countries.

Mind boggling to see the use of coal at its peak in UK, but I'm glad to see it finally down.

Expand full comment
Bigtab's avatar

And because of this we Brits have some of the highest energy prices in the world. Our elderly fear winters because they struggle/ can’t afford to heat their homes. We are losing jobs handover fist because companies are moving abroad where energy is cheaper. We are becoming poorer, colder more and more reliant on foreign imports and less and less independent. It’s destroying our economy rapidly.

Expand full comment
Jennifer's avatar

This makes me hopeful for increased energy transitions in the US.

Expand full comment
Martha Walden's avatar

Yes, celebrate the end of coal in the UK but realize that a big substitute for coal has been biomass, which emits just as much carbon and air pollution if not more. Unfortunately, the emissions are simply not counted because they're part of the carbon cycle instead of a fossil fuel. The reasoning is that new growth reabsorbs the carbon. Thinking that way made sense fifty years ago but not now. We don't have time to ignore those emissions--they cause just as much grief as any other.

Expand full comment
Alexandra Barcus's avatar

Wow! That’s a turnip for the books. I guess London will never again be “the big smoke”.

Expand full comment