In the news

Seems a weird stat, as it includes nuclear to get to the 50% and am sure when most people think of renewables they don't think of nuclear.for example you often hear people saying we should invest in renewables instead of Hinckley C. Good achievement either way.

Nuclear is not generally considered renewable. Carbon free, yes.

*if you discount the embodied carbon in mining, transport and processing of uranium, construction and decommissioning of the power station and treatment of the waste.

Exactly, so it's weird the news is reporting we ran 50% renewable on wind, solar, biomass, hydro and nuclear.

Well all renewables take investment. No denying the punch that nuclear can give. Almost a no brainer for a small high density low GDP population. 😎

what are you lot on about nukes for?

It was over 50pc without them.

Same with solar panels and turbines. Everything has to be made.

In which case radio 4 news reported it incorrectly, as they said we achieved over 50% from renewables which include wind, solar and nuclear and that was what confused me. Your diagram makes much not sense.

Has this been referenced?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/kansas-tax-cuts-sam-brownback-trump-plan

In that diagram, solar + wind + biomass > 50.

R4 must have fucked it.

That's what I assumed they meant too, but I would question whether biomass really counts as renewable in quite the same way as solar/hydro/wind. It's a pretty broad category that can hide a lot of sins.

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/08/18/is-biomass-really-renewable/

R4 getting their numbers wrong? Somewhat ironic...

I think the BBC Grandees have been leant on.
Much as they used to accord Nigel Lawson's fake charity equal weight on climate change discussions, the pro-Nuclear lobbyists appear to have bamboozled non-scientist Governors/Directors/Heads of 'Better' into being unable to differentiate between renewable and 'low carbon'. Fission can just about be classified as 'low carbon' as long as you ignore the carbon embedded in uranium extraction & processing, and the processing of spent fuel rods and the interminable storage of nuclear waste.
Renewable should really be just wind, solar, wave, hydro and pumped storage.
Shipping wood pellets across the Atlantic for the Drax biomass seems arcane to me.

Most of the biomass burnt in the UK is from managed forests in the US. It's renewable in that you can grow more trees, but I agree, it's not necessarily carbon neutral or environmentally neutral. That said, neither is anything else - it's all a question of degree.

I think the BBC Grandees have been leant on.

I wish people wouldn't leap to conspiracy theory bullshit about stuff they don't agree with in the media.

Biomass is commonly considered to be renewable, and is treated as such in incentive schemes across Europe. Quite a few people are questioning if it should receive the same treatment, and some legislators are considering whether it should be reclassified. But for the moment, it remains treated as a renewable for the feed-in tariffs etc etc.

And R4 clearly just misspoke re the nukes, maybe through ignorance or sloppy editing or maybe through the fact it's a live transmission and people make mistakes during live broadcasts. None of the print stories have made this mistake, including on the BBC website.

Perhaps I could have been clearer with a line break.
The 'leant on' applies much more to the dubious inclusion of fission in the renewables basket.

The US wood pellets were originally, I seem to remember, claimed by Drax to be wood waste from normal timber processing. (Quite why this could not be burnt in US coal-powered stations was never explained). More recent coverage suggests that some of the Drax-bound pellets are from (supposedly) sustainably managed woodland, but, all the tree growth, not just the processing waste.

The 'leant on' applies much more to the dubious inclusion of fission in the renewables basket.

Likely just an honest mistake on a live radio news broadcast, given that's the only place this mistake seems to have come up.

Oh and

Quite why this could not be burnt in US coal-powered stations was never explained

The septics didn't want to, they were quite happy burning coal. Now they're quite happy burning shale gas.

Not on the News...

EDL march in Manchester under the guise of 'Far right gays against sharia law' normal knuckle dragging cunts, pissed and shouty. Police seem to have kettled Antifa not far away, be interesting if the two groups get to meet...

1 Attachment

Tweet has been deleted

yep, just spotted that, i assume he's sold the films on, his shots looked very like the images in this MEN article:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/shocking-footage-shows-moment-demonstrators-13170901

wtf is a moment demonstrater?

Jon Snow interview with Jacob Rees-Mogg was a riot on C4 news this evening.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jun/12/girls-ride-bikes-iranian-women-defy-cycling-fatwa-tehran

from that^

"but religious leaders at the highest level in Iran are clear: women on bikes constitute a threat to morality."

I would like to know how women riding bikes can be morally corrupting.

“Women’s cycling is permissible on the condition that religious customs are observed.”

As long as you don't munch bacon whilst riding?