this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
442 points (99.8% liked)

World News

48138 readers
2043 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mrmule@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Guessing this is only for industry, but hopefully the knock on effect will be less use domestically. Having been in small town Ireland, the amount of pollution generated by home coal fires is crazy. It feels like stepping back to industrial revolution times, at 6pm when everyone lights up their fires is choke inducing.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I would imagine it is turf, the coal is "Smokeless" for the most part. But your point stands.

[–] Deebster@infosec.pub 27 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It didn't say in the article who the previous five were, so I looked it up:

  • Belgium (2016)
  • Austria (2020)
  • Sweden (2020)
  • Portugal (2021)
  • United Kingdom (2024)
  • Ireland (2025)

That's using the source quoted in the article.

Another source has a longer list:

  • Belarus (2015)
  • Belgium (2016)
  • Austria (2020)
  • Sweden (2020)
  • Portugal (2021)
  • UK (2024)
  • Slovakia (2024)
  • (Ireland would be here if/when updated for 2025)
[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

would be interesting to see the respective major power sources

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

thx.

  • Belarus (2015; gas, nuclear)
  • Belgium (2016; green, gas, nuclear)
  • Austria (2020; green, bit of gas)
  • Sweden (2020; green, nuclear)
  • Portugal (2021; green, gas)
  • UK (2024; green, gas)
  • Slovakia (2024; nuclear, green, gas)
  • Ireland (2025; green gas)

Most of the nations seem to use renewables and use gas to balance the load spikes. Few have the storage to get by without a source of balancing, nuclear is a common supplement but shouldn't be capable of balancing since it's so slow.

Some use so much gas it's probably not just for balancing, namely the uk.

Sweden is probably using hydro to balance, they don't seem to have any storage but also don't use gas.

I would discard Slovakia. They still have installed coal capacity, and import significantly from poland which is mainly on coal.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

sweden also has oil peaker plants, the largest ones in europe, but most of them are condemned. it's mostly hydro. we did have pumped hydro for a while but that closed in the 80s due to bad economic viability (up until a year or so ago i was paying €0.02/kWh)

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

I can speak a bit on the UK as I live there.

The use of gas is for two things.

  • Balancing against wind and solar, both of which can evaporate at certain times of year. Without more storage we're left in a position where we basically need to be able to support 30GW of demand just on gas.

  • Frequency stabilisation and cold start capability. We never seem to drop below 4GW of gas (or biomass - anything spinning mass) generation. Even if we had excess wind and solar, some gas will be burnt "just in case".

Right now we need more storage, and better connections from the new sources of power (the coast for wind and international connectors) to the centres of demand (the cities). Power stations were historically located much closer to where the demand is, and our electricity grid is still shaped by that.

Today has been a good example. Lots of wind and sun but still 16% gas. We even switched some wind farms off today because we couldn't get the power to where it was needed or a way to store it.

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wow, and while they have 6 whole years of coal reserves left in their country. Very forward-thinking to switch to oil.

In contrast, the US has about 400 years of coal reserves.

(Yes, I know Ireland had been importing coal)

[–] Bravo@eviltoast.org 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Nobody mentioned the US though

[–] AmidFuror@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

It was a comparison of a country that isn't giving up on coal (at least under the current administration) and one which is. The one which is has virtually no reserves so little to lose.

What's next, countries at peace ban landmines until there is a risk of invasion?

[–] Bravo@eviltoast.org 1 points 1 hour ago

No, I assume what's next is that countries which have slightly more coal reserves than Ireland will be next, and so on.

I mean, if the headline was "Rising sea levels cause flooding in Ireland", you wouldn't say "big deal, wake me when the flooding reaches Nepal". Of course there's going to be an order to such things.