stewgreen at 10.45pm, the BBC has the "story" on the Yorkshire section of its website too:

"Drax power station aims to cut biomass gases in new pilot"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-44189777

"The UK's biggest power station has announced a £400,000 pilot scheme to capture the carbon dioxide produced from burning wood pellets.

Drax power station, near Selby in North Yorkshire, wants to collect biomass emissions using "new chemistry".

It is believed to be the first bioenergy carbon capture storage (Beccs) project of its type in Europe.

The power station has previously been criticised by campaigners for the levels of air pollution it produces.

Drax said that if this pilot were to lead to a full roll-out, it would achieve what it called the "holy grail" of power generation."

etc, etc. No caveats are mentioned! It's pure propaganda.

Supertroll
Do you think that the dialing up is selective? To me certain areas seem not unreasonable. Scottish Highlands and Island, Norway/Sweden and France all see to be roughly what you'd expect from low population density. The well lit Alps and Pyrenees were a bit of a surprise as was Italy, which I expected to have more of a north/south divide. On the other hand coastal areas popular with tourists and incomers, industrial areas and densely populated were well lit as you'd expect.

In my youth I grew up in a dark rural area and two things come to mind, first was the glow of sodium street lights to the south and east which was clearly visible from 50 miles to the nearest conurbations and that was 40+ years ago. Second only odd dealings had outside lights, these days the situation is totally reversed and only odd houses don't. With modern LED technology your garden can be well lit with less than 10 Watts.

You've now got me wondering what reason there could be for exaggerating the situation other than for selling satellite photos, and possibly activist astronomers wanting dark skies.

"The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) carries out world-class research into sustainable future energy systems. "
May 21, 2018 at 9:55 PM | Mark Hodgson

That is what they claim on their Website. They do not explain how their experts have helped the UK and EU get into such a mess over energy, and the simple facts about the unreliability of their "experts".

When it comes to the UK and EU Quangocracy, they won't be missed, but their rubbish has spread everywhere:
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/about-us.html
"International Representation"
"UKERC participates and leads energy research activities internationally as part of its mission to act as a bridge between the UK energy research community and the wider world. UKERC is a founding member of the Low Carbon Societies Research Network (LCS-RNet) and the official representative for the UK in the European Energy Research Alliance (EERA) Joint Programmes."

Why no mention of the roads driven through the wilderness to provide access, of the huge concrete foundations, of the visual impact, and of the damage to wildlife?

May 21, 2018 at 9:47 PM | Mark Hodgson

The BBC and Green Blob have awarded each other immunity from hypocrisy. Hopefully this will be the subject of legal scrutiny, despite being conveniently forgotten by the BBC and Green Blob.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/11/heres-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted/

"UK's clean car goal 'not ambitious enough'
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst
21 May 2018"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44169650

"The government’s ambition to clean up motor vehicles by 2040 is not ambitious enough, a leading energy expert says.

Professor Jim Watson, head of the prestigious UK Energy Research Centre, said the target should be at least five years earlier, as in Scotland.

The government is currently considering obliging new cars to run on electricity for at least 50 miles by 2040.

The government said it would not discuss the issue before it had published its policy which is due soon.

But ministers are facing competing pressures on the issue. Some UK car firms are telling ministers their proposed targets are unachievable, while others say the targets can easily be reached."

Maybe I'm just being grumpy, but rather than referring to the UK Energy Research Centre in glowing terms without more ado ("prestigious"), shouldn't the BBC have made it clear that the UKERC is not entirely disinterested where this topic is concerned? From its own website:

"The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) carries out world-class research into sustainable future energy systems. "

"'Shocking' human impact reported on world's protected areas
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
17 May 2018"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44155592

I quite agree, but why no mention of the impact of wind turbines in wild places? Why no mention of the roads driven through the wilderness to provide access, of the huge concrete foundations, of the visual impact, and of the damage to wildlife?

UaT. The sensitivity of that image seems to have been dialled right up. Even the coast of Galicia is continuously outlined yet, in reality it is heavily forested. There are other images on that site that seem much more reasonable. Nothing compares with the BBC travesty. The weather forecasters don't refer to it, so I wonder why it's there.
The Caucasus probably stand out most as an uninhabited mountain barrier, then the mountains of the former Yugoslavia.