6 ms·

While on the topic of green energy, I recently started reading Electrify by Saul Griffith [0] which outlines a pretty comprehensive plan for addressing climate

by bwood 5y ago

While on the topic of green energy, I recently started reading Electrify by Saul Griffith [0] which outlines a pretty comprehensive plan for addressing climate change with a broad shift to "electric everything". The summary is that by investing massively in renewables and electrification NOW, it we can solve climate change and also reduce the cost of living for everyone everywhere (not to mention the bonus of not irreversibly altering the climate). If you are at all concerned about the future of our planet, IMO this is required reading! [0] https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/electrify

beaconstudios 5y ago
That seems like just a different way of saying to stop using fossil fuels, which is true but hard to achieve when the vast majority of our transport is done using them. Electrified public transport taking precedence over cars would accelerate the process but so many people are opposed to public transit.
- onion2k 5y ago
  which is true but hard to achieve when the vast majority of our transport is done using them Many countries have passed laws to make selling new fossil fuel powered cars illegal within the next couple of decades. You might argue that's too slow, or even not possible, but the intent to reduce reliance on ICE transport and move to electric vehicles is definitely there.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    We'll have to see how that pans out - I don't weigh intent very strongly when it comes to averting climate disaster.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Retric 5y ago
  Most fossil fuel use is outside of transportation, and within transportation cars and trains are a fairly easy transition. Electrified highways solve the issue for Trucks. Boats and aircraft are more difficult, but there are a range of viable options for each. For example the US uses a little over 18 billion gallons of aviation fuel a year and produces 17 billion gallons of ethanol per year. It’s not a drop in replacement, but it is much easier than hydrogen or batteries.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    Electrifying boats should be easier than cars. It's probably just not that much of a priority because fuel costs are much less relevant. On a second though, transportation modes tend to fall on a curve where the more relevant are the fuel costs, the harder they are to electrify. Cars and buses are just on a sweet spot of the curve.
    - Retric 5y ago
      You can buy solar powered electrified boats, even with solar they have short ranges and low speeds. Fine for a pleasure trip but not even close to enough for say a tugboat. The extreme end is icebreakers which actually sometimes use nuclear power because even fossil fuels have energy density issues. Not that we need to replace nuclear icebreakers, but many countries use the non nuclear version, and when you start talking ~100MW * weeks the batteries needed get crazy.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > Electrified highways solve the issue for Trucks. In principle sure[0], but the devil is in the details with anything like this. You could also solve the intermittency of PV with a planet scale HVDC grid, much cheaper than batteries, but doing so would need a long time just to mine the metal ores out of the ground (someone asked me to do the math, and I did, it’s hiding somewhere in my comment history). [0] of course Tom Scott did a video about this, in some ways he is the vlogger equivalent of xkcd: https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg
    - 5y ago
- bwood 5y ago
  Yeah, that's basically the point of the book. Acknowledging that our dependence on fossil fuels is hard to break, but outlining an actually realistic plan for doing so.
- martythemaniak 5y ago
  It'll play out in the opposite manner. The shift to EVs is going to happen first, followed by public transit. This is because EVs don't have a consensus / coordination problem. Electrifying a line or building a new line takes a minimum of a decade of planning, consultation, design and study, construction. But cars need replacement all the time and you can just go to a website and get an EV. Prices for batteries fall about 30% for every doubling of production. The spread of EVs is exponential, not linear. Sales roughly double every three years and many OEMs have stopped ICE development altogether. Once new car sales are close to 100% EV, existing stock will naturally die off. Cars will electrify far faster than busses and trains in North America.
  - kjkjadksj 5y ago
    All 2300 or so busses in the LA metro fleet will be electrified by 2030 fwiw
keyKeeper 5y ago
I haven't read it and I'm curios what is the gist of the electrification approach. Is it that it's more efficient? Wouldn't heating and cooling be more efficient if done through architectural approaches? For example, for cooling Persians use "cooling towers" called Windcatcher[0]. I know that there's a lot that can be done through design both for cooling and heating. Also, organising the public spaces and infrastructure must be much more productive than aiming for changing the energy conversion systems(i.e. switching away from combustion propellers to electric ones). I' m very sceptical of the idea that electric cars will solve our problems. Just recently Elon Musk demonstrated that electrification of cars and taking the traffic underground simply creates underground traffic congestion[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher [1] https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1479153917749600257 https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1479153917749600257
- vondur 5y ago
  Sure there are many ways to design housing to be more energy efficient, but what about all of the existing housing?
- audunw 5y ago
  I don't understand why so many make a big deal of the Las Vegas loop congestion. I don't have the impression that it's supposed to demonstrate anything other than that Boring Co could actually dig a tunnel. Presumably they could fix the problem by building a vehicle actually designed for the purpose of a "loop" transportation system, but that's obviously still some ways out. So it's basically a demo, a playground and a marketing gimmick for Boring Co/Tesla.
  - keyKeeper 5y ago
    > I don't understand why so many make a big deal of the Las Vegas loop congestion Because it demonstrates the exact thing that sceptics said it would happen? Think a perpetuum mobile company having a demonstration of their machine and it stops. Would you be able to use the excuse that the demo was about showing that they can build machines and not the machine that they promised? Demonstration that they can dig tunnels? Why would that need a demonstration and even if they wanted to demonstrate it why would they demonstrate it with cars inside and then say that the cars part doesn't count. Digging tunnels is a very old thing. We know it can be done and we know it works well when you run electric vehicles inside it(All underground systems already run on electric cars), it's just that it doesn't solve congest any differently than the one on the ground. Two cars can't occupy the same volume and it holds both over ground and underground. Sometimes the difference between Elizabeth Holmes and Mus*k are negligible. She should just failed to kick can down the road for long enough I guess. She should have imitated Mus*k instead of Jobs, then people would have been saying thing like "The tests not producing correct results doesn't mean anything, it's just a demonstration that they can build machines".
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I mean that doesn't sound like a revolutionary hot take to me, I guess I'm glad you're inspired? The problem we on this side of the pond are facing now is that the electrification is going too fast; people installing solar panels on their roofs, getting an electric car, companies putting solar panels on every building and unused patch of land, people electrifying their house by replacing their gas boilers and stoves with pure electric alternatives is all well and good, but the infrastructure can't handle it, and they need YEARS to upgrade said infrastructure, to the point where they are forced to refuse to connect new businesses (that produce or consume a lot of electricity). It's great, but it needs big investment in the electricity infrastructure. And of course, better guarantees for energy production. We're facing an energy crisis over here, due to fuckery with Russia, the gas supplies are running out and prices of gas have gone way up, which is causing electricity prices to go up as well. As a country, you need to be able to give guarantees about the stability, availability and cost of electricity. It's not something fixed overnight.
- alex_duf 5y ago
  Which side of the pound is that? Because I haven't heard of too many solar panels or electric cars causing any issue anywhere in europe just yet.
- bwood 5y ago
  On the face of it, no, it doesn't sound revolutionary. "Just switch to renewables" is something I've been hearing for 20 years and I never believed it could work until I read this book. The book is quite thorough in laying out all the challenges (eg, handling variable production from renewables, how to get buy-in from existing fossil fuel stakeholders, how to rearchitect the grid from hub-and-spoke to something more like the internet, how to finance the massive upfront cost in a way that will actually save money, etc) and presents realistic solutions for each. Please don't take my word for it, just pick up a copy and read it.
zbrozek 5y ago
I would dearly love to electrify everything, but electricity around here (California) has price growth strongly exceeding inflation while simultaneously getting less reliable. You're economically better off converting electric loads to gas, even if that means using gas to generate electricity.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Presumably the solution is to scale up the supply of renewable energy. Another solution is to start making things more energy efficient. There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there.
  - danans 5y ago
    > There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there. That's especially true with houses. However, speaking as someone who has renovated their home for extreme efficiency (and now uses 75% less energy than their neighbors) the problem is that the upfront cost of efficiency - both economic and in learning curve - is still very high, at least in the US. Unless one is willing/able to take on a big and expensive project in home building or renovation, it's hard to make big leaps in efficiency. This is compounded by the reality that the construction industry is very conservative and doesn't like doing things in new ways. AFAICT, the only "easy" efficiency change that is close to a "no-brainer" is replacing your existing gas or electric water heater with a heat pump water heater, because it generally doesn't require replacement of an entire system, just one appliance. The other things that make a big difference to efficiency: sealing/insulating building envelopes, installing heat pump HVAC, are much more invasive procedures. There is a small industry of tools and contractors who specialize in those, but there's not a lot of standards or cost-efficient ways to achieve high efficiency yet. And at least in the US, high home efficiency and comfort are targeted primarily at wealthier people, and the goods/services are priced with that demographic's means in mind. Unfortunately, a few thousand wealthier people with efficient and comfortable homes does nothing for the grid or the climate. Europe seems much further along in this area, with efficient technology and design being better captured in building codes and off the shelf technologies, and with a focus on energy efficient multi-family buildings.

by bwood 5y ago

beaconstudios 5y ago

That seems like just a different way of saying to stop using fossil fuels, which is true but hard to achieve when the vast majority of our transport is done using them. Electrified public transport taking precedence over cars would accelerate the process but so many people are opposed to public transit.

onion2k 5y ago
which is true but hard to achieve when the vast majority of our transport is done using them Many countries have passed laws to make selling new fossil fuel powered cars illegal within the next couple of decades. You might argue that's too slow, or even not possible, but the intent to reduce reliance on ICE transport and move to electric vehicles is definitely there.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  We'll have to see how that pans out - I don't weigh intent very strongly when it comes to averting climate disaster.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Retric 5y ago
Most fossil fuel use is outside of transportation, and within transportation cars and trains are a fairly easy transition. Electrified highways solve the issue for Trucks. Boats and aircraft are more difficult, but there are a range of viable options for each. For example the US uses a little over 18 billion gallons of aviation fuel a year and produces 17 billion gallons of ethanol per year. It’s not a drop in replacement, but it is much easier than hydrogen or batteries.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  Electrifying boats should be easier than cars. It's probably just not that much of a priority because fuel costs are much less relevant. On a second though, transportation modes tend to fall on a curve where the more relevant are the fuel costs, the harder they are to electrify. Cars and buses are just on a sweet spot of the curve.
  - Retric 5y ago
    You can buy solar powered electrified boats, even with solar they have short ranges and low speeds. Fine for a pleasure trip but not even close to enough for say a tugboat. The extreme end is icebreakers which actually sometimes use nuclear power because even fossil fuels have energy density issues. Not that we need to replace nuclear icebreakers, but many countries use the non nuclear version, and when you start talking ~100MW * weeks the batteries needed get crazy.
- ben_w 5y ago
  > Electrified highways solve the issue for Trucks. In principle sure[0], but the devil is in the details with anything like this. You could also solve the intermittency of PV with a planet scale HVDC grid, much cheaper than batteries, but doing so would need a long time just to mine the metal ores out of the ground (someone asked me to do the math, and I did, it’s hiding somewhere in my comment history). [0] of course Tom Scott did a video about this, in some ways he is the vlogger equivalent of xkcd: https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg https://youtu.be/_3P_S7pL7Yg
  - 5y ago
bwood 5y ago
Yeah, that's basically the point of the book. Acknowledging that our dependence on fossil fuels is hard to break, but outlining an actually realistic plan for doing so.
martythemaniak 5y ago
It'll play out in the opposite manner. The shift to EVs is going to happen first, followed by public transit. This is because EVs don't have a consensus / coordination problem. Electrifying a line or building a new line takes a minimum of a decade of planning, consultation, design and study, construction. But cars need replacement all the time and you can just go to a website and get an EV. Prices for batteries fall about 30% for every doubling of production. The spread of EVs is exponential, not linear. Sales roughly double every three years and many OEMs have stopped ICE development altogether. Once new car sales are close to 100% EV, existing stock will naturally die off. Cars will electrify far faster than busses and trains in North America.
- kjkjadksj 5y ago
  All 2300 or so busses in the LA metro fleet will be electrified by 2030 fwiw

keyKeeper 5y ago

I haven't read it and I'm curios what is the gist of the electrification approach. Is it that it's more efficient? Wouldn't heating and cooling be more efficient if done through architectural approaches? For example, for cooling Persians use "cooling towers" called Windcatcher[0]. I know that there's a lot that can be done through design both for cooling and heating. Also, organising the public spaces and infrastructure must be much more productive than aiming for changing the energy conversion systems(i.e. switching away from combustion propellers to electric ones). I' m very sceptical of the idea that electric cars will solve our problems. Just recently Elon Musk demonstrated that electrification of cars and taking the traffic underground simply creates underground traffic congestion[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher [1] https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1479153917749600257 https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1479153917749600257

vondur 5y ago
Sure there are many ways to design housing to be more energy efficient, but what about all of the existing housing?
audunw 5y ago
I don't understand why so many make a big deal of the Las Vegas loop congestion. I don't have the impression that it's supposed to demonstrate anything other than that Boring Co could actually dig a tunnel. Presumably they could fix the problem by building a vehicle actually designed for the purpose of a "loop" transportation system, but that's obviously still some ways out. So it's basically a demo, a playground and a marketing gimmick for Boring Co/Tesla.
- keyKeeper 5y ago
  > I don't understand why so many make a big deal of the Las Vegas loop congestion Because it demonstrates the exact thing that sceptics said it would happen? Think a perpetuum mobile company having a demonstration of their machine and it stops. Would you be able to use the excuse that the demo was about showing that they can build machines and not the machine that they promised? Demonstration that they can dig tunnels? Why would that need a demonstration and even if they wanted to demonstrate it why would they demonstrate it with cars inside and then say that the cars part doesn't count. Digging tunnels is a very old thing. We know it can be done and we know it works well when you run electric vehicles inside it(All underground systems already run on electric cars), it's just that it doesn't solve congest any differently than the one on the ground. Two cars can't occupy the same volume and it holds both over ground and underground. Sometimes the difference between Elizabeth Holmes and Mus*k are negligible. She should just failed to kick can down the road for long enough I guess. She should have imitated Mus*k instead of Jobs, then people would have been saying thing like "The tests not producing correct results doesn't mean anything, it's just a demonstration that they can build machines".

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I mean that doesn't sound like a revolutionary hot take to me, I guess I'm glad you're inspired? The problem we on this side of the pond are facing now is that the electrification is going too fast; people installing solar panels on their roofs, getting an electric car, companies putting solar panels on every building and unused patch of land, people electrifying their house by replacing their gas boilers and stoves with pure electric alternatives is all well and good, but the infrastructure can't handle it, and they need YEARS to upgrade said infrastructure, to the point where they are forced to refuse to connect new businesses (that produce or consume a lot of electricity). It's great, but it needs big investment in the electricity infrastructure. And of course, better guarantees for energy production. We're facing an energy crisis over here, due to fuckery with Russia, the gas supplies are running out and prices of gas have gone way up, which is causing electricity prices to go up as well. As a country, you need to be able to give guarantees about the stability, availability and cost of electricity. It's not something fixed overnight.

alex_duf 5y ago
Which side of the pound is that? Because I haven't heard of too many solar panels or electric cars causing any issue anywhere in europe just yet.
bwood 5y ago
On the face of it, no, it doesn't sound revolutionary. "Just switch to renewables" is something I've been hearing for 20 years and I never believed it could work until I read this book. The book is quite thorough in laying out all the challenges (eg, handling variable production from renewables, how to get buy-in from existing fossil fuel stakeholders, how to rearchitect the grid from hub-and-spoke to something more like the internet, how to finance the massive upfront cost in a way that will actually save money, etc) and presents realistic solutions for each. Please don't take my word for it, just pick up a copy and read it.

zbrozek 5y ago

I would dearly love to electrify everything, but electricity around here (California) has price growth strongly exceeding inflation while simultaneously getting less reliable. You're economically better off converting electric loads to gas, even if that means using gas to generate electricity.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Presumably the solution is to scale up the supply of renewable energy. Another solution is to start making things more energy efficient. There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there.
- danans 5y ago
  > There's a lot of untapped efficiency out there. That's especially true with houses. However, speaking as someone who has renovated their home for extreme efficiency (and now uses 75% less energy than their neighbors) the problem is that the upfront cost of efficiency - both economic and in learning curve - is still very high, at least in the US. Unless one is willing/able to take on a big and expensive project in home building or renovation, it's hard to make big leaps in efficiency. This is compounded by the reality that the construction industry is very conservative and doesn't like doing things in new ways. AFAICT, the only "easy" efficiency change that is close to a "no-brainer" is replacing your existing gas or electric water heater with a heat pump water heater, because it generally doesn't require replacement of an entire system, just one appliance. The other things that make a big difference to efficiency: sealing/insulating building envelopes, installing heat pump HVAC, are much more invasive procedures. There is a small industry of tools and contractors who specialize in those, but there's not a lot of standards or cost-efficient ways to achieve high efficiency yet. And at least in the US, high home efficiency and comfort are targeted primarily at wealthier people, and the goods/services are priced with that demographic's means in mind. Unfortunately, a few thousand wealthier people with efficient and comfortable homes does nothing for the grid or the climate. Europe seems much further along in this area, with efficient technology and design being better captured in building codes and off the shelf technologies, and with a focus on energy efficient multi-family buildings.