5 ms·

Primary energy sources are what they are, both your comment and the linked article seem to imply discussing them should lead to a deserved punch in the face. C

by binoct 11mo ago

Primary energy sources are what they are, both your comment and the linked article seem to imply discussing them should lead to a deserved punch in the face. Can you help me understand why? As far as I can tell, your link argues that if we overcome all the practical challenges (politics, resources, financing, technical innovation) and go all-electric for global energy, we only need ~1/3 as much input energy potential as we use today for the same useful work. That’s useful, but the hard part lies in those practical challenges. And the primary sources of global human energy use are a long way away from that goal. So should we strive to get there? Sure. Should we be tactical about how? Yes. And the link seems to argue that as well. But is it reasonable to hit our 2050 goals based on the current global fossil fuel usage? Not really. So I’m really missing how this refutes Smil’s article, and why “primary energy” is such a stupid thing.

_aavaa_ 11mo ago
The problem with it is that it makes it easy to make bad faith arguments for why we can’t or shouldn’t transition (kinda like is being done here). Take for example paragraphs like: > Primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a small contribution by geothermal plants) accounted for no more than about 18% of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82% of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022. Are used as justification for why green green energy is a scam, it can’t be done, or it’s too expensive, etc., etc. after all 82% of primary energy is still from fossil fuels. Except we don’t have to replace 82%, since 2/3rds of that is wasted. Of 100 kWh we’re already done 12 kWh and only need to add 27 (NOT 82) more kWh of electricity to replace all the fossil fuel usage. And that’s before talking about any efficiency gains (e.g heat pumps with COP >4).
- binoct 11mo ago
  Ah, seems like I was missing some context where the fossil fuel and anti-renewable folks have been using the term in arguments against trying to change. I’m not sure of Smil’s politics but to be fair, there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading. I can see through how others could spin it, and I’ll be more careful knowing the term has some politics behind it now. To me his argument in the article is that it’s not practical to expect a transition in a 25-year timescale, not that it’s impossible or not worth working on. Heat pumps are a good example where the practice has been a lot harder than we might hope. Sure COP > 4 for heating is great, but the units are very expensive today, and in most of the US and Europe with sub-zero winter temps operate with much worse efficiencies, making them significantly more expensive to operate. I’m sure with effort those issues will improve, and major policy shifts can help mitigate some of the costs. But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target.
  - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
    > there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading The discussion of the issue in terms of primary energy is the very thing that's inherently misleading. To move away from fossil fuels we do not have to replace the primary energy, we have to replace the useful energy that comes out the other side. From the Sankey diagram in the article I linked [0], 67.5 units of energy are not useful energy. To put it to an extreme, instead of 67.5 units beings wastes, it could be 100 billion units for 32.5 units of useful energy produces. Focusing on the 100 billion is inherently misleading since they are irrelevant when the replacement technology basically creates the useful energy with over 100% efficiency at times. Heat pumps. Yes their COP is lower during cold winters, but that brings in 2 discussions. 1) any COP value above 1 means that we'll need less primary energy than when buying something, and even in cold weather they manage a COP above that [1]. 2) Lower COPs will cost you more, depending on what your natural gas prices are like due to any crazed lunatics invading their neighbours. Which conincidentally is only what pushes electricity prices up in many places that use natural gas for electricity (even just peak demand). The capital cost difference also depends drastically on situation. Many climates need both heating and cooling, so the price of heat pump versus furnace + AC unit is much smaller than heat pump versus furnace. > But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target. I agree, and even replacing the 1/3rd of the primary energy will be a tough challenge. But Vaclav continual framing in terms of primary energy is actively used to push inaction. His critics have been vocal about this point (and others) for a while, he should know better by now. [0]: https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL-USA-Sankey-diagram-really-excellent-version.png https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL... [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435123003513 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...
    - measurablefunc 11mo ago
      > the replacement technology basically creates the useful energy with over 100% efficiency I think you're confused. There is no way to avoid the laws of thermodynamics so where are you getting more than 100% efficiency?

by binoct 11mo ago

_aavaa_ 11mo ago

The problem with it is that it makes it easy to make bad faith arguments for why we can’t or shouldn’t transition (kinda like is being done here). Take for example paragraphs like: > Primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a small contribution by geothermal plants) accounted for no more than about 18% of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82% of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022. Are used as justification for why green green energy is a scam, it can’t be done, or it’s too expensive, etc., etc. after all 82% of primary energy is still from fossil fuels. Except we don’t have to replace 82%, since 2/3rds of that is wasted. Of 100 kWh we’re already done 12 kWh and only need to add 27 (NOT 82) more kWh of electricity to replace all the fossil fuel usage. And that’s before talking about any efficiency gains (e.g heat pumps with COP >4).

binoct 11mo ago
Ah, seems like I was missing some context where the fossil fuel and anti-renewable folks have been using the term in arguments against trying to change. I’m not sure of Smil’s politics but to be fair, there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading. I can see through how others could spin it, and I’ll be more careful knowing the term has some politics behind it now. To me his argument in the article is that it’s not practical to expect a transition in a 25-year timescale, not that it’s impossible or not worth working on. Heat pumps are a good example where the practice has been a lot harder than we might hope. Sure COP > 4 for heating is great, but the units are very expensive today, and in most of the US and Europe with sub-zero winter temps operate with much worse efficiencies, making them significantly more expensive to operate. I’m sure with effort those issues will improve, and major policy shifts can help mitigate some of the costs. But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target.
- _aavaa_ 11mo ago
  > there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading The discussion of the issue in terms of primary energy is the very thing that's inherently misleading. To move away from fossil fuels we do not have to replace the primary energy, we have to replace the useful energy that comes out the other side. From the Sankey diagram in the article I linked [0], 67.5 units of energy are not useful energy. To put it to an extreme, instead of 67.5 units beings wastes, it could be 100 billion units for 32.5 units of useful energy produces. Focusing on the 100 billion is inherently misleading since they are irrelevant when the replacement technology basically creates the useful energy with over 100% efficiency at times. Heat pumps. Yes their COP is lower during cold winters, but that brings in 2 discussions. 1) any COP value above 1 means that we'll need less primary energy than when buying something, and even in cold weather they manage a COP above that [1]. 2) Lower COPs will cost you more, depending on what your natural gas prices are like due to any crazed lunatics invading their neighbours. Which conincidentally is only what pushes electricity prices up in many places that use natural gas for electricity (even just peak demand). The capital cost difference also depends drastically on situation. Many climates need both heating and cooling, so the price of heat pump versus furnace + AC unit is much smaller than heat pump versus furnace. > But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target. I agree, and even replacing the 1/3rd of the primary energy will be a tough challenge. But Vaclav continual framing in terms of primary energy is actively used to push inaction. His critics have been vocal about this point (and others) for a while, he should know better by now. [0]: https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL-USA-Sankey-diagram-really-excellent-version.png https://spitfireresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/LLNL... [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435123003513 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243512...
  - measurablefunc 11mo ago
    > the replacement technology basically creates the useful energy with over 100% efficiency I think you're confused. There is no way to avoid the laws of thermodynamics so where are you getting more than 100% efficiency?