9 ms·
> Renewable energy now generates a third of global power capacity. I find this remarkable and uplifting, because if I ask myself whether I could live using onl
by jl6 7y ago
> Renewable energy now generates a third of global power capacity.
I find this remarkable and uplifting, because if I ask myself whether I could live using only 1/3 of my current electricity consumption, my answer is that I would have to make sacrifices, but relatively painless ones.
And this is the baseline - renewable capacity is only going to grow.
- ehsankia 7y agoAnd this is with old industries dragging their feet for so long. Imagine how far we could've been if lobbying wasn't so bad and the US had lead the way with renewable energy a decade a ago. We'd be way past 50%, probably closer to 2/3 by now.
- pjc50 7y agoReally? You already know you're wasting two thirds of your electricity? If I had to cut consumption by two thirds I'd be sitting in the dark a lot. Do you have an example of what you'd cut?
- lixtra 7y agoMore likely you would be sitting in the hot. Cooling is the main electrical energy consumer in the not so hot uk [1]. [1] https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/how-much-electricity-does-a-home-use.html https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/how-much-elec...
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoYes, cooling the milk, meat, frozen pizza and ice cream according to that chart. I'm very surprised by and suspicious of lighting being 600 kWh/year, so I question their sources or analysis. They note themselves LED lights are around 6 kWh/year. Edit: Their source appears to be a 10 year old survey from before LEDs being generally available in shops, and before tungsten was banned from general sale. No wonder the numbers are off.
- jl6 7y agoI would ditch the TVs, re-wear lightly soiled clothes instead of using the washing machine / tumble dryer so often, more line drying in the summer, be vigilant about switching off unused lights, unplug unused appliances overnight, cook with the electric hob and microwave less, eat more fresh and uncooked food, buy a more efficient fridge and freezer, use the computers less, get rid of the electric shower, spend more time out with others rather than indoors. That’s just in the home. All would involve sacrifices, but doable ones without having to live in Mad Max.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoBasically live like your grandparents did.
- mikekchar 7y agoSeriously, ditch the dryer. You'll be amazed at how much power you don't use. You can even line dry inside although you have to be careful of the humidity in your house. If you live in a cold climate and heat your house, then probably you'll be doing yourself a favour by drying indoors. We have a combination dryer washer (the dryer uses a heat pump), but use the dryer maybe 2-3 times a year (only during the rainy season when it rains for weeks on end). If you want to simply save energy, avoid the car. It's really apparent if you have an electric car because you have units that you can compare with other things, but for example, we burn probably 6 kWh per day in the car and this absolutely dwarfs our daily consumption in our apartment. If it's close enough to walk, then walk it. Just dryer and car may get you close to your goal.
- benj111 7y ago"cook with the electric hob and microwave less", "get rid of the electric shower", "spend more time out". Arent these just displacing your electricity usage? I assume you aren't going to have less showers for example. And I can't see a trip to the coffee shop or cinema being 'greener' than the stay at home equivalent.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y agoIn most Western homes, lighting is a tiny part of electricity consumption, and even more so now that LED lights are becoming prevalent. Heating, air conditioning, refrigerators, washing machines, tumble dryers, dishwashers, hobs or ovens are typically responsible for more electricity consumption. Personally, since I don't have air conditioning, only use heating ~3 months a year (I live in a very mild climate) and almost don't use the tumble dryer, I would have a very hard time cutting my consumption by two thirds. Maybe not using the dishwasher, washing clothes less (or by hand) and cooking less, but probably it wouldn't be enough.
- fasthandle 7y agoBuy a solar water heater. I live in a climate that varies between -20 and 35 degrees, and this solar water heater has worked consistently for 10 years over these temperature ranges. It is, essentially, some glass pipes attached to a tank at the top with a 260 litre capacity, capacities vary, all neighbours have them, and a meter to press a button to auto- fill up when needed. This will be a huge cut in your electricity bill. For cost and context, including installation, mine cost about $200. And, well, for tips, a washing line. There is no need to tumble-dry anything, a piece of rope, some pegs, and wind and relative humidity do a pretty good job themselves.
- username90 7y agoGet a smaller home, reduces costs of lighting, heating and cooling proportionally. Move to a city with good public transit and stop using a car. Take a train for vacation instead of flying, or just don't travel for vacation. Do all of those and cutting your emissions by 2/3 is very easy with most of your quality of life intact. Big homes, cars and flights don't make people happy, so moving to such a lifestyle wont be a catastrophe. I am not sure why so many in the western world dreads it.
- benj111 7y agoPlease tell us, I'm struggling to identify what this 2/3 of optional power usage is? A super computer in your spare room? Tesla coil security??
- taneq 7y agoProbably air conditioning, mostly. Maybe using an electric kettle? Leaving the TV on while you do housework? There's a lot of low hanging fruit that most people could save with relatively little sacrifice.
- chewz 7y agoIn Central Europe 80% of energy consumption for average household is heating in winter (September to May). Unplugging phone charger won't help. And the solar ain't available October to April.
- ljf 7y agoSolar isn't available? All my friends here in the UK with panels would beg to differ. Sure less than the summer, but a rooftop aray and still put out a decent amount of power much of winter. Maybe not in the high North, but esp since you qualified that with 'central Europe' I'd wager there is plenty of solar generation going on then across Europe.
- chewz 7y agoLook at fig 6. > Due to low availability of solar energy in December, the required area is as much as 341.0 m2. No one will put 340 sq meters of solars panels on small house's roof or on it's lawns. And no one is Suwalki would like to freeze in December. There are other technologies like heat pumps etc. But solar is not of use in winter. Not for heating. https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2018/24/e3sconf_solina2018_00049.pdf https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2018/24...
- 7y ago
- chewz 7y agoDon't get so excited comrade. Renewable does not mean clean. It is mostly biomass, solar is still tiny % overall. We are making progress towards clean energy but it is much slower then propaganda numbers. PS. Congrats to India...
- rakoo 7y agoAlso, solar and wind for electricity is a disaster in terms of CO2. People ought to look at the real numbers before thinking that intermittent energies instead of nuclear are going to save us.
- ben_w 7y agoWhat is the basis for your claim? EROEI? I’m curious what those were, so I found these: Solar EROEI: 9-35 Wind EROEI: 20-50 Nuclear EROEI: 59-70 Which certainly looks great for nuclear (I do actually like nuclear in general), but is it actually important to be the best when it’s high enough to be economic?
- rakoo 7y agoYou have to compare comparable things: in this case the comparable metric that is actually useful is "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan". If you count this you'll have to account for the fact that solar and wind are intermittent, which means you'll need batteries or a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based (typically gas). You also have to account for the fact that the expected lifespan of batteries and panels is around 30 years, so you have to buy them twice. In the other side, a nuclear plant does provide a reliable current, has a long lifespan, and turns out to be cheaper. Even the GIEC says so: we won't be able to efficiently reduce our greenhouse gases without nuclear.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoSpeaking of comparing things correctly, what's supplying the peak power in this nuclear alternative? Are you accounting for the cost of sufficiently overbuilding nuclear and/or storage? Mostly people seem to fixate on nuclear supplying the legendary "baseload" and leave all the other power as someone else's problem. And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built (either solar and wind, which makes nuclear redundant or fossil, which makes it a non solution) then nuclear doesn't really pencil out.
- hokkos 7y agoThis is very misleading because the capacity factor of solar is from 10% to 30% and wind from 20 to 30, but every other power source is in the 80%.