7 ms·

The main action advocated by the author here is to increase efficiency (in insulation, appliances, food production, transportation) as a means to curb CO2 emiss

The main action advocated by the author here is to increase efficiency (in insulation, appliances, food production, transportation) as a means to curb CO2 emissions and slow climate change - all very important. Lately I've been reading Saul Griffith's book "Electrify" which proposes a different tack - "simply" electrify all energy usage and let people maintain their current lifestyles exactly. Interestingly, doing so would reduce total US energy consumption[0] to about half its current levels while still allowing big trucks and air conditioning and fun energy-intensive things. A lot of that energy reduction comes from a) the higher intrinsic efficiencies of electrical machines and generation compared to heat engines and b) no longer needing energy to run fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and refining processes. Griffith is also careful to note that climate solutions are "yes ands", so we should increase efficiencies as much as we can in addition to electrifying as much as we can (and also pursuing ambitious strategies like fusion and CCS). Definitely make a great case of rolling out existing solutions like solar and wind in a big way to bring down carbon emissions really quickly. [0] - the book focuses only on the US, but results could be similar in countries with similar economies.

hgomersall 5y ago
It's much easier to maintain lifestyles by being more efficient than by any other means. Most energy is simply wasted. There is basically no downside to things like properly insulating houses (except perhaps the bottom line of the property developers).
- stickyricky 5y ago
  And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round.
  - distances 5y ago
    In the Nordics the baseline is triple glazed windows and mechanical ventilation with exhaust air heat recovery. I'm sure doing the same elsewhere would be a good start at least
    - stickyricky 5y ago
      Neither of those things matter for air exchange.
      - distances 5y ago
        I don't think I then understood your comment about air quality concerns. What's the concern if ventilation works fine and energy efficiently?
        stickyricky 5y ago
        Place a well insulated wall in the middle of a field. Add a tripled glazed window and 100% efficient ventilation. Which side of the wall is warmer than the other? Ideal indoor air quality is equal to outdoor air quality. This can only be achieved through air exchange. The ventilation process may be 100% efficient but the consequences of pumping outside air in and inside air out are the same. The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish.
        distances 5y ago
        That's why the heat recovery is done. It of course doesn't get all the heat, but AFAIK can capture some 80%. This is in use and widely deployed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation
        throw0101a 5y ago
        > Ideal indoor air quality is equal to outdoor air quality. Ideal indoor air quality is (can be) better than outdoor air quality. This is because when the outside air is brought in it passes through filters to get rid of things like dust and pollen. > The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish. Unless you use passive solar thermal, i.e., let the sun heat the home: * https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/passive-solar-home-design https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/passive-solar-home-design
        5y ago
  - hgomersall 5y ago
    Ventilation and insulation are orthogonal. The passivhaus standard puts ventilation front and centre and has exceptionally high efficiency targets overall.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    > And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round. Look up HRV/ERVs. You'll have better air quality by building a tight envelope and using mechanical ventilation because all the air from the outside will flow through filters. It then gets tempered by the exhausted stale air before being circulated. A leaky house and ventilation through windows was fine in the 1920s, but we've better ways now. (And operable windows won't go away: they're mandated for fire egress. So you can crack one open if you wish.)
- eropple 5y ago
  There isn't--if you can get materials. And afford them. The windows in my house are starting to go. I've probably got another five years or so before they're a problem, but they were the most obvious future expenditure when I bought the place. The windows that best hit the durability and insulation points that I expect, for living here for the next 10-15 years, are around $1100 apiece. $1800 for the bigger one in the middle of the bay window on the first floor. Oh, and they also have a 9 month lead time, if you're lucky! And this is after I've spent five figures opening every wall, heavily insulating the place, and buttoning it back up. I'm not complaining personally; I can afford this okay, but it's impractical to expect even moderately well-off Americans to be able to. This isn't just about the bottom line of developers, 'cause most housing stock is already owned. We're probably looking at massive subsidies to make it happen, and significant resistance because doing it is a huge imposition (one I did willingly, but I knew I was getting into it) reliant on limited labor and materials.
radicalbyte 5y ago
Electrification requires energy-efficiency savings. Insulation is specifically an absolute no-brainer - it's cheap and save a lot of energy (and money). Currently it seems that rentals are the issue more than anything.
- constGard 5y ago
  Insulation is a no brainer until you pump it into an older house with poorly sealed walls and end up with a sodden mess next time it rains. Some of the best advice from "green" building professionals is focus on air sealing, efficient electric heat (heat pumps), and eventually rooftop solar. These have complications as well (slave labor solar panels, high gwp refrigerants) but those are often easier to fix than your 1930s wall assembly. The individual cost of a deep energy retrofit to address the systemic problems with a home can be incredibly high (100k+ for people like me in California), so hopefully market innovation and government regulation will help solve some of the issues I mentioned with electrification + rooftop pv.
  - ominous_prime 5y ago
    Yup, old houses can be insulated, but they do not insulate well. Currently in an 1890s house which has been superficially renovated at least 2x in its life, with all the insulation you could possibly pump into the walls. Winter heating is still grossly expensive, and you can never stop all the drafts. During a kitchen reno we tried pulling everything back to the studs and using spray foam as the insulation and vapor barrier -- better than the rest of the house, but still noticeably draftier than a modern house. There's no real way to fix that without completely stripping the house down to the frame and rebuilding with modern techniques and materials.
- thatcherc 5y ago
  > Electrification requires energy-efficiency savings. I don't think it does. In principle, you could stay relatively inefficient with low cost to the climate as long as you were drawing power from overprovisioned wind and solar. Of course, that energy may be better spent elsewhere so efficiency is critical, but we can't get carbon emissions down to zero by only increasing efficiency of systems that ultimately draw power from coal and natural gas power plants.
tomp 5y ago
Indeed. "Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc. I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisation-level failure.
- FrenchAmerican 5y ago
  "anti-civilization agenda": well, no, but I see what you mean (I think). Most ecologists do promote another civilization, since they believe - rightly or not - that our current civilization will lead to an environmental collapse. Deep ecologists have decided once and for all that technology and science won't provide the solution, hence what you call their " anti-civilization agenda". Let's take a step back and look at things calmly. You want not to be restrained in your way of life. But a better efficiency enable to do the same with less energy. So you'd be not restrained in any way. Therefore there is no reason to want to use "more energy" as a goal by itself. Better efficiency implies batter technologies and better Science. This is where too many ecologists get it wrong. However, we can also say that technologies don't mechanically provide a better world. Biotechnology has resulted in a massive use of pesticides that kills biodiversity while the agro-tech business make people fat through over-processed food and ingredients bad for health. Technology also enable us to do industrial wonders but they also pollute (rare metal extraction for example). Eating food bad for your health and living within high level of pollution don't look to me as great civilizational achievements, do they? Last point: we need "clean energy", not "cleaner". Science has demonstrated how fast climate changes and biodiversity plummets. In the short term, the cleaner, the better - but that can last only during a rather short transition time to really clean energy. Many countries have at last got out of endemic poverty. Many African countries before the Covid were growing their GDP by 3 to 5% per year. It's great but that means their use of energy is rising fast. So to stop the climate change, we really need to transition much faster. Many ecologists don't see that transition even starting ; neither do they see science and technology provide the solution on the coming years. Hence their agenda of rationing. I can't see that agenda being politically feasible. I personally conclude that we will hit a wall collectively. When climate will be so bad and the collapse of biodiversity will directly hit our way or life, then we will take the hard decisions. I don't believe in a civilization collapse. Books by true historians have debunked every claim of a civilization collapse due to overuse of the natural resources. And even so, we are super resilient animals, super efficient as organizing and adapting when necessary. But, as you rightly pointed out, we are not equal in this world. The huge costs when hitting the wall will not be fairly splitted. The wealthier you are in a wealthier country you are, the less you are likely to suffer from it. Since you don't want any change in your way of life, you should aim to belong to the 1%. Because 99% of us will have to change. And even so, being part of the 1% doesn't protect you totally, far from it. Driving a Bugatti won't matter much if a tree fall onto you because of a big storm. And you won't escape a pandemic either. Some people prefer to be super rich and live in fear all the time of being attacked. I prefer a system where every job provides a decent way of life so streets are safe. That is the same for climate. Some will prefer living in huge mansions with underground self-sufficient bunkers. I prefer that everyone gets to live in a super energy efficient place so that we don't need bunkers against tornadoes. Because when the tornado arrives, you'll making an errand 30 miles away and your children will be 10 miles from that bunker as well. The solution is collective. Hence my pessimism: we will change our way of life only when it will have become unbearable. Nature will be deep into the already current 6th extinction, meaning that it will restart despite us. But that takes thousands of years. So we will have to change our way of life starting from a low point rather than starting now. So the ecologists' agenda is not irrational. That may hurt your wanting to keep your way of life. Maybe you will be able to. But your children and your grandchildren will have quite different conditions. Except if Science and technology provides a way out. Many bet on it. That's not irrational either but the time is the issue. We need to capture huge amounts of CO2 and methane in the next 20 years to maintain our way of life. Is this a reasonable bet? Well, if we collectively invested trillions of dollars to reach that goal, I may take the bet. For now, we prefer bail-out the wealthier of us ; and some lunatics leaders around the world will force us to spend that money on the military. "Good night and good luck".
babagabooj 5y ago
Works in Norway but I believe the US still depends in large part on fossil fuels to generate electricity, no?
- malloryerik 5y ago
  Absolutely, and of course Norway also depends in great part on fossil fuels to generate wealth.
- thatcherc 5y ago
  Yeah, very important to electrify the supply side in the US as well. Pretty dirty at the moment. There are still gains to be realized just on the demand side though, like how EVs still emit less per mile than ICE cars even when the electricity comes from coal plants[0]. In that case, the efficiency comes form the improved thermal efficiency of an industrial-scale power plant versus little gasoline car engines. [0] - would have liked a better source but https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-...
- adrianN 5y ago
  Replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation is a lot easier than replacing fossil fuels for heating, transportation, and industry.
KineticLensman 5y ago
> "simply" electrify all energy usage and let people maintain their current lifestyles exactly You lost me at "simply" [Edit] Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but c'mon, this is an existentially hard problem and there are few if any significant quick wins that are doable in the face of public inertia, obstruction from the petro-rich, technical complexity, etc. Giving the opponents an easily shot-down 'simply' isn't going to cut it.
kkfx 5y ago
Well, in my new house I'm all electric, but it's a new one, in the old one there is a 30kW heating system, it's a bit expensive to run it on electricity, just a little bit... And that's essentially the same for the point: build new houses. It's surely positive and needed in the long run, but to do so you need many resources, wood itself is renewable at a certain level of demand, not renewable above that level. Long story short: not counting some mass-genocidal ideas, at a level even the original nazi probably never though of IMVHO the quicker changes possible is start to re-localize anything that can be re-localized, starting from a massive agricultural plan with very strong incentives to try to maximize local, even inefficient, food production to cut transportation as much as possible. For many area of the planet that's still not possible tough, too many people in such areas respect of the nature local production capacity... Local and inefficient agriculture might run at a slow peace, for instance instead of powerful diesel tractors fields can be handled by less powerful on-rails electrical agrivoltaic tools, something unsustainable without government incentives, but ultimately probably doable with. That's can reduce general pollution to more manageable levels and still provide enough food in most cases. Pushing rails with similar criteria (only goods trains, running when there is enough energy, slow, inefficient, but enough for non-perishable goods). Quicker than that I know only mass genocide and unpleasant things like that.
Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
> b) no longer needing energy to run fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and refining processes. It looks like current geo-politics will undo years of disinvestment in the fossil fuel production while never having met the emission cut-off goals.

hgomersall 5y ago

It's much easier to maintain lifestyles by being more efficient than by any other means. Most energy is simply wasted. There is basically no downside to things like properly insulating houses (except perhaps the bottom line of the property developers).

stickyricky 5y ago
And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round.
- distances 5y ago
  In the Nordics the baseline is triple glazed windows and mechanical ventilation with exhaust air heat recovery. I'm sure doing the same elsewhere would be a good start at least
  - stickyricky 5y ago
    Neither of those things matter for air exchange.
    - distances 5y ago
      I don't think I then understood your comment about air quality concerns. What's the concern if ventilation works fine and energy efficiently?
      - stickyricky 5y ago
        Place a well insulated wall in the middle of a field. Add a tripled glazed window and 100% efficient ventilation. Which side of the wall is warmer than the other? Ideal indoor air quality is equal to outdoor air quality. This can only be achieved through air exchange. The ventilation process may be 100% efficient but the consequences of pumping outside air in and inside air out are the same. The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish.
        distances 5y ago
        That's why the heat recovery is done. It of course doesn't get all the heat, but AFAIK can capture some 80%. This is in use and widely deployed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation
        throw0101a 5y ago
        > Ideal indoor air quality is equal to outdoor air quality. Ideal indoor air quality is (can be) better than outdoor air quality. This is because when the outside air is brought in it passes through filters to get rid of things like dust and pollen. > The air must be heated and costs some unit of energy to accomplish. Unless you use passive solar thermal, i.e., let the sun heat the home: * https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/passive-solar-home-design https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/passive-solar-home-design
      - 5y ago
- hgomersall 5y ago
  Ventilation and insulation are orthogonal. The passivhaus standard puts ventilation front and centre and has exceptionally high efficiency targets overall.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > And air quality concerns. You need to ventilate your home with outside air year round. Look up HRV/ERVs. You'll have better air quality by building a tight envelope and using mechanical ventilation because all the air from the outside will flow through filters. It then gets tempered by the exhausted stale air before being circulated. A leaky house and ventilation through windows was fine in the 1920s, but we've better ways now. (And operable windows won't go away: they're mandated for fire egress. So you can crack one open if you wish.)
eropple 5y ago
There isn't--if you can get materials. And afford them. The windows in my house are starting to go. I've probably got another five years or so before they're a problem, but they were the most obvious future expenditure when I bought the place. The windows that best hit the durability and insulation points that I expect, for living here for the next 10-15 years, are around $1100 apiece. $1800 for the bigger one in the middle of the bay window on the first floor. Oh, and they also have a 9 month lead time, if you're lucky! And this is after I've spent five figures opening every wall, heavily insulating the place, and buttoning it back up. I'm not complaining personally; I can afford this okay, but it's impractical to expect even moderately well-off Americans to be able to. This isn't just about the bottom line of developers, 'cause most housing stock is already owned. We're probably looking at massive subsidies to make it happen, and significant resistance because doing it is a huge imposition (one I did willingly, but I knew I was getting into it) reliant on limited labor and materials.

radicalbyte 5y ago

Electrification requires energy-efficiency savings. Insulation is specifically an absolute no-brainer - it's cheap and save a lot of energy (and money). Currently it seems that rentals are the issue more than anything.

constGard 5y ago
Insulation is a no brainer until you pump it into an older house with poorly sealed walls and end up with a sodden mess next time it rains. Some of the best advice from "green" building professionals is focus on air sealing, efficient electric heat (heat pumps), and eventually rooftop solar. These have complications as well (slave labor solar panels, high gwp refrigerants) but those are often easier to fix than your 1930s wall assembly. The individual cost of a deep energy retrofit to address the systemic problems with a home can be incredibly high (100k+ for people like me in California), so hopefully market innovation and government regulation will help solve some of the issues I mentioned with electrification + rooftop pv.
- ominous_prime 5y ago
  Yup, old houses can be insulated, but they do not insulate well. Currently in an 1890s house which has been superficially renovated at least 2x in its life, with all the insulation you could possibly pump into the walls. Winter heating is still grossly expensive, and you can never stop all the drafts. During a kitchen reno we tried pulling everything back to the studs and using spray foam as the insulation and vapor barrier -- better than the rest of the house, but still noticeably draftier than a modern house. There's no real way to fix that without completely stripping the house down to the frame and rebuilding with modern techniques and materials.
thatcherc 5y ago
> Electrification requires energy-efficiency savings. I don't think it does. In principle, you could stay relatively inefficient with low cost to the climate as long as you were drawing power from overprovisioned wind and solar. Of course, that energy may be better spent elsewhere so efficiency is critical, but we can't get carbon emissions down to zero by only increasing efficiency of systems that ultimately draw power from coal and natural gas power plants.

tomp 5y ago

Indeed. "Fighting Climate Change" is all sunshine and rainbows and photovoltaics until you realise that the messaging has been thoroughly usurped by an anti-civilisation regressive agenda. They don't want people using cleaner energy; they primarily want people using less energy; they sell that goal with promotion of "eco" and "green" etc. I want us to use more AND cleaner energy; one without the other is a civilisation-level failure.

FrenchAmerican 5y ago
"anti-civilization agenda": well, no, but I see what you mean (I think). Most ecologists do promote another civilization, since they believe - rightly or not - that our current civilization will lead to an environmental collapse. Deep ecologists have decided once and for all that technology and science won't provide the solution, hence what you call their " anti-civilization agenda". Let's take a step back and look at things calmly. You want not to be restrained in your way of life. But a better efficiency enable to do the same with less energy. So you'd be not restrained in any way. Therefore there is no reason to want to use "more energy" as a goal by itself. Better efficiency implies batter technologies and better Science. This is where too many ecologists get it wrong. However, we can also say that technologies don't mechanically provide a better world. Biotechnology has resulted in a massive use of pesticides that kills biodiversity while the agro-tech business make people fat through over-processed food and ingredients bad for health. Technology also enable us to do industrial wonders but they also pollute (rare metal extraction for example). Eating food bad for your health and living within high level of pollution don't look to me as great civilizational achievements, do they? Last point: we need "clean energy", not "cleaner". Science has demonstrated how fast climate changes and biodiversity plummets. In the short term, the cleaner, the better - but that can last only during a rather short transition time to really clean energy. Many countries have at last got out of endemic poverty. Many African countries before the Covid were growing their GDP by 3 to 5% per year. It's great but that means their use of energy is rising fast. So to stop the climate change, we really need to transition much faster. Many ecologists don't see that transition even starting ; neither do they see science and technology provide the solution on the coming years. Hence their agenda of rationing. I can't see that agenda being politically feasible. I personally conclude that we will hit a wall collectively. When climate will be so bad and the collapse of biodiversity will directly hit our way or life, then we will take the hard decisions. I don't believe in a civilization collapse. Books by true historians have debunked every claim of a civilization collapse due to overuse of the natural resources. And even so, we are super resilient animals, super efficient as organizing and adapting when necessary. But, as you rightly pointed out, we are not equal in this world. The huge costs when hitting the wall will not be fairly splitted. The wealthier you are in a wealthier country you are, the less you are likely to suffer from it. Since you don't want any change in your way of life, you should aim to belong to the 1%. Because 99% of us will have to change. And even so, being part of the 1% doesn't protect you totally, far from it. Driving a Bugatti won't matter much if a tree fall onto you because of a big storm. And you won't escape a pandemic either. Some people prefer to be super rich and live in fear all the time of being attacked. I prefer a system where every job provides a decent way of life so streets are safe. That is the same for climate. Some will prefer living in huge mansions with underground self-sufficient bunkers. I prefer that everyone gets to live in a super energy efficient place so that we don't need bunkers against tornadoes. Because when the tornado arrives, you'll making an errand 30 miles away and your children will be 10 miles from that bunker as well. The solution is collective. Hence my pessimism: we will change our way of life only when it will have become unbearable. Nature will be deep into the already current 6th extinction, meaning that it will restart despite us. But that takes thousands of years. So we will have to change our way of life starting from a low point rather than starting now. So the ecologists' agenda is not irrational. That may hurt your wanting to keep your way of life. Maybe you will be able to. But your children and your grandchildren will have quite different conditions. Except if Science and technology provides a way out. Many bet on it. That's not irrational either but the time is the issue. We need to capture huge amounts of CO2 and methane in the next 20 years to maintain our way of life. Is this a reasonable bet? Well, if we collectively invested trillions of dollars to reach that goal, I may take the bet. For now, we prefer bail-out the wealthier of us ; and some lunatics leaders around the world will force us to spend that money on the military. "Good night and good luck".

babagabooj 5y ago

Works in Norway but I believe the US still depends in large part on fossil fuels to generate electricity, no?

malloryerik 5y ago
Absolutely, and of course Norway also depends in great part on fossil fuels to generate wealth.
thatcherc 5y ago
Yeah, very important to electrify the supply side in the US as well. Pretty dirty at the moment. There are still gains to be realized just on the demand side though, like how EVs still emit less per mile than ICE cars even when the electricity comes from coal plants[0]. In that case, the efficiency comes form the improved thermal efficiency of an industrial-scale power plant versus little gasoline car engines. [0] - would have liked a better source but https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-...
adrianN 5y ago
Replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation is a lot easier than replacing fossil fuels for heating, transportation, and industry.

KineticLensman 5y ago

> "simply" electrify all energy usage and let people maintain their current lifestyles exactly You lost me at "simply" [Edit] Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but c'mon, this is an existentially hard problem and there are few if any significant quick wins that are doable in the face of public inertia, obstruction from the petro-rich, technical complexity, etc. Giving the opponents an easily shot-down 'simply' isn't going to cut it.

kkfx 5y ago

Well, in my new house I'm all electric, but it's a new one, in the old one there is a 30kW heating system, it's a bit expensive to run it on electricity, just a little bit... And that's essentially the same for the point: build new houses. It's surely positive and needed in the long run, but to do so you need many resources, wood itself is renewable at a certain level of demand, not renewable above that level. Long story short: not counting some mass-genocidal ideas, at a level even the original nazi probably never though of IMVHO the quicker changes possible is start to re-localize anything that can be re-localized, starting from a massive agricultural plan with very strong incentives to try to maximize local, even inefficient, food production to cut transportation as much as possible. For many area of the planet that's still not possible tough, too many people in such areas respect of the nature local production capacity... Local and inefficient agriculture might run at a slow peace, for instance instead of powerful diesel tractors fields can be handled by less powerful on-rails electrical agrivoltaic tools, something unsustainable without government incentives, but ultimately probably doable with. That's can reduce general pollution to more manageable levels and still provide enough food in most cases. Pushing rails with similar criteria (only goods trains, running when there is enough energy, slow, inefficient, but enough for non-perishable goods). Quicker than that I know only mass genocide and unpleasant things like that.

Abishek_Muthian 5y ago

> b) no longer needing energy to run fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and refining processes. It looks like current geo-politics will undo years of disinvestment in the fossil fuel production while never having met the emission cut-off goals.