4 ms·

Someone on this website blasted and downvoted me a few weeks ago for stating that moving everything we have that consumes energy to electricity will cause power

Someone on this website blasted and downvoted me a few weeks ago for stating that moving everything we have that consumes energy to electricity will cause power crunches in "first world" countries. Why are we putting all of our eggs in one basket?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bowsamic 4y ago
What else do you suggest?
ugjka 4y ago
What do you propose? Kerosene powered ACs?
natmaka 4y ago
> Why are we putting all of our eggs in one basket? AFAIK because there is no other basket (hydrogen, the more promising, is far behind electricity, mainly because it is difficult to distribute and store).
- causi 4y ago
  mainly because it is difficult to distribute and store Untrue. Energy losses in hydrogen storage and transmission are significant (11%) but much smaller than the losses at the electrolysis step (24%) and the redox step (46%).
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    Hydrogen is largely produced via steam reformation, making it a natural gas powered battery that's shittier than electricity in almost every way.
    - causi 4y ago
      That's my point. Hydrogen would still be terrible even without storage and moving problems.
    - natmaka 4y ago
      This is about green hydrogen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen )
  - natmaka 4y ago
    This is at best not very pertinent, for many reasons. 1/ Losses vary according to the way the hydrogen is produced then used, and there are multiples paths. Overview: https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:5342163d-2333-4c8d-ae85-2a0e8d45db56/white-paper-efficiency-en.pdf https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:53... Moreover there are ways enabling a very high yield, for example high-temperature electrolysis (some recent gas turbines can be fed with a gas-hydrogen mix, up to 100% hydrogen) 2/ This is about green hydrogen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen ), therefore the electrolysis step is done thanks to electricity over-produced by renewable sources (without burning any combustible no producing any waste). Consequently the total cost of those losses are very low, as not using this overproduced electricity would lead to lose 100% of it.
- carom 4y ago
  Los Angeles recently banned gas stoves. We are most certainly heading toward single basket homes. Another example is that new construction can not have wood burning fireplaces.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    The air pollution in these regions due to fireplaces & cars is ridiculous, I don't think they are banning these things nationwide.
    - carom 4y ago
      The air pollution from gas stoves is a fraction of a percent of cars. I have not done the math on wood fireplaces.
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        Wood fireplaces are definitely significant. I lived in a high hill on SF and think many don't realize quite how much haze is generated here on colder days. I specifically omitted gas stove, not sure air pollution is the reason for that one.
        carom 4y ago
        Wood does release other particulate matter, but in terms of carbon (and climate change), burning a few logs is the equivalent of many people's daily commute. I'm not advocating for using this as a primary form of heating, but in the case of emergency, I would love to be able to heat my home with wood.
    - jstarfish 4y ago
      New York also banned gas stoves. You can expect more urban areas to follow suit; things are moving that direction because of the fire/explosion hazard in densely-populated areas.
leothecool 4y ago
If you think there's another viable solution, please found a company around the idea and prove us all wrong.
- native_samples 4y ago
  Wouldn't that be an oil company? I think his point is that with liquid fuels you have more decentralisation and buffering of energy.
  - leothecool 4y ago
    Sure, why not. If he's identified a niche in the market, he should exploit it. Personally, I'd expect that energy executives and policy makers already considered this and rejected it, but who knows, maybe he found a niche they didn't consider.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Good thing there is no oil crunch going on right now.
QuarterReptile 4y ago
To give a more pragmatic answer of "why", and not just "why is it a good thing": Electrification is like just-in-time logistics for energy. It is significantly more efficient to power your cars and stoves and everything else from sources that are generating power at scale, but it makes you massively more fragile (and out of control since you have little recourse against and no oversight over the large entities that control the energy.) It's a great abstraction of energy if you can count on all the power you need, when you need it. It's much worse than the case of logistics because every part of generating, distributing, and pricing electricity is controlled either by political processes that shift with the wind or government-sanctioned monopolies. And the projects are often huge and slow moving.
scratcheee 4y ago
The only way to avoid all-eggs-in-one-basket is to convince everyone to have hybrid everything (ie a gas boiler _and_ a heat pump, and their own personal generator), which would be insanely expensive (note: having mixed infrastructure of electricity for devices and gas for heating is not the same thing, having a charged mobile phone is cold comfort is you can't heat or cook, and having heating doesn't help you economically if a brown out takes down your computer so you can't work), so if we're going to have only 1 method of doing each thing, making that 1 method be electricity means we at least get the flexibility of producing the power from a range of sources and changing that generation on the fly. Electricity can be produced pretty efficiently from almost any sources. Whilst it has a lead time, that lead time is measured in years to build power generation, rather than decades in replacing peoples devices and the transportation infrastructure. Alternatives are almost always much less flexible, and are a much bigger danger of getting caught out by a volatile market.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bowsamic 4y ago

What else do you suggest?

ugjka 4y ago

What do you propose? Kerosene powered ACs?

natmaka 4y ago

> Why are we putting all of our eggs in one basket? AFAIK because there is no other basket (hydrogen, the more promising, is far behind electricity, mainly because it is difficult to distribute and store).

causi 4y ago
mainly because it is difficult to distribute and store Untrue. Energy losses in hydrogen storage and transmission are significant (11%) but much smaller than the losses at the electrolysis step (24%) and the redox step (46%).
- mywittyname 4y ago
  Hydrogen is largely produced via steam reformation, making it a natural gas powered battery that's shittier than electricity in almost every way.
  - causi 4y ago
    That's my point. Hydrogen would still be terrible even without storage and moving problems.
  - natmaka 4y ago
    This is about green hydrogen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen )
- natmaka 4y ago
  This is at best not very pertinent, for many reasons. 1/ Losses vary according to the way the hydrogen is produced then used, and there are multiples paths. Overview: https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:5342163d-2333-4c8d-ae85-2a0e8d45db56/white-paper-efficiency-en.pdf https://assets.siemens-energy.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:53... Moreover there are ways enabling a very high yield, for example high-temperature electrolysis (some recent gas turbines can be fed with a gas-hydrogen mix, up to 100% hydrogen) 2/ This is about green hydrogen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_hydrogen ), therefore the electrolysis step is done thanks to electricity over-produced by renewable sources (without burning any combustible no producing any waste). Consequently the total cost of those losses are very low, as not using this overproduced electricity would lead to lose 100% of it.
carom 4y ago
Los Angeles recently banned gas stoves. We are most certainly heading toward single basket homes. Another example is that new construction can not have wood burning fireplaces.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  The air pollution in these regions due to fireplaces & cars is ridiculous, I don't think they are banning these things nationwide.
  - carom 4y ago
    The air pollution from gas stoves is a fraction of a percent of cars. I have not done the math on wood fireplaces.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      Wood fireplaces are definitely significant. I lived in a high hill on SF and think many don't realize quite how much haze is generated here on colder days. I specifically omitted gas stove, not sure air pollution is the reason for that one.
      - carom 4y ago
        Wood does release other particulate matter, but in terms of carbon (and climate change), burning a few logs is the equivalent of many people's daily commute. I'm not advocating for using this as a primary form of heating, but in the case of emergency, I would love to be able to heat my home with wood.
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    New York also banned gas stoves. You can expect more urban areas to follow suit; things are moving that direction because of the fire/explosion hazard in densely-populated areas.

leothecool 4y ago

If you think there's another viable solution, please found a company around the idea and prove us all wrong.

native_samples 4y ago
Wouldn't that be an oil company? I think his point is that with liquid fuels you have more decentralisation and buffering of energy.
- leothecool 4y ago
  Sure, why not. If he's identified a niche in the market, he should exploit it. Personally, I'd expect that energy executives and policy makers already considered this and rejected it, but who knows, maybe he found a niche they didn't consider.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Good thing there is no oil crunch going on right now.

QuarterReptile 4y ago

To give a more pragmatic answer of "why", and not just "why is it a good thing": Electrification is like just-in-time logistics for energy. It is significantly more efficient to power your cars and stoves and everything else from sources that are generating power at scale, but it makes you massively more fragile (and out of control since you have little recourse against and no oversight over the large entities that control the energy.) It's a great abstraction of energy if you can count on all the power you need, when you need it. It's much worse than the case of logistics because every part of generating, distributing, and pricing electricity is controlled either by political processes that shift with the wind or government-sanctioned monopolies. And the projects are often huge and slow moving.

scratcheee 4y ago

The only way to avoid all-eggs-in-one-basket is to convince everyone to have hybrid everything (ie a gas boiler _and_ a heat pump, and their own personal generator), which would be insanely expensive (note: having mixed infrastructure of electricity for devices and gas for heating is not the same thing, having a charged mobile phone is cold comfort is you can't heat or cook, and having heating doesn't help you economically if a brown out takes down your computer so you can't work), so if we're going to have only 1 method of doing each thing, making that 1 method be electricity means we at least get the flexibility of producing the power from a range of sources and changing that generation on the fly. Electricity can be produced pretty efficiently from almost any sources. Whilst it has a lead time, that lead time is measured in years to build power generation, rather than decades in replacing peoples devices and the transportation infrastructure. Alternatives are almost always much less flexible, and are a much bigger danger of getting caught out by a volatile market.