5 ms·

You are wrong in several points. First of all, if we switch from burning fossil fuels to electricity for providing most uses of energy, energy consumption falls

by _ph_ 4y ago

You are wrong in several points. First of all, if we switch from burning fossil fuels to electricity for providing most uses of energy, energy consumption falls by 2/3rds. Heat pumps are easily more than 4x as effective per unit of energy used than burning fossil fuels. Similar numbers for electric cars and many other usages. So we are litterally looking at a moving goal post :) Renewable energy also doesn't come in "bursts". Yes, the maximum available production varies over time, for that we need to compensate. By storage, by grids, by having more flexible loads (for many decades providers worked hard to make loads non-flexible to make their jobs easier, now it is the other way around). And of course, some amount of power2gas will provide us with perfectly renewable gas which can be easily stored for whenever it is needed - we only want to limit that because it uses more power than using the electricity directly. And no, to get there we are not "destroying quality of life". There is no idication it would even compared to our current quality of life. Quite the contrary, as cheap, clean energy will improve quality of life. You are also missing, that our quality of life isn't given. It currently is constantly reduced by the effects of climate change we are already experiencing. Europe is going through a catastrophic hot and dry summer. With ironically energy shortages as the water cooling for nuclear power plants is failing. Just being able to maintain todays quality of life would be quite an accomplishment, which can only be achieved by cutting CO2 emissions very quickly, if at all.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not they are more efficient. Yet, in practice: >Heat pumps Most governments seem awfully eager on pushing the costs onto individuals. With big inflations and a breakeven point anywhere between 5 and 20 years case-by-case, that's a hard sell for individuals and causes no end of political pressure. In practice, a lot of people are not eager to move to heat pumps in older houses, while (re)building is still severely hampered. >Similar numbers for electric cars and many other usages. Same as above. Electric car subsidies are incredibly limited, used electric cars still have to flow to the market at a rate they become affordable for the less fortunate. At the same time, there's not a whole lot being done about the short duration of generations which is part of what causes environmental issues (goes for everything, not just cars). Of course, combatting that means products have to become more expensive to keep the current cashflow alive, something most stakeholders aren't willing to bet on. Alternatives are cheaper public transit (which would beat out EV altogether, especially if the used vehicles become electric themselves), but again, governments don't seem too eager to invest into it beyond some token experiments. And you can say this for anything. We already have solutions. We have tons of solutions, some for individuals, some for entire communities, some for the rich, etc. We're just not implementing them or trying to implement them without hurting the status quo (or pushing the pain onto specific groups). Which makes everything just not work in practice and we're waiting for the theory to magically solve our disputes, instead of adapting to the theory. Case in point: remote work. If the environment was our biggest concern, remote work wouldn't be a discussion.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  I am not sure about the point you are trying to make. Yes, politics makes a lot of mistakes and those deserve to be critisized. And the efficiency point I made was about countering the previous posters numbers - which were plain wrong. And of course the end user pays the costs. But if heat pumps are cheaper over the life time than gas, they are cheaper. And they were already pre-war and now are drastically so. By the way there are huge subsidies for heat-pumps in Germany, the state really helped there. Not sure how remote work fits into the discussion about which are our energy sources. Obviously, we should also try to not waste energy - at least until we have a surplus of renewables. Doing more remote work can certainly help with that. Less traffic would be beneficial beyond carbon emissions. Remote work is one thing we should do more, but it isn't applicable in all case and only a part of the solution.
- danhor 4y ago
  > Case in point: remote work. If the environment was our biggest concern, remote work wouldn't be a discussion. You'd think so, but the evidence is less than clear with some pre-corona studies suggesting WFH resulting in more emissions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-014-0556-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-014-0556-5 And some people involved in the transit space think that corona didn't change that: https://twitter.com/alon_levy/status/1538697382958968834 https://twitter.com/alon_levy/status/1538697382958968834 The basic gist is, the best way to reduce carbon emissions from transport is to drive less. This is most easily accomplished by being poor/expensive fuel (slightly unpopular) or living somewhere central with short distances and good alternatives (like walking, biking or transit). People switching to remote work tend to move out of dense locations, increasing the distance they need to drive for non-work activities and to the time they do drive for work.
lettergram 4y ago
> With ironically energy shortages as the water cooling for nuclear power plants is failing. lol what? No, energy shortages are occurring because of government rationing of fossil fuels. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/europe-to-ask-countries-to-reduce-energy-usage-as-putin-tightens-grip-on-gas.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/europe-to-ask-countries-to-r... I can debate the other points, but the fact remains — 12 years into Germany “going green” and hundreds of billions of dollars and all they can show for it is… drum roll… 10% of their energy consumption and they’re currently rationing energy.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  We have energy shortage right now, because a lot of nuclear power plants, especially the French, are powered down for lack of heating. This is why Germany has so far produced an extra 20TWh hours of electricity this year, also compensating for the nuclear power plants down for maintenance. There is no shortage of electricity in Germany and energy is not rationed. However, due to the need of filling gas stores till the winter, the government strongly campaigns on saving energy, especially any use of gas. There might be rationing of gas, if Germany fails to refill the gas storage (they are at over 70% right now) and if Russia cuts its delivery entirely. That doesn't mean there is a shortage of electricity.
  - the_why_of_y 4y ago
    In case the GP is unaware of the magnitude of the problem, this article says that already in April exactly half (28) of French nuclear plants were offline for maintenance. Likely the situation hasn't improved with the summer heat wave, since the plants all need water cooling. https://news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-frances-nuclear-reactors-taken-offline-adding-to-electricity-demand-on-european-grid-12600662 https://news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-frances-nuclear-re...
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      A lot of plants had to be reduced in power output and are running only because of special allowances to heat the river water hotter than normally allowed. Meanwhile rivers like the Rhine and the Loire are at record low levels, in many places you can walk large parts of the river bed leaving only a narrow par where there is water. Shipping on the Rhine might have to be stopped in a week or so. The government is advising against walking in the river beds, as people might step on WW2 ammunition which had not exploded.

by _ph_ 4y ago

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

I don't think anyone is arguing whether or not they are more efficient. Yet, in practice: >Heat pumps Most governments seem awfully eager on pushing the costs onto individuals. With big inflations and a breakeven point anywhere between 5 and 20 years case-by-case, that's a hard sell for individuals and causes no end of political pressure. In practice, a lot of people are not eager to move to heat pumps in older houses, while (re)building is still severely hampered. >Similar numbers for electric cars and many other usages. Same as above. Electric car subsidies are incredibly limited, used electric cars still have to flow to the market at a rate they become affordable for the less fortunate. At the same time, there's not a whole lot being done about the short duration of generations which is part of what causes environmental issues (goes for everything, not just cars). Of course, combatting that means products have to become more expensive to keep the current cashflow alive, something most stakeholders aren't willing to bet on. Alternatives are cheaper public transit (which would beat out EV altogether, especially if the used vehicles become electric themselves), but again, governments don't seem too eager to invest into it beyond some token experiments. And you can say this for anything. We already have solutions. We have tons of solutions, some for individuals, some for entire communities, some for the rich, etc. We're just not implementing them or trying to implement them without hurting the status quo (or pushing the pain onto specific groups). Which makes everything just not work in practice and we're waiting for the theory to magically solve our disputes, instead of adapting to the theory. Case in point: remote work. If the environment was our biggest concern, remote work wouldn't be a discussion.

_ph_ 4y ago
I am not sure about the point you are trying to make. Yes, politics makes a lot of mistakes and those deserve to be critisized. And the efficiency point I made was about countering the previous posters numbers - which were plain wrong. And of course the end user pays the costs. But if heat pumps are cheaper over the life time than gas, they are cheaper. And they were already pre-war and now are drastically so. By the way there are huge subsidies for heat-pumps in Germany, the state really helped there. Not sure how remote work fits into the discussion about which are our energy sources. Obviously, we should also try to not waste energy - at least until we have a surplus of renewables. Doing more remote work can certainly help with that. Less traffic would be beneficial beyond carbon emissions. Remote work is one thing we should do more, but it isn't applicable in all case and only a part of the solution.
danhor 4y ago
> Case in point: remote work. If the environment was our biggest concern, remote work wouldn't be a discussion. You'd think so, but the evidence is less than clear with some pre-corona studies suggesting WFH resulting in more emissions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-014-0556-5 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13762-014-0556-5 And some people involved in the transit space think that corona didn't change that: https://twitter.com/alon_levy/status/1538697382958968834 https://twitter.com/alon_levy/status/1538697382958968834 The basic gist is, the best way to reduce carbon emissions from transport is to drive less. This is most easily accomplished by being poor/expensive fuel (slightly unpopular) or living somewhere central with short distances and good alternatives (like walking, biking or transit). People switching to remote work tend to move out of dense locations, increasing the distance they need to drive for non-work activities and to the time they do drive for work.

lettergram 4y ago

> With ironically energy shortages as the water cooling for nuclear power plants is failing. lol what? No, energy shortages are occurring because of government rationing of fossil fuels. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/europe-to-ask-countries-to-reduce-energy-usage-as-putin-tightens-grip-on-gas.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/20/europe-to-ask-countries-to-r... I can debate the other points, but the fact remains — 12 years into Germany “going green” and hundreds of billions of dollars and all they can show for it is… drum roll… 10% of their energy consumption and they’re currently rationing energy.

_ph_ 4y ago
We have energy shortage right now, because a lot of nuclear power plants, especially the French, are powered down for lack of heating. This is why Germany has so far produced an extra 20TWh hours of electricity this year, also compensating for the nuclear power plants down for maintenance. There is no shortage of electricity in Germany and energy is not rationed. However, due to the need of filling gas stores till the winter, the government strongly campaigns on saving energy, especially any use of gas. There might be rationing of gas, if Germany fails to refill the gas storage (they are at over 70% right now) and if Russia cuts its delivery entirely. That doesn't mean there is a shortage of electricity.
- the_why_of_y 4y ago
  In case the GP is unaware of the magnitude of the problem, this article says that already in April exactly half (28) of French nuclear plants were offline for maintenance. Likely the situation hasn't improved with the summer heat wave, since the plants all need water cooling. https://news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-frances-nuclear-reactors-taken-offline-adding-to-electricity-demand-on-european-grid-12600662 https://news.sky.com/story/nearly-half-of-frances-nuclear-re...
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    A lot of plants had to be reduced in power output and are running only because of special allowances to heat the river water hotter than normally allowed. Meanwhile rivers like the Rhine and the Loire are at record low levels, in many places you can walk large parts of the river bed leaving only a narrow par where there is water. Shipping on the Rhine might have to be stopped in a week or so. The government is advising against walking in the river beds, as people might step on WW2 ammunition which had not exploded.