4 ms·

“and zero-carbon power in Britain’s electricity mix has grown from less than 20% in 2010 to nearly 50% in 2021.” This is the key issue, our grid is shit per a

“and zero-carbon power in Britain’s electricity mix has grown from less than 20% in 2010 to nearly 50% in 2021.” This is the key issue, our grid is shit per another link [1] from the same source I originally posted with significantly more detail it actually states “petroleum, natural gas, and coal—accounted for about 81% of total U.S. primary energy production in 2022.” Which is significantly higher than what I had originally commented. This has renewables dropped to 13% and nuclear to 8% To be fair some key states have transitioned better. California is ahead of the game, has a significant population, and significant traffic. So it’s not as clear cut as “the grid of the country sucks” But I would argue a solid public transit system, which the majority of the us does not have, would have a far greater impact. Of course, this alongside the transition to electric personal vehicles for those who still require them would be the best of both worlds [1]https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
"Primary energy" is bullshit, we care about "final energy". You're basically giving fossil fuels extra credit for being about 4x less efficient. Hers some numbers that made that explicit: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/uk-ev-electricity-demand https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/uk-ev-electricity-... > If we were to electrify transport, we’d need much less energy overall. > When we look at the amount of energy that countries currently use, it can seem like an overwhelming challenge to replace all of this with low-carbon sources. > But, we don’t need to produce the equivalent amount of low-carbon energy. Our current energy stack includes the energy that we actually need, but it also includes all of the wasted energy in converting fossil fuels to something useful. When we switch to electric cars or low-carbon electricity, a lot of that disappears. > We can demonstrate that with transport.
- hellotheretoday 3y ago
  The line after the next paragraph: “Now, this only applies to electricity from solar and wind. If we were to produce this electricity from coal or gas, our energy inputs would be much higher. That’s because a lot of energy would be wasted as heat in the power plant” Therein lies the problem though? Per my second link 80% of the USA grid is coal or gas. How do you get around that massive number? How do you get around the political gridlock on updating our crumbling infrastructure? It’s inefficient and as a result wastes a ton of potential power as heat while also creating a ton of pollution. To be clear I am with you. It’s abhorrent that this much of our energy infrastructure is still gas and coal in 2022+. But it’s the reality of the situation
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    You're confusing "energy" and "electricity", as well as "primary vs final", both of which make things seem worse now and less likely to change in future. I thought the article I linked explained it well, but to summarize quickly: Moving heating and transport to electric reduces our energy needs dramatically, about a 4x difference. So if your energy is 80% fossil then you only need to double the 20% low carbon sources to account for 100% of your needs (while at the same time saving 100,000 lives and 1Trillion dollars in lung related health costs amongst other benefits) The new electric generation we need to build will be the cheapest currently available, which is renewables. In the US the new energy generation is already above 90% carbon free, and even the new gas built is designed to be run intermittently. America is at 60% fossil on its grid, which is 40% gas and 20% coal. This isn't great (it's ironic how often people here complain about the dirty Chinese grid when it would be the middle of the pack if it was a US State) but luckily the states with most of the people and energy use are moving quickly and the pace is increasing.
    - hellotheretoday 3y ago
      Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

"Primary energy" is bullshit, we care about "final energy". You're basically giving fossil fuels extra credit for being about 4x less efficient. Hers some numbers that made that explicit: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/uk-ev-electricity-demand https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/uk-ev-electricity-... > If we were to electrify transport, we’d need much less energy overall. > When we look at the amount of energy that countries currently use, it can seem like an overwhelming challenge to replace all of this with low-carbon sources. > But, we don’t need to produce the equivalent amount of low-carbon energy. Our current energy stack includes the energy that we actually need, but it also includes all of the wasted energy in converting fossil fuels to something useful. When we switch to electric cars or low-carbon electricity, a lot of that disappears. > We can demonstrate that with transport.

hellotheretoday 3y ago
The line after the next paragraph: “Now, this only applies to electricity from solar and wind. If we were to produce this electricity from coal or gas, our energy inputs would be much higher. That’s because a lot of energy would be wasted as heat in the power plant” Therein lies the problem though? Per my second link 80% of the USA grid is coal or gas. How do you get around that massive number? How do you get around the political gridlock on updating our crumbling infrastructure? It’s inefficient and as a result wastes a ton of potential power as heat while also creating a ton of pollution. To be clear I am with you. It’s abhorrent that this much of our energy infrastructure is still gas and coal in 2022+. But it’s the reality of the situation
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  You're confusing "energy" and "electricity", as well as "primary vs final", both of which make things seem worse now and less likely to change in future. I thought the article I linked explained it well, but to summarize quickly: Moving heating and transport to electric reduces our energy needs dramatically, about a 4x difference. So if your energy is 80% fossil then you only need to double the 20% low carbon sources to account for 100% of your needs (while at the same time saving 100,000 lives and 1Trillion dollars in lung related health costs amongst other benefits) The new electric generation we need to build will be the cheapest currently available, which is renewables. In the US the new energy generation is already above 90% carbon free, and even the new gas built is designed to be run intermittently. America is at 60% fossil on its grid, which is 40% gas and 20% coal. This isn't great (it's ironic how often people here complain about the dirty Chinese grid when it would be the middle of the pack if it was a US State) but luckily the states with most of the people and energy use are moving quickly and the pace is increasing.
  - hellotheretoday 3y ago
    Ah I see. Thanks for clarifying