4 ms·

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 ener

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

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