5 ms·

I want to add that Britain's energy demand has already fallen by one quarter in the last 15 years even without the efficiency gains from large scale electrifica

I want to add that Britain's energy demand has already fallen by one quarter in the last 15 years even without the efficiency gains from large scale electrification, so a 2/3 reduction (which to stress again is not what the paper assumes) is not so outrageous.

nradov 3y ago
Some of that is due to efficiency gains (good). But some is also due to deindustrialization and increased imports of energy intensive products (bad). We have to look at full lifecycle global CO2 emissions in order to perform a valid analysis of any changes.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Depends what you care about. MacKay's claim was specifically that the UK couldn't be powered this way (which appears to be falsified); if the manufacturing all ends up in China, which has the Gobi desert and is closer to the equator, and has the Three Gorges Dam and the will to build it, I don't even have to run the numbers to know they can be completely green.
  - nradov 3y ago
    China isn't even remotely "green". Most of the official statistics coming out of there are highly manipulated. In particular they haven't built even a fraction of the storage capacity that would be needed to keep their factories running when the sun isn't shining, nor are they likely to do so in the next few decades.
    - nl 3y ago
      China is building multiple 1000km+ HVAC transmission lines which gives climatic diversity (and power source diversity: wind, solar and three gorges). That removes the need for storage (and is what every other country should be doing as well).
    - ben_w 3y ago
      "is/is not" != "can/cannot be". MacKay's work (and the update under discussion) about the UK, and also my claim about China, is about the latter.
      - nradov 3y ago
        Lots of things could happen in the sense that they don't violate the laws of physics. But your claim about China isn't grounded in any sort of economic or political reality. The demographic issues alone make a total green energy transformation impossible.
        ben_w 3y ago
        Why on earth would demographics make the slightest difference in either direction?
        nradov 3y ago
        Because that level of industrial transformation requires huge labor and capital resources that China simply doesn't have. The CCP cadres have been reporting exaggerated numbers up the chain for years in order to keep their jobs so any metrics coming out of the central government are basically junk. https://youtu.be/kBMSZ7v3KxQ?si=ZxlQlOHc6r6tj7n7 https://youtu.be/kBMSZ7v3KxQ?si=ZxlQlOHc6r6tj7n7
        ben_w 3y ago
        We know they've got the capacity for the required level of transformation just by looking at the things they export to us, along with satellite pictures[0] of their growing power sources (and indeed all other infrastructure) of all types. [0] Well, remote sensing in general. You can argue if a map at specific spectral lines to detect industrial byproducts is a picture or a graph.
- leoedin 3y ago
  This is the crux of it. Yes, we've reduced demand from electrical appliances, an made more efficient cars. But we've also closed all of our steel mills, aluminium smelters and other heavy industry. We still use those products, but the energy intensive processes are done elsewhere. The UK "industrial" energy consumption today is 30% of what it was in 1970. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62334e14d3bf7f047bfa92b0/Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK_2021.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62334e14d3bf7...
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    In the future post-fossil fuel, solar powered age, that was going to happen anyway. This is a long term problem Europe faces: with solar projected to dominate world energy supply (if historical experience rates continue), Europe will be an energy ghetto. Energy intensive industry will move elsewhere. Going nuclear cannot save them, since their nuclear will be competing against world best case solar in sunnier places.

nradov 3y ago

Some of that is due to efficiency gains (good). But some is also due to deindustrialization and increased imports of energy intensive products (bad). We have to look at full lifecycle global CO2 emissions in order to perform a valid analysis of any changes.

ben_w 3y ago
Depends what you care about. MacKay's claim was specifically that the UK couldn't be powered this way (which appears to be falsified); if the manufacturing all ends up in China, which has the Gobi desert and is closer to the equator, and has the Three Gorges Dam and the will to build it, I don't even have to run the numbers to know they can be completely green.
- nradov 3y ago
  China isn't even remotely "green". Most of the official statistics coming out of there are highly manipulated. In particular they haven't built even a fraction of the storage capacity that would be needed to keep their factories running when the sun isn't shining, nor are they likely to do so in the next few decades.
  - nl 3y ago
    China is building multiple 1000km+ HVAC transmission lines which gives climatic diversity (and power source diversity: wind, solar and three gorges). That removes the need for storage (and is what every other country should be doing as well).
  - ben_w 3y ago
    "is/is not" != "can/cannot be". MacKay's work (and the update under discussion) about the UK, and also my claim about China, is about the latter.
    - nradov 3y ago
      Lots of things could happen in the sense that they don't violate the laws of physics. But your claim about China isn't grounded in any sort of economic or political reality. The demographic issues alone make a total green energy transformation impossible.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Why on earth would demographics make the slightest difference in either direction?
        nradov 3y ago
        Because that level of industrial transformation requires huge labor and capital resources that China simply doesn't have. The CCP cadres have been reporting exaggerated numbers up the chain for years in order to keep their jobs so any metrics coming out of the central government are basically junk. https://youtu.be/kBMSZ7v3KxQ?si=ZxlQlOHc6r6tj7n7 https://youtu.be/kBMSZ7v3KxQ?si=ZxlQlOHc6r6tj7n7
        ben_w 3y ago
        We know they've got the capacity for the required level of transformation just by looking at the things they export to us, along with satellite pictures[0] of their growing power sources (and indeed all other infrastructure) of all types. [0] Well, remote sensing in general. You can argue if a map at specific spectral lines to detect industrial byproducts is a picture or a graph.
leoedin 3y ago
This is the crux of it. Yes, we've reduced demand from electrical appliances, an made more efficient cars. But we've also closed all of our steel mills, aluminium smelters and other heavy industry. We still use those products, but the energy intensive processes are done elsewhere. The UK "industrial" energy consumption today is 30% of what it was in 1970. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62334e14d3bf7f047bfa92b0/Energy_Consumption_in_the_UK_2021.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62334e14d3bf7...
- pfdietz 3y ago
  In the future post-fossil fuel, solar powered age, that was going to happen anyway. This is a long term problem Europe faces: with solar projected to dominate world energy supply (if historical experience rates continue), Europe will be an energy ghetto. Energy intensive industry will move elsewhere. Going nuclear cannot save them, since their nuclear will be competing against world best case solar in sunnier places.