4 ms·

> Germany's energy production is below 1970s levels and their per capita figures are in a grim state Two thirds of energy from fossil fuels is wasted[1,2]. Ren

> Germany's energy production is below 1970s levels and their per capita figures are in a grim state Two thirds of energy from fossil fuels is wasted[1,2]. Renewables don't have wasted heat. Germany has been going green for a while, energy production does not give us a full picture. From: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-energy-efficiency https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electrification-en... "This is shown in the chart below. It plots global final energy demand today2 compared to a ‘post-transition’ energy system where suitable sectors are electrified, and the rest is fuelled by hydrogen. Electricity demand does increase – from 110 to 189 EJ, but total energy demand drops from 416 to 247 exajoules (EJ)." [1]https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/ https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/ [2] https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/10/energy-loss-is-single-biggest-component-of-todays-electricity-system/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/10/energy-loss-is-si...

jillesvangurp 3y ago
Exactly, Germany's economy has grown quite a bit since the 1970s. It's energy usage is indeed trending down. Which means they are doing more with less energy. Back in the nineteen seventies they had inefficient cars, trucks, electricity generation (mostly coal based), and industry. Now they have a bigger economy and are not using a lot more energy. That's progress. Michael Liebreich [1] refers to this as the primary energy fallacy in his recent articles on why reaching net zero is both hard and easy. He traces back the origins of this fallacy to the nineteen seventies when people started tracking the notion of primary energy during the oil crisis. The issue is that this is based on the gross energy usage, not the net useful output of that energy. Which with fossil fuels is pretty terrible (<30%) and with clean energy typically a lot better (>90%). The other problem is that to this day, people base their policies on reports that still center on primary energy by agencies such as the IEA. It's a fallacy because any policy or plan based on the notion primary energy is off by about 3x in terms of actually needed energy. So, any plan that assumes replacing dirty energy gw fo gw with clean energy is technically bullshit. A good example is petrol which has about 9kwh of energy per liter. A typical car might have about 50 liters of petrol. So, that's about 450 kwh. Or nearly half a mwh. Comparable EVs tend to have more modestly sized batteries of maybe 60-70kwh. Does the petrol car go 7 times further? Not even close. Most of that is transformed into heat and noise rather than movement. Primary energy of nearly half mwh. Useful energy under 100kwh. That's a 5x difference. That's why EVs can be cleaner even if you do charge them using coal powered electricity plants. You simply get more km per kwh. [1] https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-net-zero-will-be-harder-than-you-think-and-easier-part-ii-easier/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-net-zero-will-be-harde...
roenxi 3y ago
I thought that was the strongest point bought up so far, and the orders of magnitude do seem to check out. Although I'd note that Germany's electricity production has also drifted back to the 20th century and prices seem to be ~3x the USs and 5x China's so energy-related pressure still looks like a potential root cause to me.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

Exactly, Germany's economy has grown quite a bit since the 1970s. It's energy usage is indeed trending down. Which means they are doing more with less energy. Back in the nineteen seventies they had inefficient cars, trucks, electricity generation (mostly coal based), and industry. Now they have a bigger economy and are not using a lot more energy. That's progress. Michael Liebreich [1] refers to this as the primary energy fallacy in his recent articles on why reaching net zero is both hard and easy. He traces back the origins of this fallacy to the nineteen seventies when people started tracking the notion of primary energy during the oil crisis. The issue is that this is based on the gross energy usage, not the net useful output of that energy. Which with fossil fuels is pretty terrible (<30%) and with clean energy typically a lot better (>90%). The other problem is that to this day, people base their policies on reports that still center on primary energy by agencies such as the IEA. It's a fallacy because any policy or plan based on the notion primary energy is off by about 3x in terms of actually needed energy. So, any plan that assumes replacing dirty energy gw fo gw with clean energy is technically bullshit. A good example is petrol which has about 9kwh of energy per liter. A typical car might have about 50 liters of petrol. So, that's about 450 kwh. Or nearly half a mwh. Comparable EVs tend to have more modestly sized batteries of maybe 60-70kwh. Does the petrol car go 7 times further? Not even close. Most of that is transformed into heat and noise rather than movement. Primary energy of nearly half mwh. Useful energy under 100kwh. That's a 5x difference. That's why EVs can be cleaner even if you do charge them using coal powered electricity plants. You simply get more km per kwh. [1] https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-net-zero-will-be-harder-than-you-think-and-easier-part-ii-easier/ https://about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich-net-zero-will-be-harde...

roenxi 3y ago

I thought that was the strongest point bought up so far, and the orders of magnitude do seem to check out. Although I'd note that Germany's electricity production has also drifted back to the 20th century and prices seem to be ~3x the USs and 5x China's so energy-related pressure still looks like a potential root cause to me.