Electrification Could Cut Global Energy Use in Half
70 points by toomuchtodo 11 hours ago | 17 comments

bschwindHN 4 hours ago
I only now got around to watching the Technology Connections video on renewable energy, I wish I had seen it sooner. Almost feels like it should be required viewing. I definitely thought there were nastier chemicals/compounds in solar panels and hadn't updated my knowledge on them in decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

reply
mikeweiss 2 hours ago
I decarbonized my 125 year old home this summer. Cold winters here, using mini split heat pumps now for heat. Previously had oil, and 90 years ago it would have used coal. Love thinking this will be the first winter this house ever had where dirty exhaust wont be going up the chimney to keep it warm.
reply
adrianN 17 minutes ago
Did you have to improve insulation or do the heat pumps provide enough power?
reply
darth_avocado 2 hours ago
I swapped my hvac for an electric heat pump. My energy usage went down. Because electricity is way too expensive and I’m okay sweating a bit in the summers and wearing jackets indoors in the winters.
reply
abstractspoon 6 hours ago
Unlikely. We'd just use the leftover energy for new things.
reply
3eb7988a1663 4 hours ago
That's not quite what this is about. It is the Primary Energy Fallacy, that if you are to replace eg coal, you need to replicate its original energy content.

If 1kg of coal represents 1000 Wh, your generator loses 1/2 to waste heat, you only generate 500 Wh of usable electricity. Some analyses will state that renewable power has to replace the 1000 Wh of embedded energy within the coal, when it only needs to output 500 Wh.

If you use solar panels and generate 500 Wh directly, you have cut your energy use in half, even though the output has remained the same. An EV has a battery of ~80 kWh, equal to 2-3 gallons of gas, yet it can go a few hundred miles, a 3-4x ratio of efficiency, compared to an ICE.

reply
bitmasher9 2 hours ago
I think your EV example is a better example than your coal one.

I’ve never seen anyone measure coal power by the amount of chemical energy stored inside, unless they are specifically referring to using it as a heating source. For electricity generated by coal it’s always measured as output.

reply
DangitBobby 5 hours ago
Why? I didn't start using more energy elsewhere when I switched to an EV or electric lawn maintenance tools. You think companies and people are using exactly as much power as available (or they can afford)?
reply
silentkat 4 hours ago
It's a well-known "paradox" known as Jevons Paradox. Given enough efficient use of a resource, overall usage could actually far outpace the efficiency gains. E.g. use of coal got efficient enough that travel via trains using it became possible, which led to way more usage of coal.
reply
CyanLite2 15 minutes ago
Can confirm Jevons Paradox. But in a more environmentally friendly way.

Just took my house onto off-grid solar, yet my energy consumption now exceeds when I was on utility grid power.

Naturally we ration things when they're expensive. But now I don't feel the need to turn off the lights or appliances when I leave my home, and my EV driving has gone up knowing that "fuel" is essentially free from here on out. And to soak up excess solar, I run multiple computers and servers 24/7 with reckless abandon.

reply
paulryanrogers 2 hours ago
How far does it scale? Because I imagine there must be diminishing returns at some point. And even so, having a lot more renewable energy also means less cancer.
reply
bruce511 59 minutes ago
It kinda depends on where the energy is coming from.

I was brought up to "save energy ". Lights switched off when not in thevroom, that sort of thing.

Now I gave solar on the roof. There's an excess production capability, so now, during most days it doesn't matter if stuff is on or off. That especially applies to AC which I'll happily turn on on hot summer days. In effect I use more "because it's there to be used".

My EV is coming soon and given I can charge it on solar I plan to do a lot more day-trips-out over weekends etc.

So you're right, availability and affordability- but electrifying is great (for me) for both those things.

reply
mullingitover 4 hours ago
It doesn't say it would cut energy costs in half.

Meanwhile, fossil fuels are only 'cheap' because the users are pushing the negative externalities off on everyone else in the world. Priced properly they'd be even more costly than they already are.

reply
Lerc 2 hours ago
World energy production is increasing with solar coming to the forefront.

It is something overlooked by various reports of "In X amount of time, Y is projected to consume Z% of electricity" that the average increase in world electricity production is about 3% per year.

reply
tianji-astrolog 2 hours ago
The 'half' figure is mostly primary vs final energy accounting. A heat pump delivers 3-4 kWh of heat per kWh of electricity (COP 300-400%), and an EV turns ~80-90% of stored energy into motion vs ~25-35% for an ICE drivetrain. So electrifying heat and transport shrinks final energy demand even before counting upstream losses (refining, thermal generation - roughly 60% rejected energy in most Sankey diagrams of the current system).

The comment below about electricity prices is the real friction point though. Where time-of-use rates exist, running a heat pump with thermal pre-heating during cheap midday solar hours changes the math entirely - the building itself becomes the battery. I got into tracking my own load against TOU windows and ended up building a small tool for it (energy-iq.app); shifting ~40% of consumption off-peak ended up worth more than any single efficiency upgrade. Electrification halves the energy; rate-aware scheduling is what makes it halve the bill.

reply
testing22321 4 minutes ago
We got rid of our gas furnace and got a heat pump. We also got 7.3kw of solar on the roof. Our entire energy bill for a year for everything is $500.

In Canada I’m a deep valley where it snows a ton.

reply