“with wind the single-biggest contributor… Power production costs have declined “by almost half” … And the clean energy sector has created 50,000 new jobs… Ask me what was the impact on the electricity sector in Uruguay after this tragic war in Europe — zero.”

  • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’re right; 2/3 of worldwide energy is actually waste heat.

    image

    https://www.businessinsider.com/most-energy-still-comes-from-oil-2015-10

    Here’s the chart from 2007: Waste heat / losses are in the top right, although it doesn’t show the transport sector losses which are higher than for coal generation.

    image

    What this means is that when we fully electrify all sectors, by using renewable energy such as wind and solar, our total energy generation capacity will only need to be about 1/3 to 1/4 of what we currently produce today to fulfill our current energy needs. That’s huge.

      • thesorehead@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reference to waste heat could include the heat from burning fossil fuels that isn’t turned directly into work. Which is a lot.

        So you’re right, there will still be some waste heat and the reduction in production needs won’t be that drastic. But it’s still a significant chunk of the total!

        • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Converting energy to power will always produce at least one of heat or light (also radiant heat) in the process.

          There is no 100% efficient power.

          But, electric is the closest you could get. Especially compared to any petroleum products

        • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes of course, but a lot of energy is currently also used for heating things in cooking steel, chemical industry, concrete, etc. Those processes need energy as heat and directly produce waste heat. I agree it’s probably still significant. It’s just wrong to reduce energy consumption to “making things move”.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Changing your energy generation from burning something to turning a turbine with wind power, hydropower or geothermal power. Or just using solar, means that you have no waste heat for electrical generation.

        Waste heat is only created when you burn a fuel to boil the water.

        • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you heat things electrically you still generate waste heat. Think electrical stove and its bigger industrial counterparts.

      • Virulent@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No but electric motors and heat pumps are much more efficient so electfication helps reduce waste heat

    • Lancoian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      that’s not quite right and mixes couple things

      you have production losses and transmission losses. then you have waste heat used for household and industrial heating.

      now you would also have to produce that portion electrically.

      For instance in winter heating requirements of a typical house are 2x that of the electricity used.