one, delivering intermittent renewable energy requires storage and transmission. and that leads to inefficiencies and loss so there's actually way more upstream generation capacity than end-use meters show
two, air-source heat pumps perform extremely poorly during extreme temperatures (which is pretty much a guarantee at this point) which drives peak load during critical moments. which means you need to build more massive firm generation reserves (not the most carbon neutral process)
three, energy demand is not fixed and never has been. expanding electricity to billions experiencing global energy poverty combined with the rebound consumption in the Global North (in the same way that adding one more lane to a highway just leads to more drivers) means we'll need much more generation, magnitudes more. it works for this all-things-equal thought experiment but that's not the reality we're living in, unfortunately
electrification is great and necessary but it's not a magic bullet that solves our problems whatsoever. I know the technocrats want you to believe there's a way to innovate and disrupt climate change but this certainly (nor any of the slew of current technocratic pipe dreams) are getting us there
It is not about renewables; even with gas plants producing the electricity in say inefficient way. Heat pumps produce more heat with less energy because they use the heat from the environment. It is the magic of heat pumps that makes it happen and not just any method of transformation of electricity to heat.
Open cycle gas turbines (which normally would be used to balance the grid when there's no sufficient renewable generation capacity available) operate at around 30 - 40% efficiency. At low temperatures heat pumps lose efficiency too. It can turn out worse than burning natural gas directly for heating.
It is not just about production of electricity but its use. It is about efficiency of electricity at consumer level. Heat pumps that use electricity are way more efficient than 100% in producing heat because they use the heat in the air and no boiler or heating element can compete with a heat pump even if it is 98% efficient. So the electrical grid can provide more efficient heating only if people use heat pumps. This is about efficiency of electric grid and not the source of the electric power generation. This obsession against renewables is political and it has nothing to do with electrification and the grid.
the main problem I see is with statements like this:
> Nick Eyre suggests that 100% substitution is non-economic during large demand peaks in winter, so 90% are replaced with heat pumps, and 10% comes from hydrogen.
This is like a typical engineer mistake - solving that last 1% with some unwieldy nonsense that would be best left "unsolved".
hydrogen is a bunch of nonsense. Just use natural gas and/or resistive heat.
I think this is why hybrid cars were created. Because of the range anxiety problem that could be worked around easier ways.
there's some omissions in this analysis:
one, delivering intermittent renewable energy requires storage and transmission. and that leads to inefficiencies and loss so there's actually way more upstream generation capacity than end-use meters show
two, air-source heat pumps perform extremely poorly during extreme temperatures (which is pretty much a guarantee at this point) which drives peak load during critical moments. which means you need to build more massive firm generation reserves (not the most carbon neutral process)
three, energy demand is not fixed and never has been. expanding electricity to billions experiencing global energy poverty combined with the rebound consumption in the Global North (in the same way that adding one more lane to a highway just leads to more drivers) means we'll need much more generation, magnitudes more. it works for this all-things-equal thought experiment but that's not the reality we're living in, unfortunately
electrification is great and necessary but it's not a magic bullet that solves our problems whatsoever. I know the technocrats want you to believe there's a way to innovate and disrupt climate change but this certainly (nor any of the slew of current technocratic pipe dreams) are getting us there
It is not about renewables; even with gas plants producing the electricity in say inefficient way. Heat pumps produce more heat with less energy because they use the heat from the environment. It is the magic of heat pumps that makes it happen and not just any method of transformation of electricity to heat.
Open cycle gas turbines (which normally would be used to balance the grid when there's no sufficient renewable generation capacity available) operate at around 30 - 40% efficiency. At low temperatures heat pumps lose efficiency too. It can turn out worse than burning natural gas directly for heating.
It is not just about production of electricity but its use. It is about efficiency of electricity at consumer level. Heat pumps that use electricity are way more efficient than 100% in producing heat because they use the heat in the air and no boiler or heating element can compete with a heat pump even if it is 98% efficient. So the electrical grid can provide more efficient heating only if people use heat pumps. This is about efficiency of electric grid and not the source of the electric power generation. This obsession against renewables is political and it has nothing to do with electrification and the grid.
the main problem I see is with statements like this:
> Nick Eyre suggests that 100% substitution is non-economic during large demand peaks in winter, so 90% are replaced with heat pumps, and 10% comes from hydrogen.
This is like a typical engineer mistake - solving that last 1% with some unwieldy nonsense that would be best left "unsolved".
hydrogen is a bunch of nonsense. Just use natural gas and/or resistive heat.
I think this is why hybrid cars were created. Because of the range anxiety problem that could be worked around easier ways.
2023