undefined

points

[-]

This is true but also distorting because it's not an Apples-to-Apples comparison. Electricity is not only much more flexible it's also much more efficient when it's an option.

The internal combustion engine is not a very efficient way to convert fuel into movement, its key benefit was that it is compact enough to put inside the vehicle itself. A steam train was more efficient, and steam boats were more efficient still, but those are both enormous so it was seen as a more reasonable option for these vehicles. So an EV transition actually doesn't mean that much more electrical generation compared to much less fossil fuel production.

by jl63 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

All true, but also remember that in a zero-fossil world the supply chain for solar/wind also needs to be decarbonized, which involves things like making green steel, which is not such a favorable efficiency story (the way to overcome it is simply to generate massive amounts of electricity cheap enough that you can eat the inefficiency).

by tialaramex3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I expect that a zero-fossil world does a lot more steel recycling. Today steel is insanely cheap. Not so very long ago steel was this wonder metal, too expensive to mass produce, and today the pennies most people don't want as change when buying things here have steel inside because no other metal would be cheap enough given the value of the coins. They're jacketed because people expect them to look like tarnished copper (they were once bronze coins), but copper is expensive compared to steel now so it's just a jacket around a steel core.

If steel went back to say, twice the price of bronze, I think recycling makes a lot more sense and that means far less need for new steel production.

by jl63 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Steel is cheap for two reasons: unaccounted externalities of the use of coal in the process, and massive scale. Coal-free steel is possible, but we don’t currently do it at scale, so there is work to do.

Recycling will make sense if steel becomes much more expensive, but a future with really expensive steel is not what we should be aiming for.

by tialaramex1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The externalities for burning coal to make steel aren't acceptable though, we would need the mythical high performance carbon capture solutions and those aren't materialising, everybody who promised more efficient solar did what they promised, bigger wind turbines, as promised, more compact storage, as promised - but the carbon capture is MIA.

by zahlman3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

...Do we really need steel just to mount solar panels?

by jl63 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

We need steel for a million and one things that make modernity possible, but in the context of renewable energy, we particularly need it to build the towers that the largest and most efficient wind turbines sit on.

by Tade04 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

That is true, but a lot of that, if replaced by electricity, would use considerably less energy overall, so it's not a 1:1 comparison.

Residential heating in particular would use anywhere between a third to half the energy, if we only transitioned to heat pumps.

by nielsole4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Important to consider that your stat is likely comparing primary energy, not secondary energy. E.g. an electric car or a heat pump use less primary energy than the fossil equivalent.

by toomuchtodo4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Global solar PV deployment is approaching 1TW/year. All energy will be clean energy in the next 1-2 decades. Vehicles will electrify, as will heating. Roughly half of marine traffic disappears if you're not shipping fossil fuels around.

The exponential growth of solar power will change the world - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/20/the-exponential... | https://archive.today/lp9pZ - June 20th, 2024

https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-export-data/

by macintux1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> All energy will be clean energy in the next 1-2 decades.

You're disregarding the culture wars for which science, and even economics, seem to offer no respite.

by toomuchtodo1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Culture wars are irrelevant, the economics will drive this regardless of feelings. A trillion dollars per year are flowing into the sector.

Green Debt Sales Hit Record Levels Despite Climate Backlash - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-25/green-deb... | https://archive.today/BrLlK - December 25th, 2025

> Investors have piled into climate-friendly assets this year despite policy and regulatory rollbacks in the US and Europe, as artificial intelligence drives a boom in energy infrastructure demand. Global green bond and loan issuance has reached a record $947 billion so far this year, with Asia-Pacific companies and government-linked issuers raising $261 billion from green debt. Green investments are increasingly becoming viewed as core infrastructure and industrial plays, with clearer policy signals and an expected increase in global electricity demand lifting investor optimism. Global green bond and loan issuance has reached a record $947 billion so far this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence. That’s as stock market gauges for renewables are set for their first annual gains since 2020, outperforming the S&P 500 by a wide margin, while shares of power-grid technology companies remain in favor.

There’s a $10 Trillion Antidote to Trump’s Climate Backlash - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-climate-tech-investm... | https://archive.today/m0xg1 - November 4th, 2025

> Annual energy transition investment surpassed $2 trillion for the first time in 2024, more than double the rate in 2020, according to research by BloombergNEF examining the deployment of net zero-aligned technologies and infrastructure.

by macintux1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

And yet, people in my home state are passionate about coal, as is the current clown-in-chief.

I do not believe that economics will win in 10-20 years if the U.S. government continues its current path, at least not to the "100% clean energy" level.

by toomuchtodo1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

No new coal plants will be built in the US, it is only how long the existing ones will run for. The longer they run, the more expensive it costs to maintain them, continually tilting the economics against them. As more coal generators go offline, coal demand declines, and as that happens, mines will go offline as the demand drops below thresholds that will support the economics of continued operations. This is a form of "death spiral."

"This too shall pass." Existing coal will retire eventually. Let them be passionate if they wish, as comfort, but the outcome will not change. This administration has an expiration date.

https://www.sierraclub.org/coal/coal-plant-map

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67427

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/591b44aa8dd144719e059...

https://www.wsaz.com/2026/02/13/7-mines-idle-resulting-loss-...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-trump-has-overseen-more...

> In response, the Trump administration has recently invoked legislation designed for wartime emergencies to force a number of uneconomic coal plants to remain open.

> Despite Trump’s efforts, clean energy made up 96% of the new electricity generation capacity added to the US grid in 2025. None of the new capacity came from coal power.

by Wacari4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

no. if you work in the industry you'll know power/electricity are used interchangeably, and energy is treated as the superset. in the physics sense, you're right.

by ZeroGravitas4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

And roughly 2/3rds of that is lost as waste heat, so really only another 25% is actually useful.

by marcosdumay3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If you don't look at electricity generation, yes. If you look at grid generators, that fraction can get as low as 1/3. (But then, it can get higher than 3/4 on transportation.)

So it really depends on who is counting and how. I do think transportation and heating use more energy than the grid, but I was never able to get a definitive number. (My best guess is it's close to 2 times larger.)

Also, electricity to transportation conversion is usually only around 80% efficient. Making electricity portable has a cost.