Which perfectly proves that 90% of the comments in this thread have no clue about energy and think that running a grid on solar and wind only plus some batteries is a solved problem.
replyYes but primary energy isn't a good metric. There's 40-60% loss when converting fossil fuel to final energy being consumed.
replyA lot of energy is used for heating, heating water is more efficient with fossil fuel than with electricity - because for electricity you have transmission loss.
replyThat used to be the case, but with the efficient heat pumps that have come out in the last few years, that is no longer true. Since you’re using electricity to move heat rather than produce it, it’s two to three times more efficient than burning fossil fuels for heating.
replyThat’s fair, but factoring the energy loss in, it still remains the clearly larger share.
replyDoes it, though? Assuming 80% of energy use is fossil and fossil has a 50% loss, if all that fossil were to transition to ~100% efficient electricity[0] we'd already be at 33% of our renewable electricity needs. That's quite a bit more than the 20% the "80% fossil" seems to suggest!
reply"One-third done" sounds an awful lot like we're going to start seeing optimistic "we'll be halfway there at the end of the decade" headlines soon...
[0]: Things like the grid and car batteries don't operate at 100% but closer to 95%, but things like heat pumps operate at 300% efficiency, so I reckon that'll more-or-less cancel out for back-of-the-napkin math.
Yes we're not done yet, but renewable only started gaining share again around 2010, and how quickly solar/battery is being deployed is really impressive.
replyThat's primary energy, of which about half is wasted as heat. Electrification will bring this down by a lot.
replyNot going to happen in the foreseeable future. Fossil fuels did not change there relative share the past 30 years.
replyAnd big usage of energy is actually heating home so heating water
reply