This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think that Tesla is being more than a bit optimistic on just how much ramping up can be done and how cheap it would be at scale, but even they list 10% of 2023 GDP (i.e. the output of 1 in every 10 working adults from 2023 devoted to just batteries for an entire year). For comparison, 10% of US working adults, roughly, work in all manufacturing combined.
One item to note about the waste heat figure, is that it is calculated based on the energy contained within the fossil fuel molecules that is ultimately expended as heat instead of being converted to electricity. This is setting the denominator based on fuel pulled from the ground, not as an efficiency metric of how much electricity is lost. The fair comparison for renewables would be the amount of wind/sun/hydro potential energy not converted to electricity after engaging with the PV module, wind turbine, or hydro turbine. I design solar systems as part of my job and even I think that is a dubious way to promote the technology.
That also means there is not a can of efficiency to be opened up once switching to renewables, we still need the same number of watt-hours to power cars, grids, equipment, etc. There are marginal gains to be had in some cases, sure, but if we were to wave a magic wand and eliminate that waste heat from fossil fuels, all that would mean is our fuels would last two to three times longer. Eliminating production based waste heat would not change the throughput of the systems because those are limited by quantity of plants, turbine design, transmission lines, and ultimately end-user needs.
I don't get your point.
Humanity's primary energy consumption is some number. 160 PWh per year. But most (80%+) of that is fossil fuels. Turning fossil fuel into heat is inefficient, so if we electrify everything, we don't actually need to make 160 PWh of electricity per year, less than half is enough (the power plants don't make waste heat and residential/low temperature industrial heating will be done by heat pump at 300% efficiency).
And sure, the sun is going to put much more than 160 PWh onto those solar panels. But the sun shines anyway.
The point is that a battery storage system is not hooked up to the theoretical total energy contained in fossil fuels or nuclear rods or solar irradiance, it is connected to the output of the power plants and solar fields. That output (and corresponding residential/commercial/industrial usage numbers) is what the battery needs to be sized in relation to. Heat pumps may help on the margins with that number but there are no low-hanging fruits to pick up in the world of energy usage and production.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link