ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
90% Positive
Analyzed from 1025 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#heat#energy#pumps#book#https#kwh#since#chemical#wind#efficiency
Discussion (26 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Risking the HN hug of death here, but my own prototype of a car miles model inspired by the David's approach can be found at https://trafred.cardiff.ac.uk/
It is also a product of its time in terms of wind/solar vs nuclear. His forecasts of the impact of solar and wind is based on prices and performance from 2008. Prices have come down an order of magnitude since then, and performance and lifespan have increased drastically.
I imagine the economics (and perhaps technical improvements) of some things may have changed more than the book could forecast. But heat pumps were definitely understood by the author.
> Let me spell this out. Heat pumps are superior in efficiency to condens- ing boilers, even if the heat pumps are powered by electricity from a power station burning natural gas. If you want to heat lots of buildings using natural gas, you could install condensing boilers, which are “90% ef- ficient,” or you could send the same gas to a new gas power station making electricity and install electricity-powered heat pumps in all the buildings; the second solution’s efficiency would be somewhere between 140% and 185%. It’s not necessary to dig big holes in the garden and install underfloor heating to get the benefits of heat pumps; the best air-source heat pumps (which require just a small external box, like an air-conditioner’s) can deliver hot water to normal radiators with a coefficient of performance above 3.
Look at “3 - Cars” on page 29. He says the typical car uses 40 kWh/day. 40 kWh of what? Chemical energy in the gasoline.
The go to page 33 where he looks at how much energy onshore wind could produce per days in the UK. His number is 20 kWh/d. 20 kWh of what? electricity
He then compares those two numbers directly and uses that comparison as the basis of his arguments: “Britain’s onshore wind energy resource may be “huge,” but it’s evi- dently not as huge as our huge consumption.”
This is simply incorrect. A combustion engine converts less than half of the chemical energy in the gasoline into mechanical work that can move the car. The electric model converts >90% of it. So we don’t have to replace 40 kWh/day, we have to replace less than half of that since the electric process is more efficient.
This same issues, the primary energy fallacy, underpins large parts of the book.
(Admittedly, I read it many years ago, my memory may be off, though I strongly doubt it.)
Much less. Your typical gasoline IC vehicle converts maybe 1/4 of the chemical energy into work.
The wind analysis was reasonable for the time, iirc the main error there was that he failed to foresee offshore wind dropping in price so much.
So I think as a conservative estimate, it kinda works.
If I'm understanding the book's structure correctly, the comparison at the end of Part 1 (chapter 18 "Can we live on renewables?") is based on estimating existing demand. Deployment of heat pumps in Britain even today is woefully low, and when the book was written it was no doubt even lower, so of course it wouldn't make sense to include heat pumps as a significant factor when comparing actual demand when the book was written with potential supply.
Chapter 27 "Five energy plans for Britain" discusses large scale ways to make the energy budget "work", and those hypothetical comparisons do include use of heat-pumps. Maybe those numbers are inaccurate and a better hypothetical could be produced today, but I would first put that down to the difficulty of forecasting the future.
It's been a long time since I read the book fully though. Did I miss something?
$10/W to 0.30/W is closer to 2 orders of magnitude than 1.
The underlying fundamentals did not change since 2008. If Solar was good/viable back then, it can only get better if it got cheaper over time.
Same goes for the nuclear debate. Nuclear was losing back then, and now it has finally lost absolutely.
https://itila.blogspot.com/2015/09/what-do-you-tell-children...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34618613 ("Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (2003) (inference.org.uk)")
Note the .com->.org: its a version of the book whose numbers are maintained here <https://github.com/life-itself/without-hot-air/commits/main/>.