Our energy system is stuck in the past
September 13, 2024 1:01 AM Subscribe
Fire has been our primary source of energy for over a million years, providing the essential heat needed to survive. This reliance on fire made sense when our principal energy needs were purely for heat. However, today’s energy demands have evolved far beyond this primal necessity. Unlike in past millennia, we now require more work than heat: we desire mobility, motors, electrical appliances, and data processing in greater quantities than we do warmth. Despite this transformation over the past century from heat demand to work demand, our fundamental energy supply methods have not changed much, and are still mostly heat generation. This has led to incredible inefficiency.... We need energy sources fit for an era of work demand, not heat demand. Fortunately, thanks to the rapid growth and cost decline of solar, wind, and electrification, “firepower” faces inexorable decline. from Energy after Fire [Rocky Mountain Institute]
Something I didn't think about too deeply until somewhat recently is how antiquated even the generation of electricity is, when you break it down. We're destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels in power plants to...heat up water to create steam to spin a big turbine to churn out electrons. You don't like windmills? Well, I'm sorry to inform you that your fuel of choice is just a cog in a fancy Rube Goldberg windmill.
posted by petiteviolette at 7:53 AM on September 13
posted by petiteviolette at 7:53 AM on September 13
Something I didn't think about too deeply until somewhat recently is how antiquated even the generation of electricity is, when you break it down. We're destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels in power plants to...heat up water to create steam to spin a big turbine to churn out electrons. You don't like windmills? Well, I'm sorry to inform you that your fuel of choice is just a cog in a fancy Rube Goldberg windmill.
Everything is spinning turbines, either from gravity or steam. There's basically nothing else - except solar. Dams are spinning turbines. Geothermal power? Harness the natural heat of the earth to boil water to spin some turbines. Nuclear power? Incredibly complex carefully managed science unthinkable through most of human history - to boil some water to spin some turbines. Fusion power? Even if it becomes viable, it's just another way to heat water to spin turbines. Solar really does stand out as the only real exception. (That's not a judgement, it's just an observation. Nothing wrong with spinning turbines!)
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:47 AM on September 13 [4 favorites]
Everything is spinning turbines, either from gravity or steam. There's basically nothing else - except solar. Dams are spinning turbines. Geothermal power? Harness the natural heat of the earth to boil water to spin some turbines. Nuclear power? Incredibly complex carefully managed science unthinkable through most of human history - to boil some water to spin some turbines. Fusion power? Even if it becomes viable, it's just another way to heat water to spin turbines. Solar really does stand out as the only real exception. (That's not a judgement, it's just an observation. Nothing wrong with spinning turbines!)
posted by Tomorrowful at 8:47 AM on September 13 [4 favorites]
I love RMI's high level view of energy policy, they've been doing important policy work for decades now. This article is a nice framing of the shift.
I'm a little confused about one point though. It's true that burning stuff to heat something to generate electricity is wasteful, the article says "33% efficient". But solar panels aren't 100% efficient either: current consumer panels are only about 30% efficient, the rest of the solar energy is wasted as reflected light or heat. That's nowhere near as bad as the waste from burning stuff, there's no emissions or carbon harm. But thermodynamically speaking, isn't it right to say solar is also wasting a lot of its energy input? Maybe this is too much nit-picking, again the more important thing is the cost of what is wasted. With solar the waste is basically cost-free and harmless.
The other part of this shift is the need for storage. Fossil fuels are convenient in that they can be transported and burned when needed. Solar has the problem that while "renewables get straight to work", sometimes we want to store that work for awhile. I'd love to read a similar high level treatment of how storage methods work with renewables. RMI has a lot of articles about battery storage but nothing quite at this level.
posted by Nelson at 9:00 AM on September 13
I'm a little confused about one point though. It's true that burning stuff to heat something to generate electricity is wasteful, the article says "33% efficient". But solar panels aren't 100% efficient either: current consumer panels are only about 30% efficient, the rest of the solar energy is wasted as reflected light or heat. That's nowhere near as bad as the waste from burning stuff, there's no emissions or carbon harm. But thermodynamically speaking, isn't it right to say solar is also wasting a lot of its energy input? Maybe this is too much nit-picking, again the more important thing is the cost of what is wasted. With solar the waste is basically cost-free and harmless.
The other part of this shift is the need for storage. Fossil fuels are convenient in that they can be transported and burned when needed. Solar has the problem that while "renewables get straight to work", sometimes we want to store that work for awhile. I'd love to read a similar high level treatment of how storage methods work with renewables. RMI has a lot of articles about battery storage but nothing quite at this level.
posted by Nelson at 9:00 AM on September 13
Our main source of work through most of history has been ATP.
posted by clew at 9:06 AM on September 13 [5 favorites]
posted by clew at 9:06 AM on September 13 [5 favorites]
the article says "33% efficient"
Last I checked, even coal turbines weren't quite that bad at 37%, and combined-cycle NG is more like 60%. However, if we're comparing their total efficiency against solar, then maybe we should include the photosynthesis that produced them, which is more like 1%.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 10:08 AM on September 13
Last I checked, even coal turbines weren't quite that bad at 37%, and combined-cycle NG is more like 60%. However, if we're comparing their total efficiency against solar, then maybe we should include the photosynthesis that produced them, which is more like 1%.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 10:08 AM on September 13
Electrify everything, yes, but only because solar has become so dramatically cheaper. As Tomorrowful points out, everything else, sustainable or not, is spinning turbines. Once that shaft is turning, generators and motors have long been able to convert between mechanical torque and electrical current with incredible efficiency, well above 90%. There's nothing new about a demand for electrical work that our current system can't satisfy. The inefficiencies are in making the turbine spin and in transporting power from place to place. Solar uniquely solves these problems by eliminating the turbine and by allowing generation to happen nearer consumption, not in a centralized plant.
Now if only electrical energy were easier to store...
posted by drdanger at 11:48 AM on September 13
Now if only electrical energy were easier to store...
posted by drdanger at 11:48 AM on September 13
Fusion power? Even if it becomes viable, it's just another way to heat water to spin turbines.
Helion is using an approach that would produce electricity rather than by using turbines:
"Our system is built to directly recover electricity. Just like regenerative braking in an electric car, our system is built to recover all unused and new electromagnetic energy efficiently. Other fusion systems heat water to create steam to turn a turbine which loses a lot of energy in the process."
Whether it will work or not remains to be seen, although they have built prototypes and expect commercial output by 2028: "Helion is expected to start producing electricity by 2028 from its first commercial power plant which will provide electricity to Microsoft. The plant will produce at least 50 MWe after an initial ramp-up period." That's equivalent to about 5 of the largest commercially deployed wind turbines, so it would definitely still be a pilot program. Interestingly, that's also about the same output as the first commercial fission power plant.
Helion had received about $570 million in investment as of about a year ago, mainly from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Microsoft and OpenAI have a major incentive to develop continuous, emissions-free power sources, given the power needs of large data centers. All that to say that I'd give them decent odds of pulling it off.
posted by jedicus at 12:00 PM on September 13
Helion is using an approach that would produce electricity rather than by using turbines:
"Our system is built to directly recover electricity. Just like regenerative braking in an electric car, our system is built to recover all unused and new electromagnetic energy efficiently. Other fusion systems heat water to create steam to turn a turbine which loses a lot of energy in the process."
Whether it will work or not remains to be seen, although they have built prototypes and expect commercial output by 2028: "Helion is expected to start producing electricity by 2028 from its first commercial power plant which will provide electricity to Microsoft. The plant will produce at least 50 MWe after an initial ramp-up period." That's equivalent to about 5 of the largest commercially deployed wind turbines, so it would definitely still be a pilot program. Interestingly, that's also about the same output as the first commercial fission power plant.
Helion had received about $570 million in investment as of about a year ago, mainly from OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Microsoft and OpenAI have a major incentive to develop continuous, emissions-free power sources, given the power needs of large data centers. All that to say that I'd give them decent odds of pulling it off.
posted by jedicus at 12:00 PM on September 13
« Older mahna mahna? Memnon (mnemonic) | These low-grade blueberries are being turned into... Newer »
posted by meinvt at 3:57 AM on September 13 [1 favorite]