The co-presidents of COP 31 have announced a target of 35% electrification as a percentage of Final Energy. Electrification is the right target, but percentage of Final Energy is the wrong metric.
Thanks Michael. So, if you set yourself, or your country, a goal of increasing electricity as a percentage of Final or even Useful Energy, it becones rational to mandate the least efficient heat pumps and EV's. Quirky detail of the cleantech revolution indeed :)
I came across this "final energy" thing a couple of years ago, and I believe, that's just a matter of energy system illiteracy on the most part. Ppl just do not understand that "final energy" is anything but final. A good example of why exact, correct wording is more than a hobbyhorse for pedants.
In the end, what we want, is emissions going down a.f.a.p. With averaged sea surface and El-Niño index region temperatures at record absolute height, another record of global temperature is pretty probable, only two years after the last one. See e.g. https://klimaundenergie.substack.com/p/ein-freundlicher-doomer (use browser translator in case).
Electrification is only a means to this end, a step stone. The two EU ETSs are - for us - the measure of all things. (That's why I am worried the right and extreme right will succeed to water them down. But that's a bit OT here.)
Great that you have demystified the fraction involved in useful energy and final energy. Maybe in another article you can also bring in explanations around Primary and Final/Useful energy. In developing countries we lose a lot of energy in the conversion process (sub critical TPPs), whereas in RE as the solar energy falling on the panels is for free, we don’t take the loss in conversion as energy supplied. This explains why coal and fossil dependent nations end up reporting high primary energy consumption which comes down drastically when they shift to RE. Therefore some metric needs to be developed to measure their efficiencies at the Useful energy end so that while their energy transition is under way they can also monitor the penetration of EVs and overall electrification processes.
However, in my view this is way to complicated for "normal" folks. The more energy categories you have, the more confused they get. Amplified by the intentional misuse by politicians.
I’ll be happy as long as we agree on the general direction we want to take.
Being correct defining the goal is less important than being on the correct path.
I loved the post. I have been ranting myself about how people are confused about the importance of energy efficiency in the transition - electrification and renewable energy drive the numbers everyone sees, but people then take these numbers as a mandate to push very hard on building insulation and avoiding air conditioning, or even trips in EVs.
I am going to go ahead and disagree with the tong in cheek, half serious call for useful energy. The right approach, I think, is sectoral targets. Understandable and operational enough. I don't think my hairdresser needs to know what useful energy is. But they definitely should know what EVs and heat pumps are.
Good points. But why not just count the Co2 emissions? The most efficient tCO2/MWh is the most attractive - and start by the bottom of the electrification staircase?
Focusing on CO2 emissions is like getting an exam result without getting the marked paper back. So you got a C. But you don't know*why* you got a C, or what to do to get a B next time round or an A in your final exams.
I fully agree with the focus to accelerate electrification, as has been well argued by Embers and your fantastic graphics.
But each country has a different exam to pass. Given the cost and availability of renewable energy, and the cost of their domains to electrify. A multi-dimensional spreadsheet is needed to show both technical feasability, cost and political opportunity - and this would translate into national choice of policy.
Yes and no. The laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics are the same everywhere, as are the laws of microeconomics. Of course Singapore is not Texas, so there will be different solutions, but there will also be many shared solutions - after all, they ended up using the same vehicles and air conditioning technologies in both.
Thanks Michael. So, if you set yourself, or your country, a goal of increasing electricity as a percentage of Final or even Useful Energy, it becones rational to mandate the least efficient heat pumps and EV's. Quirky detail of the cleantech revolution indeed :)
Heat pumps? Resistive heating for the win!
I came across this "final energy" thing a couple of years ago, and I believe, that's just a matter of energy system illiteracy on the most part. Ppl just do not understand that "final energy" is anything but final. A good example of why exact, correct wording is more than a hobbyhorse for pedants.
In the end, what we want, is emissions going down a.f.a.p. With averaged sea surface and El-Niño index region temperatures at record absolute height, another record of global temperature is pretty probable, only two years after the last one. See e.g. https://klimaundenergie.substack.com/p/ein-freundlicher-doomer (use browser translator in case).
Electrification is only a means to this end, a step stone. The two EU ETSs are - for us - the measure of all things. (That's why I am worried the right and extreme right will succeed to water them down. But that's a bit OT here.)
Great that you have demystified the fraction involved in useful energy and final energy. Maybe in another article you can also bring in explanations around Primary and Final/Useful energy. In developing countries we lose a lot of energy in the conversion process (sub critical TPPs), whereas in RE as the solar energy falling on the panels is for free, we don’t take the loss in conversion as energy supplied. This explains why coal and fossil dependent nations end up reporting high primary energy consumption which comes down drastically when they shift to RE. Therefore some metric needs to be developed to measure their efficiencies at the Useful energy end so that while their energy transition is under way they can also monitor the penetration of EVs and overall electrification processes.
Great piece. Thanks.
However, in my view this is way to complicated for "normal" folks. The more energy categories you have, the more confused they get. Amplified by the intentional misuse by politicians.
I’ll be happy as long as we agree on the general direction we want to take.
Being correct defining the goal is less important than being on the correct path.
I loved the post. I have been ranting myself about how people are confused about the importance of energy efficiency in the transition - electrification and renewable energy drive the numbers everyone sees, but people then take these numbers as a mandate to push very hard on building insulation and avoiding air conditioning, or even trips in EVs.
I am going to go ahead and disagree with the tong in cheek, half serious call for useful energy. The right approach, I think, is sectoral targets. Understandable and operational enough. I don't think my hairdresser needs to know what useful energy is. But they definitely should know what EVs and heat pumps are.
Thanks! Though I'm deadly serious about Useful Energy.
Good points. But why not just count the Co2 emissions? The most efficient tCO2/MWh is the most attractive - and start by the bottom of the electrification staircase?
Focusing on CO2 emissions is like getting an exam result without getting the marked paper back. So you got a C. But you don't know*why* you got a C, or what to do to get a B next time round or an A in your final exams.
I fully agree with the focus to accelerate electrification, as has been well argued by Embers and your fantastic graphics.
But each country has a different exam to pass. Given the cost and availability of renewable energy, and the cost of their domains to electrify. A multi-dimensional spreadsheet is needed to show both technical feasability, cost and political opportunity - and this would translate into national choice of policy.
Yes and no. The laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics are the same everywhere, as are the laws of microeconomics. Of course Singapore is not Texas, so there will be different solutions, but there will also be many shared solutions - after all, they ended up using the same vehicles and air conditioning technologies in both.
Europe has already an electrification target: EU ETS2. EU ETS2 lowers the CO2 emission cap for the sectors within scope by 5,38%/year.