The books is good(ish) for it's time, but some of its analysis and forecasts are fundamentally flawed since it falls for the primary energy fallacy by comparing the chemical potential energy (in J) directly to electrical energy (also in J). The two are fundamentally different things and called be compared 1:1. E.g. To heat up your home with natural gas you need ~1J of chemical energy to get 1J of heat into the home, but with a electric heat pump you only need 1/6 J to get 1J of heat.
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.
Heat pumps, and their efficiency (getting more than X Joules of heating for X Joules of electricity) are discussed in chapter 21 Smarter Heating, see for example the diagram and discussion on page 150: <a href="https://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_150.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_150.shtml
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.
I’m not saying he was unaware of heat pumps, I’m saying he’s comparing apples to oranges simply because they use the same units.
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.
Thermal energy and electrical energy really are the same thing, not two different quantities that happen to be measured in the same units, like grams of lead and grams of gold, or your example of US dollars and Jamaican dollars. When you convert less than half of the chemical energy in the gasoline into mechanical work to move the car, the other 50+% of the energy is converted into heat. Carnot gives us a reversible conversion factor between them, but it depends on the combustion temperature rather than being some kind of constant, as in your Jamaican-dollar example.
Technically you can interconvert grams of lead and grams of gold one to one, too, but interconverting electrical and thermal energy is so easy that it happens all the time unintentionally.
MacKay does in fact cover the Carnot factor you're talking about; his Chapter 21 <a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_140.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_140.shtml begins:
> In the last chapter, we learned that electrification could shrink transport’s
energy consumption to one fifth of its current levels; and that public trans-
port and cycling can be about 40 times more energy-efficient than car-
driving. How about heating? What sort of energy-savings can technology
or lifestyle-change offer?
And then he goes into not just household heat pumps, and their achievable coefficients of performance, but also municipal combined heat and power, which take that ≈50% of the chemical energy "lost" from thermal power plants as waste heat and pumps it into your house.
So, far from being ignorant of the issue as you seem to be implying, he presents a more complete picture of the issues than you are presenting.
Specifically for household climate control, I suspect that both heat pumps and CHP are much less relevant now that we have cheap solar. You can think of a heat pump as a way to reduce the amount of solar-panel area that you need to heat your house. The trouble is that solar panels cost €0.13 per peak watt, while heat pumps cost closer to €1 per peak watt, so it may be cheaper to "waste" energy on heating your house resistively with a nichrome wire than to use a carefully engineered heat pump.
For the purposes of energy use, they are not. Heat is fundamentally worth less than the equivilent amount of electrical energy, due to these efficiency losses (which are not just a technology problem). It's misleading to compare them at any point in your analysis unless to highlight the problem with the comparison.
Usually it's fundamentally worth less, but not a specific amount less, the way Jamaican dollars and lead are. And, if you're using resistive heating, they're worth exactly the same amount.
You can convert electricty to heat at 1:1 in the absolute worst case. The opposite is not possible even in the absolute best case, and in practice you are looking at about a 60% exchange rate for 'high-grade' heat.
That "absolute worst case" happens in my house most of the winter, and it's common throughout the rich world. The only place it isn't common is where people don't have electricity yet. Even in Brazil, where nobody needs a space heater, electric water heaters are common.
When that absolute worst case is happening in the house's living space, we can and do "convert" heat to electrical energy savings 1:1, because every joule "wasted" by cooking food with gas, or heating the house with a corn stove, or warming up the floor with sunlight for passive solar gain, is another joule earlier that the space heater's thermostat will turn it off.
Sure, you're using the themodynamically worst heating technology possible (I don't think I have ever lived in a house that used resistive electric heating). That still doesn't make it a useful comparison overall where people often pick better options, nor does it make it so that you're actually converting the other way when you use better options.
As I explained 5 comments up this thread, people are going to stop picking those "better" options because they're no longer economical. I think you just didn't notice that part of my argument, because you never responded to it.
Also, I don't think it's accurate to describe electrical resistance heating as "the thermodynamically worst heating technology possible". Electrical resistance heating is generally close to 100% efficient. It's actually thermodynamically possible to make heaters that are less than 100% efficient; MacKay explains, for example, that he heats his house with a 90%-efficient condensing boiler, and it's common for fireplaces to be around 20% efficient, because most of the heat goes up the chimney instead of heating your house.
Fireplaces are actually thermodynamically possible machines. I understand that you've never seen one, but I assure you that they do exist.
I've actually lived in houses where the fireplace had negative efficiency at times, sucking more heat out of the house (in the form of warm air) than they added back in the form of radiation.
That only makes sense in a situation where renewables have already more than taken over, which kind of makes the point moot. I'll concede your point that traditional fireplaces are even worse than resistive heating, though not that a gas condensing boiler is because you're not getting 90% of the energy in the gas out as electricity.
_aavaa_ · · focus · HN ↗
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.
azornathogron · · focus · HN ↗
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.
_aavaa_ · · focus · HN ↗
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.
kragen · · focus · HN ↗
Technically you can interconvert grams of lead and grams of gold one to one, too, but interconverting electrical and thermal energy is so easy that it happens all the time unintentionally.
MacKay does in fact cover the Carnot factor you're talking about; his Chapter 21 <a href="http://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_140.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.withouthotair.com/c21/page_140.shtml begins:
> In the last chapter, we learned that electrification could shrink transport’s energy consumption to one fifth of its current levels; and that public trans- port and cycling can be about 40 times more energy-efficient than car- driving. How about heating? What sort of energy-savings can technology or lifestyle-change offer?
And then he goes into not just household heat pumps, and their achievable coefficients of performance, but also municipal combined heat and power, which take that ≈50% of the chemical energy "lost" from thermal power plants as waste heat and pumps it into your house.
So, far from being ignorant of the issue as you seem to be implying, he presents a more complete picture of the issues than you are presenting.
Specifically for household climate control, I suspect that both heat pumps and CHP are much less relevant now that we have cheap solar. You can think of a heat pump as a way to reduce the amount of solar-panel area that you need to heat your house. The trouble is that solar panels cost €0.13 per peak watt, while heat pumps cost closer to €1 per peak watt, so it may be cheaper to "waste" energy on heating your house resistively with a nichrome wire than to use a carefully engineered heat pump.
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗
kragen · · focus · HN ↗
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗
kragen · · focus · HN ↗
When that absolute worst case is happening in the house's living space, we can and do "convert" heat to electrical energy savings 1:1, because every joule "wasted" by cooking food with gas, or heating the house with a corn stove, or warming up the floor with sunlight for passive solar gain, is another joule earlier that the space heater's thermostat will turn it off.
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗
kragen · · focus · HN ↗
Also, I don't think it's accurate to describe electrical resistance heating as "the thermodynamically worst heating technology possible". Electrical resistance heating is generally close to 100% efficient. It's actually thermodynamically possible to make heaters that are less than 100% efficient; MacKay explains, for example, that he heats his house with a 90%-efficient condensing boiler, and it's common for fireplaces to be around 20% efficient, because most of the heat goes up the chimney instead of heating your house.
Fireplaces are actually thermodynamically possible machines. I understand that you've never seen one, but I assure you that they do exist.
I've actually lived in houses where the fireplace had negative efficiency at times, sucking more heat out of the house (in the form of warm air) than they added back in the form of radiation.
rcxdude · · focus · HN ↗