[binoct]

Primary energy sources are what they are, both your comment and the linked article seem to imply discussing them should lead to a deserved punch in the face. Can you help me understand why?

As far as I can tell, your link argues that if we overcome all the practical challenges (politics, resources, financing, technical innovation) and go all-electric for global energy, we only need ~1/3 as much input energy potential as we use today for the same useful work. That’s useful, but the hard part lies in those practical challenges. And the primary sources of global human energy use are a long way away from that goal.

So should we strive to get there? Sure. Should we be tactical about how? Yes. And the link seems to argue that as well. But is it reasonable to hit our 2050 goals based on the current global fossil fuel usage? Not really. So I’m really missing how this refutes Smil’s article, and why “primary energy” is such a stupid thing.

[_aavaa_]

The problem with it is that it makes it easy to make bad faith arguments for why we can’t or shouldn’t transition (kinda like is being done here).

Take for example paragraphs like:

> Primary electricity (hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, and a small contribution by geothermal plants) accounted for no more than about 18% of the world’s primary energy consumption, which means that fossil fuels still provided about 82% of the world’s primary energy supply in 2022.

Are used as justification for why green green energy is a scam, it can’t be done, or it’s too expensive, etc., etc. after all 82% of primary energy is still from fossil fuels.

Except we don’t have to replace 82%, since 2/3rds of that is wasted. Of 100 kWh we’re already done 12 kWh and only need to add 27 (NOT 82) more kWh of electricity to replace all the fossil fuel usage. And that’s before talking about any efficiency gains (e.g heat pumps with COP >4).

[binoct]

Ah, seems like I was missing some context where the fossil fuel and anti-renewable folks have been using the term in arguments against trying to change.

I’m not sure of Smil’s politics but to be fair, there’s nothing in that quote that is inherently misleading. I can see through how others could spin it, and I’ll be more careful knowing the term has some politics behind it now. To me his argument in the article is that it’s not practical to expect a transition in a 25-year timescale, not that it’s impossible or not worth working on.

Heat pumps are a good example where the practice has been a lot harder than we might hope. Sure COP > 4 for heating is great, but the units are very expensive today, and in most of the US and Europe with sub-zero winter temps operate with much worse efficiencies, making them significantly more expensive to operate. I’m sure with effort those issues will improve, and major policy shifts can help mitigate some of the costs. But especially without a strong will today those changes are practically too far off for the 2050 target.