And why replacing fossil fuels with renewables, heat pumps and EVs isn't as daunting as it might seem.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/primary- ... nWHQ%3D%3D
The Primary Energy Fallacy
The Primary Energy Fallacy
Tesla Model 3 Performance
Oversees an 11kWp solar array at work
Oversees an 11kWp solar array at work
Re: The Primary Energy Fallacy
Although that should be pretty obvious, its actually not and for many people, they probably think renewables are less efficient as the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow.
This is called "the primary energy fallacy", namely the misleading impression one gets that all of that fossil primary energy still needs to be replaced entirely, which is not actually the case. Why? Because at least half of all that fossil energy represents pure waste.
This is called "the primary energy fallacy", namely the misleading impression one gets that all of that fossil primary energy still needs to be replaced entirely, which is not actually the case. Why? Because at least half of all that fossil energy represents pure waste.
18.7kW PV > 111MWh generated
Ripple 6.6kW Wind + 4.5kW PV > 34MWh generated
7 Other RE Coop's
105kWh EV storage
90kWh Home battery storage
40kWh Thermal storage
GSHP + A2A HP's
Rain water use > 530 m3
Ripple 6.6kW Wind + 4.5kW PV > 34MWh generated
7 Other RE Coop's
105kWh EV storage
90kWh Home battery storage
40kWh Thermal storage
GSHP + A2A HP's
Rain water use > 530 m3
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2025 9:16 pm
Re: The Primary Energy Fallacy
This issue cannot properly be discussed without analysis of total energy consumption.
The counter argument says that renewables aren't replacing fossil fuels because the total energy being consumed is still going up. In other wirds, only replacing the ADDED fossil fuel consumption that would have been needed were the energy consumption still going up in the absence of renewables. There are many "academic stories" (ie: academic papers) addressing this.
But I'm not comfortable referencing academic papers under "media/culture". Like any group of humans, scientists, philosophers, etc. DO have a "culture", but it's not the same culture as the more general society. .
The counter argument says that renewables aren't replacing fossil fuels because the total energy being consumed is still going up. In other wirds, only replacing the ADDED fossil fuel consumption that would have been needed were the energy consumption still going up in the absence of renewables. There are many "academic stories" (ie: academic papers) addressing this.
But I'm not comfortable referencing academic papers under "media/culture". Like any group of humans, scientists, philosophers, etc. DO have a "culture", but it's not the same culture as the more general society. .
There is no possibility of social justice on a dead planet except the equality of the grave.
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2025 9:16 pm
Re: The Primary Energy Fallacy
For example:
Here is a link to the May 2025 issue of Mother Pelican https://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv21n05page1.htm
Articles in this publication are short, not really to academic standard (but not "popular standard" either). Because of the editor's interestd, this monthly publication will sometimes contain religious articles. Never as much as 10% of the articles, and often, as in this May '25 issue, there are none. You may or may not recognize the names of some of the authors.
I have no connection to this publication, but the editor, Luis T. Gutiérrez, is also a member of The Ecocentric Alliance of which Penny and I are also members. It also has a publication, The Ecological Citizen, of which new issues appear irregularly when the issue
under construction is complete. However, you can view while under construction. Papers here would be longer, to academic standard, and never religious (in the standard sense). The publication is pretty, including artwork and poetry,
https://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/
Here is a link to the May 2025 issue of Mother Pelican https://www.pelicanweb.org/solisustv21n05page1.htm
Articles in this publication are short, not really to academic standard (but not "popular standard" either). Because of the editor's interestd, this monthly publication will sometimes contain religious articles. Never as much as 10% of the articles, and often, as in this May '25 issue, there are none. You may or may not recognize the names of some of the authors.
I have no connection to this publication, but the editor, Luis T. Gutiérrez, is also a member of The Ecocentric Alliance of which Penny and I are also members. It also has a publication, The Ecological Citizen, of which new issues appear irregularly when the issue
under construction is complete. However, you can view while under construction. Papers here would be longer, to academic standard, and never religious (in the standard sense). The publication is pretty, including artwork and poetry,
https://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/
There is no possibility of social justice on a dead planet except the equality of the grave.
-
- Posts: 2268
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:10 pm
Re: The Primary Energy Fallacy
I'm sure that we have had a link to this article and discussed it before, maybe in the last 3 - 6 months. He uses the word "Exergy" I think, to describe the waste heat we don't need to create if we are e.g. using battery electric cars, as compared with the energy wasted as heat from an ICE.dan_b wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 1:53 pm And why replacing fossil fuels with renewables, heat pumps and EVs isn't as daunting as it might seem.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/primary- ... nWHQ%3D%3D
2.0 kW/4.62 MWh pa in Ripples, 4.5 kWp W-facing pv, 9.5 kWh Givenergy batt
30 solar thermal tubes, 2MWh pa in Stockport, plus Congleton and Kinlochbervie Hydros,
Most travel by bike, walking or bus/train. Veg, fruit - and Bees!
30 solar thermal tubes, 2MWh pa in Stockport, plus Congleton and Kinlochbervie Hydros,
Most travel by bike, walking or bus/train. Veg, fruit - and Bees!
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2025 9:16 pm
Re: The Primary Energy Fallacy
Just minor, but a fossil fuel heat engine is not necessarily an ICE. And in SOME applications, the heat "wasted" (rejected by the heat engine) is not wasted. Say you were planning a diesel generator for the Antarctic research facility << there once was a time when steam power plants in an urban setting did use the "waste heat" to provide heating for the nearby buildings >>AE-NMidlands wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:34 pm I'm sure that we have had a link to this article and discussed it before, maybe in the last 3 - 6 months. He uses the word "Exergy" I think, to describe the waste heat we don't need to create if we are e.g. using battery electric cars, as compared with the energy wasted as heat from an ICE.
That steam plant(Rankin cycle woulod be an example of a heat engine not an ICE. As would be a Stirling cycle engine. IF I were asked to design a very small electric generator for an application where solar, wind, etc. not suitable, had to burn fuel, needed to be very reliable, I might consider a Peltier junction device.
There is no possibility of social justice on a dead planet except the equality of the grave.
Re: The Primary Energy Fallacy
I think you might be right - possibly a different linked article but yes, and I fear it was me who posted it originally too. Going senile.
AE-NMidlands wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 3:34 pmI'm sure that we have had a link to this article and discussed it before, maybe in the last 3 - 6 months. He uses the word "Exergy" I think, to describe the waste heat we don't need to create if we are e.g. using battery electric cars, as compared with the energy wasted as heat from an ICE.dan_b wrote: ↑Thu May 01, 2025 1:53 pm And why replacing fossil fuels with renewables, heat pumps and EVs isn't as daunting as it might seem.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/primary- ... nWHQ%3D%3D
Tesla Model 3 Performance
Oversees an 11kWp solar array at work
Oversees an 11kWp solar array at work