Gregory's Server@borisschapira @janrosenow Do we? The sum in 2018 is roughly 1600 TWh, now it's 1474 TWh.
|
6 comments
@sesivany @borisschapira @janrosenow The goal should not be not reduce the total amount of electrical energy, but replace overall diesel/petrol/gas for transport/heat/industry with something that uses electricity. @sesivany @borisschapira @janrosenow I would like something like https://mastodon.energy/@janrosenow/113074610160041625 where the total amount of energy (in Joule) consumed in Europe is illustrated. Maybe the size of boxes should better illustrate the amount of energy fossil represent. @aslakr @borisschapira @janrosenow Even that wouldn't give you full picture. You'd also have to take deindustrialization into account. If someone closes a factory in Europe and moves it to e.g. China, it's a net energy saving for Europe, but nothing positive for the climate in total.  @aslakr @sesivany @borisschapira @janrosenow Agreed, but the long term solution to the total situation is to reduce emissions to near zero, which is going to require most industries to reduce their energy and other resource use by at least 50%. Not just replace the energy source. @aka_quant_noir @sesivany @borisschapira @janrosenow If the industri are going to reduce their energy consumption and emissions, they would need to electrify. To make that possible, there need to be produced a lott more electrical energy. |
@sesivany @borisschapira @janrosenow The graph in the initial post is for _electricity_ consumption, the post above considers _energy_ consumption. Are we _substituting_ renewables to fossil or _adding_ new (electric renewable) sources?