Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does that use a lot of energy?

hannahritchie.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 226 posts

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#121

Post by harrall »

NortySpock wrote: post #100
nomel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I am at least, people using less power because power because power need to profit more, is wild . They literally had record profits the last few years, rather than being forced to lay down solar. I think power should be a global endeavor, not some local for profit business with complete regulatory capture that makes competition illegal. Yes I'm angry, because I pay more in electric than most anywhere in the wor…

Energy security is national security. Cheap electricity means you can do things that made "no sense" with expensive electricity. (e.g. smelt aluminum) Cheap electricity means you can underbid regions that have expensive electricity... As Technology Connections said, "Panels that cover your electrical needs for the next 25+ years? In the Midwest, we call that a good deal!"

[flagged]

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#122

Post by frankus »

MerrimanInd wrote: post #34
jwilliams wrote: post #28

It was genuinely a surprise to see how much relative energy petrol cars use (and shame on me - I'm an electrical engineer). I mean I think I knew it intuitively, but this simple chart blew my mind.

When one gets in the weeds on EVs or ICE cars two things become shockingly clear: internal combustion is hilariously inefficient YET gasoline is hilariously energy dense. Most people's intuition is wrong on both of these points but then they cancel each other out. Edit: another important point is that the "cost" to acquire gasoline is only the very end of the process. The energy has already been gathered, stored, and…

Every single ICE car driving down the highway is throwing away enough waste heat to heat a small apartment building on a freezing cold day.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#123

Post by SchemaLoad »

scarmig wrote: post #92
skybrian wrote: post #56

I see it has a ChatGPT median query, but for those of us using coding agents this isn't so relevant. Here's a post that makes an estimate: https://www.simonpcouch.com/blog/2026-01-20-cc-impact/ > So, if I wanted to analogize the energy usage of my use of coding agents, it’s something like running the dishwasher an extra time each day, keeping an extra refrigerator, or skipping one drive to the grocery store in favor…

I end up shrugging. For a Claude Code power user, today, a day's use uses less electricity than a morning commute in an electric car. To say nothing of the costs to keep your workstation running, your building heated or cooled, etc. Not quite a rounding error, but a relatively minor component of overall usage.

At least for programming usage the power usage seems worth it. For starting up 1 million bots to argue with each other on facebook it's obviously a total waste.

At any rate, the power usage will become more apparent when these products stop being subsidised, where power usage is being charged to the end user.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#124

Post by wvbdmp »

MostlyStable wrote: post #80
djhworld wrote: post #55

I think stuff like this really crystalises how people misunderstand how much energy stuff uses. My parents for example sweat the small stuff and go around the house turning LED driven lights off to "save electricity" even though it would barely make a dent in their bill. Granted, they come from a time of incadescants burning 60-100w at a time so I can see why that habit might be deeply ingrained.

I turn LED lights off because of the difference in operational life, and I don't like changing bulbs. M GE bulbs say they have a rated lifetime of 13 years......at 3 hours of usage per day. So if they don't get turned off, then that 3 hours can very easily become 12, and now you are at a rated lifetime of ~4 years instead.

But now you’re using up switch cycles!!!

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#125

Post by frankus »

ssl-3 wrote: post #66

The presentation is nice, but some of the conversions are questionable. For instance: The cost section, wherein 1kWh in the US is figured as having a cost of 9.7 cents. In reality, it's not that way at all. Unless we're fortunate enough to live in an area where we can walk over to the neighborhood generating station and carry home buckets of freshly-baked electricity to use at home, then we must also pay for delivery…

The electric shower also seemed pretty optimistic. I live in an area with about 50°F/10°C ground temperature and my 14.4 kW water heater can just keep a relatively efficient shower head flowing at a comfortable temperature.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#126

Post by frankus »

davidw wrote: post #95

A bicycle continues to be the most efficient means of transportation: https://bsky.app/profile/davidho.bsky.social/post/3mga7uhxnd... Even an eBike is way, way more efficient than a gas-powered car, and causes orders of magnitude less wear and tear on the road.

The number I guesstimated for my e-scooter is about 500 miles per dollar of electricity.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#127

Post by noosphr »

ramidarigaz wrote: post #111
noosphr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something that always gets lost in these conversations. Whenever you do the real world calculation for what an electric cars CO2 profile looks like it turns out to be the same as a gasoline car unless your country is majority nuclear.

> Whenever you do the real world calculation for what an electric cars CO2 profile looks like it turns out to be the same as a gasoline car unless your country is majority nuclear. Not at all true: https://www.carboncounter.com/ US-specific but you can even pick a state and it will use the generation mix of that state

You charge your car at night.

At night the sun doesn't shine.

The mix is mostly coal or if you're lucky mostly gas.

This is the type of bullshit I mean by doing real world calculations.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#128

Post by einpoklum »

csours wrote: post #74
einpoklum wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it better for trains to just to draw from the electric grid?

Do you have to run new electric transmission lines? Will you have to maintain those power lines?

Possibly, yes. But that seems to be worth it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_electrification

"Maintenance costs of the lines may be increased by electrification, but many systems claim lower costs due to reduced wear-and-tear on the track from lighter rolling stock. There are some additional maintenance costs associated with the electrical equipment around the track, such as power sub-stations and the catenary wire itself, but, if there is sufficient traffic, the reduced track and especially the lower engine maintenance and running costs exceed the costs of this maintenance significantly."

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#129

Post by sitharus »

oceanplexian wrote: post #102
MerrimanInd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When one gets in the weeds on EVs or ICE cars two things become shockingly clear: internal combustion is hilariously inefficient YET gasoline is hilariously energy dense. Most people's intuition is wrong on both of these points but then they cancel each other out. Edit: another important point is that the "cost" to acquire gasoline is only the very end of the process. The energy has already been gathered, stored, and…

> internal combustion is hilariously inefficient It's inefficient but not hilariously so. Modern ICE are quite amazing technology. Combined gas turbines (you know, the energy source that powers your electric car) are about 60% efficient for the really good ones, minus 5-7% transmission losses, minus 10-12% charging losses, minus 20% loss in cold climates, lands you at around 35-40% efficiency from fuel source to the…

> Combined gas turbines (you know, the energy source that powers your electric car)

Not everywhere. My car charges off an average of 80% renewables (mostly hydro and geothermal), right now it's 95%.

But it is definitely something you need to take in to account when purchasing, an EV isn't right for everyone.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#130

Post by sitharus »

noosphr wrote: post #105
oceanplexian wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> internal combustion is hilariously inefficient It's inefficient but not hilariously so. Modern ICE are quite amazing technology. Combined gas turbines (you know, the energy source that powers your electric car) are about 60% efficient for the really good ones, minus 5-7% transmission losses, minus 10-12% charging losses, minus 20% loss in cold climates, lands you at around 35-40% efficiency from fuel source to the…

This is something that always gets lost in these conversations. Whenever you do the real world calculation for what an electric cars CO2 profile looks like it turns out to be the same as a gasoline car unless your country is majority nuclear.

Or majority renewable.
Post reply on HN