Live data from Hacker News

Does that use a lot of energy?

hannahritchie.github.io

71–80 of 226 posts

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#71
post #23

Glad it has AI. AI has nothing on cars. Save a car trip a week even if electric is way more than 10k queries.

1 chatgpt query is a little misleading though. Let's see an 8 hour full bore claude code agent session. Or maybe running 3 agents for several hours a day.

It also doesn't include the amortized cost of training the models, as far as I can tell. I believe I heard that training the models took more energy than total queries against that model, but I could be mistaken.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#72
post #37

I can't find a github or email for Hannah - if you're reading this i'd like to add Australian energy price data via Open Electricity[0] to the data (reach out via my profile) [0] https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/

Her github is here: https://github.com/HannahRitchie

thank you!

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#73

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…

Train locomotives have used diesel powered generators that then powers electric motors. Would this be less efficient than battery powered EVs? Or better asked, what would be the most efficient use of gasoline?

> Would this be less efficient than battery powered EVs?

Measured in terms of mass * distance, trains with steel wheels will beat anything with rubber pneumatic tires.

Part of the magic of hybrid trains is that you can have multiple generation units that can be turned on or off as needed.

---

Efficiency is just one consideration for a power plant.

Historically, reliability has been more important than efficiency, especially for industrial applications like locomotives. In other words, locomotives are probably not as efficient as they could be. For instance, you could use a lower viscosity engine oil for lubrication, but that would reduce reliability as engines fail due to friction.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#74
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to the environment the most efficient use is to leave it in the ground. Hybrids work for trains because they are so large and don't need big swings of acceleration or to climb steep grades. They can run the diesel generators at maximum efficiency. Battery power would be better, because you can build even larger power plants running at higher heats and not have to haul them with you, but the costs of suf…

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?

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#75
post #60

I attached a generator with some supercaps and an inverter to a stationary bicycle a few years ago, and even though I mostly use it as a way to feel less guilty watching Youtube videos, it does give me a quite literal feel for some of the items on the lower end of the scale. - Anything even even halfway approaching a toaster or something with a heater in it is essentially impossible (yes, I know about that one video)…

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 world. If I charge my care with LEVEL 2 using city provided charges, during the day, it's more expensive than gas.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#76
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…

I looked at the electric car example for the United States. It has 3 kilowatt hours priced at $0.51, 17 cents per kilowatt hour, which seems about right. The "petrol car" example at the top of the chart isn't powered by electricity so its cost number is not directly comparable to the things that consume electricity.

On the energy tab: It says that driving a petrol car 10 miles uses 10,000 Watt-hours, eg 10 kWh.

On the costs tab, for the United States: It says that this has a cost of $0.97.

97 cents ÷ 10kWh = 9.7 cents per kWh

(I didn't look further than that. Perhaps I should have.)

---

edit: I now see a note at the very bottom stating that it is using an assumed "$0.17 for electricity".

$0.17 per kWh is plenty close enough for rough figurin', so I'd like to take this opportunity to retract my previous complaint.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#77
post #68

One thing missing but important to understand is the energy embodied in buying 'stuff'. At a very rough approximation, the cost of stuff, especially consumer goods manufactured cheaply, is quite a high percentage energy. When you look at people's energy usage, quite a lot of it ends up being the embodied energy in the stuff they buy. For quite a lot of people, it's probably the largest category of energy consumption.…

One may look at aluminum as a solid form of energy. In fact, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#78
post #60

I attached a generator with some supercaps and an inverter to a stationary bicycle a few years ago, and even though I mostly use it as a way to feel less guilty watching Youtube videos, it does give me a quite literal feel for some of the items on the lower end of the scale. - Anything even even halfway approaching a toaster or something with a heater in it is essentially impossible (yes, I know about that one video)…

Amazing stuff, have you written up a blog post? I could see a video being a fun format for this as well. Might help people develop the intuition for watts/power consumption in a different way

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#79
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I looked at the electric car example for the United States. It has 3 kilowatt hours priced at $0.51, 17 cents per kilowatt hour, which seems about right. The "petrol car" example at the top of the chart isn't powered by electricity so its cost number is not directly comparable to the things that consume electricity.

On the energy tab: It says that driving a petrol car 10 miles uses 10,000 Watt-hours, eg 10 kWh. On the costs tab, for the United States: It says that this has a cost of $0.97. 97 cents ÷ 10kWh = 9.7 cents per kWh (I didn't look further than that. Perhaps I should have.) --- edit: I now see a note at the very bottom stating that it is using an assumed "$0.17 for electricity". $0.17 per kWh is plenty close enough for…

Yes, for the petrol car it's showing primary energy from petrol (gasoline).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent#Gas...

Assuming 33.41 kWh/gallon it takes about 0.3 gallons to get 10 kWh, which costs $0.97 at a pump price of $3.23 per gallon.

Re: Does that use a lot of energy?

#80

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.
Post reply on HN