this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2026
113 points (89.5% liked)
Just Post
1417 readers
116 users here now
Just post something ๐
Lemmy's general purpose discussion community with no specific topic.
Sitewide lemmy.world rules apply here.
Additionally, this is a no AI content community. We are here for human interaction, not AI slop! Posts or comments flagged as AI generated will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's only a waste if you are generating that electricity from non-renewables. If the electric is coming from nuclear or renewable AND there is enough electricity where you are then there's basically no harm. Electric heat is 100% efficient since all the energy is consumed for its intended purpose.
I get what you're saying, but I disagree. If you don't use this heater but send the renewable electricity to the grid instead, somewhere non-renewable energy doesn't have to be used. IMO your argument is the same as the reason energy efficiency leads to more energy consumption. I quickly googled it to make sure I'm not talking out of my ass, and it's called Jevon's paradox.
So what your saying is that switching to renewable is pointless because we aren't allowed to use the energy for what we want?
Of course not, didn't you read the second sentence? I'm saying making renewable energy just so you can waste it doesn't help much.
It's not a waste if it makes people more comfortable
Hm, the efficiency point is a bit moot, you can say the same for coal, oil and gas.
You definitely cannot. All of those materials burn and release carbon. Not 100% of the material goes towards energy. Solar for instance produces electricity with no byproduct (excluding the cost to make the panel). There are no byproducts in the generation stage. We then transport the electric which also produces heat.