So.. you get this back and forth between the two camps as they rush to take victory laps around each other.
So.. you get this back and forth between the two camps as they rush to take victory laps around each other.
District heating is at a different scale in northern Europe and especially in Scandinavia. The systems in North America are (with a few exceptions) typically local to a campus, a neighborhood or a small downtown area, serving maybe a hundred buildings with maybe tens of kilometers of pipes. The public heating utility in Stockholm alone serves 800,000 people, has over 3000 km of pipes and generates over 8,000 GWh of heat energy in a typical year. It's kind of the default way of heating most buildings, here. The main exception is single family homes where past eras of cheap electricity often made people prefer other heating methods.
Such systems don't have to be huge to be useful, but the bigger they are, the more opportunities you have to move heat from places that don't want it (data centers, industry in general, etc) to places that do.
Reminds me of the Texas power grid failure due to being an energy market designed by ENRON (still is too!). Turns out the opposite of “efficiency” isn’t “waste” it’s “redundancy” which their design is very efficient at getting rid of.
I agree with your followup 100%. I didn’t write it in my original as it would have watered down my main communication goal.
Whenever says something is being made more “efficient” I ask them what they are trading for what.