Does that use a lot of energy?

2026-03-0420:30233222hannahritchie.github.io

All energy consumption values in this tool are measured in watt-hours (Wh), which is the amount of energy consumed over time. The basic formula for calculating energy consumption is: Energy (Wh) =…

All energy consumption values in this tool are measured in watt-hours (Wh), which is the amount of energy consumed over time. The basic formula for calculating energy consumption is:

Energy (Wh) = Power (Watts) × Time (Hours)

For example, a 100-watt light bulb used for 2 hours would consume 200 watt-hours of energy.

Most products on this list are electrical, but energy use for non-electric products (such as petrol car or gas heating) are converted into watt-hour equivalents.

Energy costs are available for a small selection of countries based on their national energy prices (electricity, gas and petrol). This price data is sourced from Eurostat, Ofgem, and the US EIA (based on prices for 2025 or early 2026, depending on availability). Costs reflect average household prices, and don't reflect dynamic, off-peak or smart tariffs.

Below, I list the assumptions and sources for each product or activity. Again, the actual level of energy consumption will depend on factors such as the specific efficiency of the product, user settings, and climate so these should be interpreted as approximations to give a sense of magnitude.

2. Lighting

Incandescent lightbulb

Traditional incandescent bulbs typically range from 25 to 100 watts, with 60 watts being relatively standard for a household bulb. One hour of use would consume 60 Watt-hours (Wh).

LED lightbulb

LED bulbs use around 80% less energy than incandescent bulbs for the same amount of light output. A standard LED bulb has an energy rating of around 10 W. Using it for one hour would consume 10 Wh.

3. Digital Technologies

Charging a mobile phone

Modern smartphones have battery capacities of 3,000-5,000 mAh at approximately 3.7-4.2V, resulting in batteries around 15-20 watt-hours. If we assume there is around 10% to 20% loss due to charging efficiencies, a full charge likely requires around 20 Wh.

Watching TV – Medium, efficient

Medium-efficiency TVs (for example, 40-50 inch LED TVs) consume approximately 60 watts during active viewing.

Watching TV – Large, modern

Larger modern TVs (55-60 inches with 4K capability) typically consume 80-100 watts. I've gone with 90 watts as a reasonable average.

MacBook laptop

The power consumption of Apple MacBooks vary depending on the model and what applications users are running.

When doing everyday tasks such as writing emails, word documents, or browsing the internet, they consume around 5 to 15 watts. Streaming video is more like 15 to 20 watts. When doing intensive tasks such as editing photos or video, or gaming a MacBook Pro can reach 80 to 100 watts.

Here I have assumed an average of 20 watts.

Desktop computer

Desktop computers vary widely, but more efficient models consume approximately 50 watts. When doing light tasks, this can be a bit lower. Gaming computers can use far more, especially during peak usage (often several hundred watts).

Gaming console (Xbox)

The power consumption of game consoles can vary a lot, depending on the model. The Xbox Series S typically consumes around 70 watts during active gameplay. The Xbox Series X consumes around twice as much: 150 watts.

Game consoles use much less when streaming TV or film, or when in menu mode.

Streaming Netflix (streaming only)

The marginal increase in energy consumption for one hour of streaming is around 0.2 Wh. This comprises of just 0.028 Wh from Netflix's servers themselves, and another 0.18 Wh from transmission and distribution.

To stream video, you need an internet connection, hence a bar for the electricity consumption for Home WiFi is also shown. Note that, for most people, this isn't actually the marginal increase in energy use for streaming. Most people have their internet running 24/7 regardless; the increase in energy use for streaming is very small by comparison. However, it is shown for completeness.

This does not include the electricity usage of the device (the laptop or TV itself). To get the total for that hour of viewing, combine it with the power usage of whatever device you're watching it on.

h/t to Chris Preist (University of Bristol) for guidance on this.

Streaming YouTube (streaming only)

YouTube figures are likely similar to Netflix (see above), although they may be slightly higher due to typical streaming patterns and ad delivery. Again, you need to add the power consumption of the device you're watching on, separately.

Home internet (WiFi)

WiFi routers typically consume between 10 and 20 watts continuously. Here I've assumed 15 watts as a reasonable average.

ChatGPT (median query)

Recent research estimates that the median ChatGPT query using GPT-4o consumes approximately 0.3 watt-hours of electricity.

Actual electricity consumption varies a lot depending on the length of query and response. More detailed queries — such as Deep Research — will consume more (but there is insufficient public data to confirm how much).

If improved data becomes available on more complex queries, image generation and video, I would like to add them.

Reading on a Kindle

E-readers like the Kindle use e-ink displays that consume power primarily when refreshing the page. A typical Kindle device has a battery of around 1000–1700 mAh at ~3.7 V, which is 3.7 to 6 Wh. People report it lasting weeks on a full charge with moderate (30 minute per day) reading frequency.

That works out to less than 1 Wh per hour. Here I've been conservative and have rounded it up to 1 Wh.

4. Kitchen Appliances

Boiling a kettle

Electric kettles typically have power rating between 1500 and 2000 watts. Boiling a full kettle (1.5-1.7 litres) takes around 3 to 4 minutes.

A 2000-watt kettle that takes 3 minutes to boil will consume around 100 watt-hours.

Microwave

Microwaves typically have a power rating between 800 and 1,200 watts. If we assume 1000 watts, five minutes of use would consume 83 Wh (1000 * 0.08).

Electric oven

Electric ovens can have a power rating ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 watts. A typical one is around 2500 watts.

Once an oven is on and has reached the desired temperature, it typically cycles and runs at around 50% to 60% capacity. I've therefore calculated energy consumption as [2,500W × time × 0.55].

Gas oven

Gas ovens consume natural gas for heating but also use electricity for ignition and controls (approximately 300-400 watts). When converting the thermal energy from gas combustion to electrical equivalents for comparison purposes, gas ovens typically use slightly more total energy than electric ovens due to combustion inefficiency.

Similar to electric ovens, I have assumed that gas ovens cycle on and off once they've reached the desired temperature.

Air fryer

Small air fryers typically operate at 800W to 1500W. Larger models (especially with two trays) can be as much as 2500W. I've assumed 1500 watts in these calculations. Once an air fryer is on, it typically cycles and only runs at around 50% to 60% of capacity. Averaged over a cycle, 1000W is likely more realistic.

Ten minutes of use would consume 167 Wh (1000W * 0.17 hours = 167 Wh).

Electric induction hob (one ring)

Induction hobs are efficient, and tend to have a power rating of 1,000W to 2,000W per ring. I've assumed 1,500 watts in these calculations. Like air fryers, they're often not operating at maximum power draw for the full cooking session. 50% is more typical. That means the average power usage is closer to 750W.

Most cooking activities take less time; typically 5 to 10 minutes, which reduces electricity consumption.

Gas hob (one ring)

Gas hobs convert natural gas to heat. They tend to consume 2 to 2.5-times as much energy as induction hobs to achieve the same heat output. This is because they typically operate at around 40% efficiency, compared to 85% for an electric hob.

If an induction hob has an average rating of 750W over a cooking cycle, the useful heat delivered is 638W (750W * 85% efficiency). To get that useful heat from a gas hob with 40% efficiency would need 1595W (638W / 0.4). Here I've assumed an equivalent power input of 1600W.

Small fridge

A small-to-medium refrigerator (around 130 litres) typically consumes around 100 kWh per year, which equals approximately 275 Wh per day on average.

Fridge-freezer

Standard refrigerator-freezer combinations consume anywhere between 200 and 500 kWh per year. Some very efficient models can achieve less than 200 kWh. Here, I have assumed one consumes 300 kWh per year. That is approximately 822 Wh per day.

5. Washing and Drying

Vacuum cleaner (hoover)

Vacuum cleaners typically use 500W to over 1,500W. Popular models in the UK use around 620W or 750W. Here, I have assumed a power rating of 750W. Ten minutes of usage would consume 125 Wh.

Washing machine

Washing machine energy usage varies a lot depending on load size, cycle type and water temperature. An average load in an efficient, modern machine might use 600 Wh to 1,000 Wh per cycle. A large load could be use than 1,500 Wh. Here I have assumed 800 Wh, which is typical for a medium load.

Tumble dryer

Electric tumble dryers are among the highest energy consumers in the home. Heat pump models are much more efficient than condenser or vented models. A condenser or vented model might consume between 4000 and 5000 Wh per cycle. A heat pump model, around half as much.

Here, I have assumed 4500 Wh for condenser or vented cycles, and 2000 Wh for a heat pump cycle. Actual energy consumption will depend on factors such as load size and user settings.

Dishwasher

Most energy in a dishwasher is used for heating the water. They typically use between 1,000 and 1,500 Wh per cycle. Very efficient models can use closer to 500 Wh per cycle. Operating on eco modes will also consume less than 1,000 Wh.

Here, I have assumed 1,250 Wh per cycle, which is fairly average for most users.

Clothes iron

Clothes irons typically have an energy rating between 1500W and 3000W. Steam irons are towards the higher end of the range. Here, I have assumed 2500W, which is fairly standard for a steam iron.

Using one for 10 minutes would consume 417 Wh of power.

Dehumidifier

Dehumidifiers can range from as small as a few 100 watts, up to several thousand for large whole-house units.

Here I've assumed a medium, portable one with an energy rating of 500W. And a large unit of 1000W.

In humid conditions, or if they're being used to dry clothes, they will be running at or close to maximum power draw for a long period of time. In fairly low-humidity conditions, they might cycle on and off after a few hours, meaning their energy use drops to 50% to 70% of the maximum.

6. Heating and Cooling

Hairdryer

Hairdryers typically range from 1,000 to 2,000 watts. I have assumed a power rating of 1,750W. Five minutes of use would consume 146 Wh.

Electric shower

Electric showers are high-power appliances, rated between 7,500W to 11,500W. Specific models of 7.2 kW, 7.5 kW, 8.5 kW, 9.5 kW, 10.5 kW, and 11.5 kW are typical.

I have assumed a 9,500W model here. A 10-minute shower at 9,500 watts would consume 1,583 Wh.

Electric shower (with a heat pump)

An electric shower with hot water sourced from a heat pump will use less electricity.

If we assume a heat pump with a Coefficient of Performance (COP) of 3, producing the same heat output would use around 3,000 Wh per hour. Some very efficient models can achieve less than this; often closer to 2,000 Wh.

Gas-powered shower

If we take the gas equivalent of an electric shower (rated at 9500W) and assume a boiler efficiency of 90%, we get around 10,500W in energy input equivalents. A 10-minute shower would consume 1,759 Wh.

Electric fan

Standard fans typically use 30-75 watts, with 50 watts being a reasonable average.

Small desk heater

Small portable electric heaters typically range from 400 to 1,000 watts. Here I've assumed a wattage of 750W. Using this for one hour would consume 750 Wh.

Space heater

A medium space heater typically operates at around 1,500 watts (ranging from 1,000 to as much as 3,000 for large ones). That means using one for an hour would consume 1,500 Wh.

Electric heat pump (single room)

Modern air-source heat pumps for single rooms (mini-splits) typically consume 600 to 1000 watts of electricity per hour of heating. This would be converted into around 1,800 to 3,000 Wh of heat.

Here we are assuming a Coefficient of Performance (CoP) value of around 3, which means 3 units of heat are generated per unit of electricity input.

These calculations are very sensitive to weather conditions, temperature settings, and the insulation of the house. These values might be typical for a moderate climate (such as the UK) in winter. In slightly warmer conditions, energy usage will be lower. In colder conditions, it would be higher.

The power draw can also be a bit lower than this once the heat pump is running.

Here, I've assumed they consume 800Wh of electricity per hour. That would supply 2,400Wh of heat.

Gas heating

We will assume our gas heating needs to supply the same amount of heat as our heat pump: 2,400 Wh.

A gas boiler is around 90% efficient, so the energy input needed would be 2,700 Wh (2,400 * 90%).

Again, this is very sensitive to the specific boiler system, climate and heating requirements.

Electric heat pump (3-bedroom house)

We can't get a whole house figure by simply multiplying by the number of rooms. Energy consumption will depend a lot on the heat loss and fabric of the house.

In the UK, a 3-bedroom house has an area of around 90m². A building of this size might have a heat loss of around 50 to 100 W/m². We'll say 75 W/m². That would mean 6,750W of heat is required (90m² * 75 W/m²).

Getting this from a heat pump with a CoP of 3 would consume 2,250Wh of electricity per hour (6750 / 3). This is what I've assumed in our calculations. In reality, the consumption is probably lower as energy draw reduces once the heat pump is up and running.

Gas heating (3-bedroom house)

We'll use the same assumptions as above for a heat pump. We need to supply 6,750W of heat for the house.

Getting this from a 90% efficient boiler would consume 7,500Wh of gas per hour.

The average household in the UK uses around 31,000Wh of gas per day. That's equivalent to 4–5 hours of heating (a bit less if their daily total includes a gas shower etc.). In winter, these heating hours will likely be higher, and during the summer, close to zero.

I think 7,500Wh of gas per hour therefore seems reasonable (but very sensitive to a specific household's circumstances).

Air conditioning

Air conditioning units for single rooms typically use 800 to 1,500 watts. I've assumed 1,000W in these calculations.

The actual energy usage will be very sensitive to climate conditions. Warmer, and especially humid climates make AC units much less efficient. Running one in a moderate, drier climate would use much less.

They can also consume less energy once they're up-and-running, so they're not always going at maximum power draw.

7. Driving

Using an e-bike

Electric bicycles typically consume between 10 to 30 watt-hours per mile depending on speed, the cycling conditions, and how high the level of electric assist is. For light assist on flat terrain, it's around 8 to 12 Wh; for moderate, around 12 to 18 Wh; and for heavy assist on hilly terrain it can reach 30 Wh per mile.

I've assumed a value of 15 Wh per mile.

Using an e-scooter

Electric scooters typically consume 15-30 watt-hours per mile depending on the model and conditions. Here, I've assumed a usage of 25 Wh per mile.

Driving an electric motorbike

Electric motorbikes typically consume 100 to 250 watt-hours per mile depending on the model, driver weight and conditions. Real-world tests of motorbike efficiency find efficiencies of around 100 Wh per mile for moderate urban driving. People report higher usage when driving at higher speeds or motorway driving.

Here I've assumed around 150 Wh per mile.

Driving a petrol motorbike

Petrol motorbikes can consume between 50 and 100 miles per gallon. Let's take an average of 75mpg. A gallon is around 4.5 litres, so 75mpg is equivalent to 0.06 litres per mile.

The energy content of petrol is around 32 MJ per litre (or 8.9 kWh per litre). That equates to 0.53 kWh per mile (8.9kWh per litre * 0.06 litres per mile). Driving one mile uses around 530 Wh per mile.

In terms of energy inputs, this means an electric motorbike is 3 to 4 times as efficient as a petrol one.

Driving an electric car

Electric vehicles average approximately 0.3 kWh (300 Wh) per mile. However, this can range from 200 to 400 Wh per mile depending on the type of vehicle, driving conditions and speed.

Driving a petrol car

Petrol cars average around 40 miles per gallon (ranging from around 25 to 50).

Taking an energy density of ~40 kWh per UK gallon for petrol, there are around 40.5 kWh in a UK gallon (there are 4.546 litres in a gallon * 8.9kWh per litre).

This means a petrol car uses around 1kWh (1,000 Wh) per mile. This means an electric car is around 3 to 4 times more efficient, since it has far less energy losses from the engine, heat production, and braking.

9. Gardening

Electric lawnmower

Most corded electric lawnmowers have an energy rating between 1000W and 2000W. Here I have assumed 1500W.

Petrol lawnmower

Petrol lawnmowers are much less efficient than their electric equivalents, as much less input energy is converted into turning the blades.

A standard petrol lawnmower uses around 1 litre of petrol an hour (slightly less in more efficient models). Since the energy content of petrol is 8.9kWh per litre, they therefore use 8,000 to 10,000 Wh per hour. Here I have assumed 9,000 Wh.

Electric strimmer

Standard power strimmers range from around 250 watts to 700 watts. Smaller models will only be suitable for short grass.

Here I've assumed 500 watts.

Gas strimmer

Gas power strimmers are less efficient than electric models.

Data on this was hard to find, but a standard one probably consumes around 0.4 litres of petrol per hour. Since the energy content of petrol is 8.9kWh per litre, they therefore use around 3,500 Wh per hour in energy equivalents.

Pressure washer

Pressure washers typically have a power rating between 1,500 and 3,000 watts. For this tool, I've assumed 2,000 watts as standard.

Per hour, they will use 2,000 Wh when used continuously. Most people will take breaks and pauses during this time, so you should take that into account. If you break half the time, and use one for an hour, then the energy use is equivalent to half an hour (1,000 Wh).

I appreciate all of the feedback and comments from users. I continue to implement fixes and updates based on these suggestions.

Here is a log of changes and improvements.

05/03/2026

  • Fixed a bug where the hours of Home internet (WiFi) did not automatically update according to how many hours of Streaming (Netflix or YouTube) were selected by the user.

03/03/2026

  • Fixed a bug that showed incorrect cost calculations for gas products (e.g. gas oven and shower) for some country selections.

27/02/2026

  • Added default pre-selections when the tool initially opens, to give people a sense of differences across products. This means they're not facing a completely blank slate.
  • Improved the visual design of the main chart to make it clearer and less cluttered.

24/02/2026

  • For users with slower connections, the product list would load slowly and if they searched for products earlier, no options would appear. This has been fixed.

22/02/2026

  • Added Dehumidifer, Power Strimmers, Power Washer, and Electric shower (with heat pump) as new selection options.
  • Updated figures for Streaming Netflix and YouTube. The previous figure of 18 – 20 Wh per hour did not accurately reflect the marginal increase in electricity use for streaming. This figure is significantly lower.

19/02/2026

  • Updated figures for "MacBook Pro". Previous figures assumed a power draw of 70 watts, which is how much is used during intensive tasks such as photo or video editing, or gaming. For everyday tasks such as email, browsing and watching video, it's closer to 20 watts.
  • Updated figures for "Using an e-bike". Previous figures assumed a usage of 25 watt-hours per mile. This is more reflective of heavy assistance on fairly hilly terrain. Moderate assist is closer to 15 watt-hours (which is the figure I now use).

17/02/2026

  • Added clearer units for mobile phone charging and fridge-freezers (per day)
  • Updated figures for "Electric oven" and "Gas oven". Previous figures assumed a maximum power draw when it's on. Ovens tend to cycle on and off once they're at the desired temperature. I have therefore applied a 0.55 factor (50-60%) to account for this
  • Added notes to emphasise that the appropriate time period for comparison is one day
  • Added the option to switch between kilometres and miles for cycling and driving

16/02/2026

  • Fixed checkbox selection; this was not working on some browsers/devices
  • Improved dimensions and labelling on mobile devices
  • Limited selection to 12 products at a time (more than this becomes unfeasible for visualisation)
  • Added "Clear all selections" button at the top
  • On mobile, the chart now appears at the top (above the checklist) for easier access
  • The URL of the chart now updates based on the user selection. This means a specific configuration can be shared with others. Copy the URL from the browser bar, or use the "Share" button in the bottom-right
  • An image of the chart can now be downloaded. Use the "Share" button in the bottom-right

Read the original article

Comments

  • By alnwlsn 2026-03-0422:015 reply

    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).

    - A vacuum cleaner can be run for about 30 seconds every couple minutes.

    - LED lights are really good, you can charge up the caps for a minute and then get some minutes of light without pedaling.

    - Maybe I could keep pace with a fridge, but not for a whole day.

    - I can do a 3D printer with the heated bed turned off, but you have to keep pedaling for the entire print duration, so you probably wouldn't want to do a 4 hour print. I have a benchy made on 100% human power.

    - A laptop and a medium sized floor fan is what I typically run most days.

    - A modern laptop alone, with the battery removed and playing a video is "too easy", as is a few LED bulbs or a CFL. An incandescent isn't difficult but why would you?

    - A cellphone you could probably run in your sleep

    Also gives a good perspective on how much better power plants are at this than me. All I've made in 4 years could be made by my local one in about 10 seconds, and cost a few dollars.

    • By nomel 2026-03-0422:253 reply

      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.

      • By NortySpock 2026-03-0423:023 reply

        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!"

        • By eru 2026-03-050:441 reply

          I love Technology Connections, but he has no idea what discounting is in economics. Or at least he writes his videos as if he doesn't.

          • By lesuorac 2026-03-0514:352 reply

            What discount rate are you using?

            Solar has one of the lowest capital costs [1] so the discounting works in it's favor. And then the non-discountable operating costs also works in its favor since the fuel supply (light) is free.

            [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

            • By cogman10 2026-03-0521:061 reply

              Yup. It's why even in fairly red states like my own (Idaho) solar, wind, and battery are going up everywhere. Even without significant subsidies the economics are really good for renewables.

              They'd be even better if we didn't have extreme tariffs on China.

              That's actually what's convinced me that renewables are a better choice than nuclear. I still like nuclear, but renewables are just so much easier and faster to deploy while being a lot cheaper. To make nuclear competitive requires regulatory changes along with a government that's simply willing to tell it's NIMBY citizens YIMBY.

              Government literally has to get in the way of renewable deployments at this point to stop them.

              • By eru 2026-03-0712:02

                Yes, the tariffs on Chinese PV and EV are really crazy.

                Well, at least we don't believe in tariffs where I chose to live.

            • By eru 2026-03-0712:02

              No, the problem is he speaks like he doesn't understand discounting at all. He treats a recurring revenue (or energy) as fundamentally different from a one time gain, as opposed to something you funge via discounting rates.

              You are one level ahead: I'm more than happy to debate what discounting rates you should be using!

        • By harrall 2026-03-0423:433 reply

          [flagged]

          • By dmd 2026-03-050:462 reply

            Where does that 0.3 TW figure come from? That seems awfully high.

            • By harrall 2026-03-0616:581 reply

              Oops it’s actually 0.6 TW.

              https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

              Convert TWh to TW for a year average.

              • By dmd 2026-03-0617:351 reply

                Huh! I'm kind of stunned that we only use ~30x the power that we did back then. If I'd been asked to guess I would have added another 0 or even two of them.

                • By harrall 2026-03-0619:32

                  Yeah we had an exponential jump when we discovered oil but we maxed that out and the growth has been linear since (and paying for it environmentally too).

                  I’m waiting for the next big major discovery in energy generation.

                  We’re always on the verge of fusion… fusion will be like the discovery of oil. Humanity will jump forward… well, technologically at least.

            • By b40d-48b2-979e 2026-03-0513:432 reply

              You're trying to converse with a LLM. It's made up.

              • By harrall 2026-03-0616:58

                Nope it’s 100% legit and I even remembered it wrong. It’s actually 0.6 TW.

                You can get the number of TW from this report https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

                Convert TWh to TW for a year average.

              • By dmd 2026-03-0513:461 reply

                jfc. What is the point? What do people get out of doing that?

                • By b40d-48b2-979e 2026-03-0513:49

                  I don't know, but HN in particular has an AI-sycophancy problem where I see this most common versus other link aggregator sites.

          • By hnav 2026-03-050:121 reply

            is that a sustained 20TW? Absolutely crazy that we're generating 60kwh per person daily. Where does it all go?

            • By toomuchtodo 2026-03-050:131 reply

              Lots of it is lost to heat with legacy fossil generation.

              • By eru 2026-03-050:451 reply

                You have pretty much the same heat losses with nuclear, or anything else where you heat water to turn a turbine.

                • By toomuchtodo 2026-03-051:381 reply

                  Nuclear is low carbon, it’s fine we lose heat to extract that energy versus stationary and mobile combustion generation, as there is no other effective way to extract that energy at this time.

                  Quantification of global waste heat and its environmental effects - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062... - Applied Energy Volume 235, 1 February 2019, Pages 1314-1334

                  * 49.3–51.5% of global energy use would end up as waste heat in 2030.

                  * Transport sector accounts for the largest (43%) recoverable waste heat in 2030.

                  • By eru 2026-03-0711:53

                    I made no claims about carbon.

          • By toomuchtodo 2026-03-050:10

            To note, we are almost at installing 1TW of solar PV every year globally.

        • By noosphr 2026-03-0423:054 reply

          Most of those technologies also need uninterrupted power supplies. Something wind, solar and batteries for the next 50 years aren't.

          • By toomuchtodo 2026-03-050:10

            Ember Energy: Solar electricity every hour of every day is here and it changes everything - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... - June 21st, 2025

            > Batteries are now cheap enough to unleash solar’s full potential, getting as close as 97% of the way to delivering constant electricity supply 24 hours across 365 days cost-effectively in the sunniest places.

            What does this mean? It means we are most of the way there with solar and batteries alone, even if we need a bit of carbon based generation to bridge the gap while solar and battery deployments scale globally. Solar and batteries will only continue to get less expensive and better.

            Our World In Data: Installed solar energy capacity - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...

            Solar PV go brrr.

          • By alexfoo 2026-03-050:151 reply

            Pumped hydro is one solution. You bank the excess wind/solar using gravitational potential energy and then draw on that whenever you need to.

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

            • By noosphr 2026-03-053:011 reply

              Yes, we just need to build the mountains first.

              • By Leno1225 2026-03-0516:002 reply

                Yeah, or water towers. No need to play god here.

                • By supertrope 2026-03-0520:121 reply

                  Pumped hydro energy storage relies on the cheapness of water and existing geology. If you have to build the chambers instead of damming a river it's too expensive. Most of the good spots to have a reservoir are already used. If you have to manufacture the bulk media instead of just using water it's too expensive.

                  • By ben_w 2026-03-0614:49

                    Pumped hydro doesn't need a river, "just"* rock which isn't water porous and some nearby body of water (lake, sea, whatever).

                    The economics works out even if you were lifting concrete blocks rather than water, hence why you get pictures like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_Vault_Test_Tower_2...

                    The argument against lifting concrete is that you can dig a hole in the ground an pump water in/out of it for more reliability and lower cost than having a crane lift and lower concrete, and it's easy to make it much bigger both horizontally and vertically, so why bother.

                    But it does appear to be economical even with that, and water is cheaper.

                    We make lots of holes in the ground on a regular basis, including for extracting fossil fuels. Here's two, note scale bar, though I have no idea what the rock around it is like regarding water losses: https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9063171,6.4418046,17655m/dat...

                    * it's never "just" with things on this scale

                • By nomel 2026-03-0520:381 reply

                  There are exactly zero economically viable pumped water storage systems where water towers are involved. If you do the math for the amount of a mass of water, you'll see why! It's not feasible.

                  • By alexfoo 2026-03-069:07

                    Indeed, you can get a sense of the scale on the Dinorwig wikipedia page and the pages it links to.

                    It has a storage capacity of about 9.1GWh.

                    The upper reservoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchlyn_Mawr) holds 9.2 million cubic meters of water.

                    So 1 million cubic meters of water provides ~1GWh.

                    We can see how that compares in terms of raw GPE (Gravitational Potential Energy):

                    1 million cubic meters of water = 1E6 * 1E3 kg = 1E9 kg

                    There's roughly a 500m vertical drop between the upper and lower takes at Dinorwig so:

                    1E9 kg * 500 m * 9.8 m/(s^2) = 4.9E12 J =~ 1.36GWh

                    As for water towers, if you look at something like the Roihuvuori tower in Helsinki (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_tower) which is one of the largest:

                    Height: 52m, Capacity: 12000 cubic meters

                    If we are generous and say that all of the water is stored at the maximum height then:

                    12000 * 1E3 kg * 52m * 9.8 m/(s^2) =~ 1.7MWh

                    You'd need over 5000 of them to match what Dinorwig can provide.

          • By ben_w 2026-03-0614:45

            > Something wind, solar and batteries for the next 50 years aren't.

            False. If you'd stopped before the "and" you would have been correct, though.

            Batteries are really cheap now, and supply of batteries is growing basically as fast as people can get the investments and permissions for the inputs and the factories.

          • By eru 2026-03-050:45

            Have you heard of batteries?

      • By eru 2026-03-050:461 reply

        > 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.

        Sounds more like you guys should be lowering barriers to entry, not setting up a global non-profit cartel.

        • By nomel 2026-03-051:571 reply

          True. I suggested global because it allows for scale with copy/paste designs, where things like nuclear could actually become viable.

          Where I am, we have a solidly aligned state government. There's no concept of consequences for anyone in power. They're paid by the local companies to pass laws to make competition legal. Some are investors. All corrupt. That's what you get with a solid political alignment.

          • By eru 2026-03-0512:32

            Vote with your feet (and wallet), and support anything that makes people voting with their feet easier.

            It's the McDonald's theory of policy: you don't vote on their burgers at the ballot box, you just go to Burger King or get a doner kebab, if you don't like it.

      • By realityloop 2026-03-050:20

        Australia I assume?

    • By GuB-42 2026-03-0423:281 reply

      Did you try charging an e-bike with your contraption?

      I don't know what you can take of this, maybe you can see it as advance pedaling, or to get a feel for energy conversion losses. Anyways, it is the kind of harmlessly stupid idea that I would want to try just because I could.

      • By zymhan 2026-03-050:23

        What a ridiculous idea, I love it.

    • By 1-more 2026-03-0422:33

      Once I did a little bike training and looking at my power curve, I was incredibly impressed by how cheap energy is. 100W is an all day number, 200W less so, 300W is exactly 20 minutes when I do an FTP test. 400W is 4x Tour de France winner Tadej Pogačar for an hour and he's a mutant. 1 horsepower is under a minute iirc, definitely under 2. 1kW is maybe 10 seconds. So I could keep my laptop and phone charged probably indefinitely as long as I have food, but not a ton more than that.

      https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/road-racing/tour-de-fran...

    • By jborichevskiy 2026-03-0422:261 reply

      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

    • By Waterluvian 2026-03-0422:521 reply

      Any sense what the efficiency ratio was for your setup?

      • By alnwlsn 2026-03-0423:142 reply

        I'm as curious as you to be honest - putting a strain gauge on the pedals for measuring mechanical power has been on my list for quite a while. My own (probably inaccurate) measurements right after the generator says I can get 60-70Wh in an hour, but I can get to 100Wh if I try harder. I have reason to believe my setup underestimates power because my ammeter clamps at 5A and I know I can peak over that on the down stroke of the pedal.

        I've seen numbers like 250W mechanical power for an average trained cyclist, so either my setup is rather inefficient, my measurements are off, or I'm going to find out that I'm nowhere near as strong as a real cyclist.

        On the other hand, the stationary bike I got originally had a rubber belt, which it would chew excessively and I eventually swapped it for a chain because it kept slipping in spite of tensioning it more, suggesting I'm hitting the thing harder than it was originally designed for (how that translates into power I'm not sure).

        • By michaelt 2026-03-050:57

          > I've seen numbers like 250W mechanical power for an average trained cyclist, so either my setup is rather inefficient, my measurements are off, or I'm going to find out that I'm nowhere near as strong as a real cyclist.

          Cyclists' power output is sometimes reported as a 'power curve' - a chart with power on the vertical axis, and duration-of-that-power on the horizontal axis.

          For example, a cyclist might be be able to produce 500W for 15 seconds; 350W for 1 minute; 270W for 10 minutes; 200W for 1 hour; and 150W for 5 hours.

        • By Waterluvian 2026-03-0423:381 reply

          Oh don’t sell yourself short. It can certainly be both! (:

          Thanks for sharing the details.

          • By alnwlsn 2026-03-0423:43

            All in good fun of course, it has to be healthier than watching Youtube just sitting around normally.

  • By philipkglass 2026-03-0421:042 reply

    The author Hannah Ritchie works on Our World In Data and also publishes the fantastic Sustainability by Numbers substack. It's in the same vein as the late, great David MacKay's Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.

    This tool has its own recent substack post. See the comments too, especially the one by Chris Preist that contextualizes the energy usage of streaming video (a topic that has also been discussed on HN before).

    https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/does-that-use-a-lot-of

    • By 0x53 2026-03-0422:111 reply

      And wrote a great book: Not the End of the World

    • By measurablefunc 2026-03-0421:183 reply

      Who pays for their research?

      • By philipkglass 2026-03-0421:24

        She's employed by Our World In Data. She is also a published author of printed books. Her substack does not have paid subscriptions enabled (or at least it did not as of last summer; see this post [1]). Our World In Data is funded by donations:

        https://ourworldindata.org/funding

        [1] https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/reflections-on-substack

      • By keybored 2026-03-0422:51

        What narratives and framings does a blog post or “visualization tool” serve? What does their overall work? What’s their recurring ideological slant?

        Could be wholesome and altruistic. Or it could be something else.

        Someone can be an honest ideologue (useful idiot) without being directly funded by someone shady.

  • By djhworld 2026-03-0421:523 reply

    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.

    • By taeric 2026-03-0423:171 reply

      The ridiculously dramatic drop in power we dedicate to lighting is one that is just tough for folks to internalize. As you said, used to, you could have ~10 lights in your house that would add to upwards of 1kw. Nowadays, you can have 50 lights and barely hit 500w. Just mind blowing how far we dropped energy on those.

      Same goes for televisions. Your modern TV is probably closer to the basic light bulbs before LEDs.

      I'm assuming the general trend is true for all things solid state. That said, lighting is by far the biggest drop for most houses. Remarkably so.

      • By quickthrowman 2026-03-0423:24

        > I'm assuming the general trend is true for all things solid state. That said, lighting is by far the biggest drop for most houses. Remarkably so.

        For commercial and industrial installations, VFDs have probably been the biggest efficiency gain, even moreso than lighting. Half of all electricity consumed is used by motors. Thank goodness for solid state power electronics!

    • By MostlyStable 2026-03-0422:332 reply

      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.

      • By quickthrowman 2026-03-0423:211 reply

        A ‘standard’ (A19 shape, E26 base) 8W 800 lumen LED lamp costs around $5 and will use about $20 of energy over a 15,000 hour lifespan, assuming $0.15/kWh.

        That works out to around $0.035 per day for the lifespan of the lamp if you run it constantly for 24 hours a day, I wouldn’t waste time thinking about it. It’s an extra $10 over 12 years, you’re still using the energy.

        Investing in occupancy or vacancy sensor wall switches at $25 a piece would be the best option, then you don’t need to remember to turn the lights off!

        • By MostlyStable 2026-03-057:09

          It's not a cost thing, I just don't like changing bulbs. I find it annoying, and with enough bulbs, when the lifetime is down to 4 years, you are doing one every few months on average.

          But yes, I have thought about presence sensors. I'd really only need 3-4 to cover the primary areas where lights get turned on and not off (if I don't do it). I just haven't gotten around to it

      • By wvbdmp 2026-03-0423:49

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

    • By appreciatorBus 2026-03-051:54

      Yup. In my experience, average non-nerd folk very very little feel for this stuff. I suspect some believe energy consumption of phone vs car is basically a toss up.

HackerNews