French oil consumption

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 11/11/12, 23:44

I have seen that too for others forumers, we can not miss ... and Dede is also going for its counter-signature Image
0 x
Image
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Oil consumption by French




by Remundo » 11/11/12, 23:50

hug wrote:On wikipedia, they say that 1 ton of oil is worth about 7 barrels (depending on the density of oil)

I take 1 ton is worth 7,5 barrels so 300 EUR

Each French consumes about 1,3 Ton of oil / year

So every French pays about 400 EUR each year.

There is very simple.

The annual bill of hydrocarbons in France is 60 Billion euros.

Let 1000 € / French / year

If we include the fuel taxes, the note can easily exceed: 20 000 km per year is 1200 L of gasoline and 1800 € (assumptions: 6L / 100 km, and 1,5 € / L )
0 x
Image
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 12/11/12, 00:33

So it's not complicated, I had already calculated how much would cost a project like Desertec to cover the FULL NEED, ie: 1 billion € per month and per state (greedy), that and the measures of energy efficiency (calculated at 50% savings by Switzerland and Germany) it gives us an invoice between 500 mios and 1 billion per month (if we count the investments in new infrastructures) ... related to the consumption of oil per capita, reveals that oil already costs already, more expensive than a project like that offered by Désertec over fifty years. (If Moinsewatt where one of you confirms ...) besides the oil bill will not stop growing ...

The solar thermal - with which it is not counted the other renewable - seems thus quite viable! I have good?

Thus, if we wanted to, with a "Marshall Plan" of energy, we could do without oil.
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 12/11/12, 01:10

The solar thermal - with which it is not counted the other renewable - seems thus quite viable! I have good?


to which must be added the thermal storage in the free ground, to be able to work day and night, even the winters, instead of only the day, like the usual solar, with very expensive storage, with price 1000 times higher than the earth with a few holes, which the CEA report forgets, to conserve nuclear power.
0 x
Thiazolinones neuro toxic to avoid them being everywhere, madness, killing at least ppm, bacteria and your neurons, which multiplies Alzheimer !!
The bees disappear pesticide, Roundup, and are killing us slowly. http://www.pollinis.org/petitions/petit ... noides.php
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 12/11/12, 07:36

This "macro" approach (if we do it right) would be interesting:

a) is the flow of “renewable” energy that can be mobilized of the same order of magnitude as the fossil energy (oil, or oil and gas?) that we use ...

[the answer is yes, if we capture solar energy in non-agricultural areas - roofs, deserts ... The calculation has already been done elsewhere; I only put this question back for "orderly" reasons]

b) are the costs to be mobilized (especially investments on one side, "maintenance" being low; investments + operation integrated into the wholesale oil purchase price on the other side) are they of the same order of magnitude?

That's what concerns us here. And indeed, it is THE question. With its corollary: WHO will pay?

d) would then remain to sort in uses: oil and gas are not only used to provide energy. They serve as raw material for plastics, for fertilizers, etc.

Me, it does not bother me that we continue to use petroleum to make artificial heart valves, or prostheses or the synthesis of such a drug, etc ... For nothing but these "noble" uses, it will remain for 10 years! It's the burning that annoys me!

e) and finally, the question arises of managing flows according to uses and needs: storage for the night, mobile storage (and energy density) in vehicles, smart grid, etc ...

And that is not easy! Because with the oil we got used to a cheap energy, available all the time, immediately and everywhere! It will, for example, have to learn to postpone certain needs ... [just an example: produce off-season tomatoes in greenhouses heated with gas? or eat tomatoes in summer?]

Unlike the "macro" approach, it would be possible to each make their own individual assessment.

With quite a bit of investment, I only managed to cut my oil consumption by half (LPG - I also invested to emit less particles and CO, without reducing my dependence on oil) and not yet much that of electricity (for me, leaving nuclear comes before getting rid of oil! Simple question of personal values, I can imagine that we see it differently, so as not to open a "sub-debate").

This individual assessment would save us "yaka" and "yfautcon" solutions ...
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 12/11/12, 09:53

Obamot wrote:So it's not complicated, I had already calculated how much would cost a project like Desertec to cover the FULL NEED, ie: 1 billion € per month and per state (greedy), that and the measures of energy efficiency (calculated at 50% savings by Switzerland and Germany) it gives us an invoice between 500 mios and 1 billion per month (if we count the investments in new infrastructures) ... related to the consumption of oil per capita, reveals that oil already costs already, more expensive than a project like that offered by Désertec over fifty years. (If Moinsewatt where one of you confirms ...) besides the oil bill will not stop growing ...

The solar thermal - with which it is not counted the other renewable - seems thus quite viable! I have good?

Thus, if we wanted to, with a "Marshall Plan" of energy, we could do without oil.

Yes indeed, we should engage in a big "war" for clean energy.

Desertec is estimated at 1000 G €, but just the hydrocarbon imports in France are 60 G € / year : well, a little less than 17 years only in France cushion the investment for the world.

In the same vein, 1000 G € or G $ are created ex nihilo by the central banks several times a year, to finance dark debts

Le annual US military budget is 700 G $ and even more in times of war.

The crisis of subprimes of 2008 had burned about 500 G €

The "aid" (including loans that will never be repaid) granted to Greece since its bankruptcy: around 500 G € too ...

to summarize, the transition EnR is not done, it is neither because of a financial impossibility, nor because of techniques not mastered ...
0 x
Image
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 12/11/12, 12:32

Remundo wrote:
Obamot wrote:So it's not complicated, I had already calculated how much would cost a project like Desertec to cover the FULL NEED, ie: 1 billion € per month and per state (greedy), that and the measures of energy efficiency (calculated at 50% savings by Switzerland and Germany) it gives us an invoice between 500 mios and 1 billion per month (if we count the investments in new infrastructures) ... related to the consumption of oil per capita, reveals that oil already costs already, more expensive than a project like that offered by Désertec over fifty years. (If Moinsewatt where one of you confirms ...) besides the oil bill will not stop growing ...

The solar thermal - with which it is not counted the other renewable - seems thus quite viable! I have good?

Thus, if we wanted to, with a "Marshall Plan" of energy, we could do without oil.

Yes indeed, we should engage in a big "war" for clean energy.

Desertec is estimated at 1000 G €, but just the hydrocarbon imports in France are 60 G € / year : well, a little less than 17 years only in France cushion the investment for the world.

In the same vein, 1000 G € or G $ are created ex nihilo by the central banks several times a year, to finance dark debts

Le annual US military budget is 700 G $ and even more in times of war.

The crisis of subprimes of 2008 had burned about 500 G €

The "aid" (including loans that will never be repaid) granted to Greece since its bankruptcy: around 500 G € too ...

to summarize, the transition EnR is not done, it is neither because of a financial impossibility, nor because of techniques not mastered ...


Nice collection of numbers to remember.

It shows that the current choices are not logical and coherent, especially that Desertec, in Africa, is not the only possibility, among a good collection of simple technologies, despised and not realized, that the CEA report considers badly, with research very misguided.

Only the sun can suffice while staying in France, with plenty of jobs at home, on our roofs, parking and sterile surfaces, sun wasted in summer now, it is possible de conserving for the winter in solar, shallow and perpetual artificial geothermal energy.

I insist for this reason of contempt of this real solution, usable, very simple, with enormous potential, because cheap so well developed (thermal sensors very inexpensive and earth holes as inexpensive focus just for a very low price, infinitely cheaper than the EPR which has doubled its price, without being assured of a total security, as all the nuclear that is without insurance, like a driver driving without insurance) and refused even on econology, by many, who usually refuse to be manipulated by lobbies.
www.dlsc.ca is a basic functional example from 2007, able to replace in perpetuity without any pollution, 30 of our nuclear power plants, this 365 days a year, used for heating !!
It's huge, and that's the reason for my insistence on this ultra-simple and misunderstood solution !!


There is also the possibility to make oil from algae, vegetable waste of all kinds, with greenhouses heated with solar geothermal producing 365 days a year, also neglected, very easy, functional, and perfectible to make it inexpensive, in the deserts too.

Also, it is necessary to develop and make inexpensive all possible technologies and not just oneespecially simple ones, which are already working and are despised, those are complicated and expensive when you can do simple and cheap!
0 x
Thiazolinones neuro toxic to avoid them being everywhere, madness, killing at least ppm, bacteria and your neurons, which multiplies Alzheimer !!

The bees disappear pesticide, Roundup, and are killing us slowly. http://www.pollinis.org/petitions/petit ... noides.php
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 12/11/12, 12:40

totally Dede, and thanks for the link. 8)
0 x
Image
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 12/11/12, 15:31

How would we like to continue a debate under such conditions? : roll:

Good, thank you Remundo, for having better than confirmed my suggestion.

The FULL NEED of Desertec could be covered after solving the lack of water for cleaning the reflectors!

And why not deallinize the water, then after cleaning, use it to water crops ... So the dream of making the desert bloom again, could start!

It is therefore the dogmatism of the model of a consumer society that is on the way to leading man to his ruin! A society based solely on cash and speculation for everything "nerve culture", will not go far for a long time yet ... This society is so fragile that at the slightest exogenous upheaval, could well collapse like a house of cards ...

We do not care, god exists, he is in this forum and even has a site in Canada. : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Solar thermal, FULL NEED




by Obamot » 12/11/12, 17:28

Did67 wrote:
Remundo wrote:
Obamot wrote:So it's not complicated, I had already calculated how much would cost a project like Desertec to cover the FULL NEED, ie: 1 billion € per month and per state (greedy), that and the measures of energy efficiency (calculated at 50% savings by Switzerland and Germany) it gives us an invoice between 500 mios and 1 billion per month (if we count the investments in new infrastructures) ... related to the consumption of oil per capita, reveals that oil already costs already, more expensive than a project like that offered by Désertec over fifty years. (If Moinsewatt where one of you confirms ...) besides the oil bill will not stop growing ...

The solar thermal - with which it is not counted the other renewable - seems thus quite viable! I have good?

Thus, if we wanted to, with a "Marshall Plan" of energy, we could do without oil.

Yes indeed, we should engage in a big "war" for clean energy.

Desertec is estimated at 1000 G €, but just the hydrocarbon imports in France are 60 G € / year : well, a little less than 17 years only in France cushion the investment for the world.

In the same vein, 1000 G € or G $ are created ex nihilo by the central banks several times a year, to finance dark debts

Le annual US military budget is 700 G $ and even more in times of war.

The crisis of subprimes of 2008 had burned about 500 G €

The "aid" (including loans that will never be repaid) granted to Greece since its bankruptcy: around 500 G € too ...

to summarize, the transition EnR is not done, it is neither because of a financial impossibility, nor because of techniques not mastered ...
This "macro" approach (if we do it right) would be interesting:

a) is the flow of “renewable” energy that can be mobilized of the same order of magnitude as the fossil energy (oil, or oil and gas?) that we use ...

[the answer is yes, if we capture solar energy in non-agricultural areas - roofs, deserts ... The calculation has already been done elsewhere; I only put this question back for "orderly" reasons]

Huge potential quite neglected. Just for the deserts, 1% of their area would be enough to cover the FULL NEED:

Desertec / TREC wrote:"Each desert kmXUMX receives annually" a solar energy equivalent to 2 million barrels of oil. The total area of ​​deserts on the entire planet would provide several hundred times the energy currently used in the world.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9sertec

Comforted by the numbers of Remundo ...

I do not know about France, but Switzerland:
- receives annually 50'000 TWh / year since the sun ...!
- has a constructed surface potential of 380 m2 / inhabitant ...!
- 60 m2 per inhabitant is enough to cover FULL NEED, and there would already be enough ideally oriented built surfaces available to achieve this! (As an example, there is already 62 m2 per capita for all buildings, and by covering the roads with PV panels, there would be a potential 107 m2 per capita)
Source: Swissolar, Yves Roulet, Ing. ETS / UTS
...>

It would be necessary to deduce from the above surfaces, about 1 / 3 of the usable space for the heating of the buildings by solar thermal, and which would allow to heat only 45% of the real estate park.
...>

So if we add Desertec, which would also be self-sufficient (including the rest like wind and other renewable energy), it does not make a shadow of a fold that could be achieved in less than twenty five years, if we did not mind amha.

Did67 wrote:b) are the costs to be mobilized (especially investments on one side, "maintenance" being low; investments + operation integrated into the wholesale oil purchase price on the other side) are they of the same order of magnitude?

That's what concerns us here. And indeed, it is THE question.

Apparently, just the "oil bill" would already do it! And we could add the electricity bill (which has not been done and still offers room for progress in the direction of lower overall costs ...).

Did67 wrote:With its corollary: WHO will pay?

Bernardd had suggested that EDF (SIG in my corner) make the investments and levy a royalty for "consumption". While in the current system, the energy produced cannot be used directly, it must first be sold to EDF ...
Everyone would have to win in such a formula (except the oil companies and the nuclear lobby, which would not change anything in economic terms (except a better independence in terms of supply and lower costs in the long term, resulting only from infrastructure and maintenance), there would be just a conversion of know-how in the labor market: no worries on the practical level).

Did67 wrote:d) would then remain to sort in uses: oil and gas are not only used to provide energy. They serve as raw material for plastics, for fertilizers, etc.

We know how to make plastic from bio-fuels (I know, this is not ideal, but it is also possible to make bacteria "work", it is also the thesis of the origin not forest oil)

Did67 wrote:Me, it does not bother me that we continue to use petroleum to make artificial heart valves, or prostheses or the synthesis of such a drug, etc ... For nothing but these "noble" uses, it will remain for 10 years! It's the burning that annoys me!

... Obviously! ;)

Did67 wrote:e) and finally, the question arises of managing flows according to uses and needs: storage for the night, mobile storage (and energy density) in vehicles, smart grid, etc ...

According to the summary ...> it would require only 100 liters of storage per m2 capture. In these conditions, it is therefore more of a problem of space. So we can store it where we want: underground (average or shallow, we do not care), in boilers, pools or whatever: we will come.

Did67 wrote:And that is not easy!

That no : Mrgreen: especially to agree. Is not it!

Did67 wrote:Because with the oil we got used to a cheap energy, available all the time, immediately and everywhere! It will, for example, have to learn to postpone certain needs ... [just an example: produce off-season tomatoes in greenhouses heated with gas? or eat tomatoes in summer?]

No matter, no (?) We now know that the potential is there. And habits will change with the renewal of generations ...

Did67 wrote:Unlike the "macro" approach, it would be possible to each make their own individual assessment.

Yes, it is the current track, still ruinous for the particular! In my humble opinion, we should not forbid anyone the means of their energy self-sufficiency. It would be a step in the right direction, because it would put methods in competition. Since this is what some fear (the perpetual energetic dependence and / or exorbitant dissuasive costs to access it) ... To this, we can take Bob's paradigm, which would like it to be "technology" which salvation from the constraints of the destiny of men ... This is partially true (!?)

Did67 wrote:With quite a bit of investment, I only managed to cut my oil consumption by half (LPG - I also invested to emit less particles and CO, without reducing my dependence on oil) and not yet much that of electricity (for me, leaving nuclear comes before getting rid of oil! Simple question of personal values, I can imagine that we see it differently, so as not to open a "sub-debate").

This individual assessment would save us "yaka" and "yfautcon" solutions ...

And ... " takawaar » : Mrgreen: : Cheesy:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 173 guests