NegaWatt scenario, a sober and clean energy future

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/03/12, 09:28

RIAZ wrote:
For a building, the SOBRIETE, it is the decrease of the surface by head of pipe.


I join Dedelco on this point of view, wanting to reduce the living space per person is not what is more desirable.

A re-allocation of housing is already put into practice in the HLM, but it remains rather complicated.

And this is unachievable for the owners: ex a retired couple (owner of their home) will not be put out for the benefit of a large family, right?

True sobriety is that of our GDP and this damn growth, that's the real problem!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
RIAZ
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 391
Registration: 04/10/08, 10:21
Location: Cholet
x 2




by RIAZ » 28/03/12, 09:45

sen-no-sen wrote:I join Dedelco on this point of view, wanting to reduce the living space per person is not what is more desirable. .... Real sobriety is that of our GDP and this damn growth, this is the real problem!


This reduction will be achieved through the densification of housing, which is already on the agenda, not by driving the little old people out of their too big house which, in the short term, after them, will "repopulate"!

The small collective of high quality is more efficient and more pleasant than the pavilions that set the landscape. In addition, this density allows the existence of collective services including public transport .... and even heating!

We all make this damn GDP ....
0 x
In terms of the future, it is not to foresee it, but to enable it (Antoine de Saint Exupery)
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/03/12, 10:05

RIAZ wrote:
This reduction will be done by the densification of the habitat, which is already on the agenda (...)


The densification of the habitat is not necessarily a model of sobriety, it is only to see the big suburban set that grew like mushrooms at a time when the growth was strong and the cheap oil.

My grandparents were 10 times more sober than me in energy yet he lived on a farm with 10 times more surface than I currently have.

The small collective of high quality is more efficient and more pleasant than the pavilions that set the landscape. In addition, this density allows the existence of collective services including public transport .... and even heating!


All agreed, but so far, the most sober solution is to reinvest our campaigns and habitats that die there, and for that no need to build new, there is only to renovate.
The French heritage and its terroir are endangered!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 28/03/12, 12:00

sen-no-sen wrote:
My grandparents were 10 times more sober than me in energy yet he lived on a farm with 10 times more surface than I currently have.



For heating, reduced to the unit area: surely not !!! They simply made the wood themselves, burned 10 or 15 cubic meters without "counting", it was just their job, not money ...

I can testify: farmer / farmer's father, 50 years, tiny 5 ha farm, the habitat was about 80 m²; of course we made our wood: annual consumption = about 25 / 30 steres [and kids at work: crack, wheelbarrows, tidy up ...!]. On a DPE, it would be triple Z! My father, it was also 12 hours a day 6 days a week in winter and up to 17 6 days on 6 in summer! I did my studies thanks to the scholarships, not to the income of my parents!

For electricity, surely: no TV, fridge, washing machine, a lamp that hangs from the ceiling, no computer, no xpad, no phone ... I do not speak of fantasies like tumble dryers , hair dryer, fryer, food processor or ... clim !!!

But this lifestyle, you probably won't accept it yourself (unless you are one of the "radical decreasing" - a few hundred, a few thousand maybe people radically in agreement with their ideas - while "picking up "a little in the excesses of others, which is not generalizable either!) [which I respect!]
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 28/03/12, 12:12

sen-no-sen wrote:[

The densification of the habitat is not necessarily a model of sobriety, it is only to see the big suburban set that grew like mushrooms at a time when the growth was strong and the cheap oil.


There too: do not confuse concommittance (big sets / cheap energy) and cause-and-effect link!

At the same time, single-family houses were built which today are thermal sinkholes (except renovation) and which, for a family living in a house, doubled or tripled or even quadrupled energy consumption compared to a family housed in a bar (whose middle housings have only one face in contact with the outside, so, in reality, a phase to be heated).

If: densification is "the" least cost model.

Otherwise, we can of course build passive houses with a "cocoon" which is worth its thought of insulation !!! If we have the means.

Moreover, the "eco-districts" (Freiburg type) often cited are from the small, skillfully arranged collective ...

As for the heritage that fucks the camp, yes! But !!

I hope that there will remain enough rich people in a France which is impoverished faster than one thinks to maintain it and to develop it. Lean into a thermal renovation of an old farmhouse and you'll understand your pain [again, except do it yourself]. And in just a few years, the energy may have tripled ??? The majority of us will not be able to "free" 5 euros per year to heat such a "very nice country house".

On one or the other forum I go crazy when I recommend insulation from the outside of these "houses with a crazy character" on the grounds that in 10 or 15 years the current occupants doing work will no longer be able to heat it and will not be able to resell it neither (in any case, not at a reasonable price).

This is the economic and energy reality!

That's just my opinion.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/03/12, 13:31

Did67 wrote:For heating, reduced to the unit area: surely not !!! They simply made the wood themselves, burned 10 or 15 cubic meters without "counting", it was just their job, not money ...


Everything is a question of reasoning, they burned wood certainly, but no uranium, no fuel ... the impact was not the same, the time either.


densification is "the" least cost model.


... lower economic cost.
Moreover it is to be seen, because a large densification requires means of centralized energy production, as well as commercial areas that are also.

There too: do not confuse concommittance (big sets / cheap energy) and cause-and-effect link!

You could develop please?

Bend over a thermal renovation of an old farm and you will understand your pain [again, except to do it yourself].


It is more logical to renovate the old one than to make new ones systematically.
By patrimony it is not necessary to think automatically of a farm of 400 m2, but for example to a simple town house (I live in one) which remains energetically speaking quite effective.

"houses with a crazy character" on the grounds that in 10 or 15 years the current occupants doing work will no longer be able to heat it and will not be able to resell it either (in any case, not at a reasonable price).


In contrast to an apartment that depends entirely on an outside network, it is quite possible for a house to have low operating costs thanks to wood and solar energy.
Electricity, gas and fuel will increase significantly in the coming times, residents of buildings that are not HQE will pay their bills!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Forhorse
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2486
Registration: 27/10/09, 08:19
Location: Perche Ornais
x 360




by Forhorse » 28/03/12, 13:39

Funny, on another forum we have come to talk about isolated habitat in the countryside.
this is the discussion
http://forum-photovoltaique.fr/viewtopi ... 40&t=25217
who led to talk about "sprawl"
see the favorite website to dedicate http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitage
The article wikipedia hovers over several interesting aspects that are more in line with Did67
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/03/12, 13:46

Forhorse wrote:Funny, on another forum we have come to talk about isolated habitat in the countryside.
this is the discussion
http://forum-photovoltaique.fr/viewtopi ... 40&t=25217
who led to talk about "sprawl"
see the favorite website to dedicate http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitage
The article wikipedia hovers over several interesting aspects that are more in line with Did67


The phenomenon of spillage is relatively recent, it is once more a resultant of cheap energy.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




by dedeleco » 28/03/12, 14:12

RIAZ concludes:

All these sources of energy do exist, (almost) everyone knows, but the orders of magnitude are not at the rendezvous and (almost) everyone pretends to forget it. Without being a polytechnician, with a simple calculator, this fact is easily established. Without prior reduction of the need (and we can do it without tightening the belt) this option is a stalemate.


Stalemate that is not exact, saw the energy that sends us the sun (even just on our car parks and roofs) and the vastness of our creative technological possibilities, that negawatt and RIAZ ignores and forgets !!

Our past and our history of humans prove it repeatedly:

There are more than 10000 years, as hunter-gatherers, it was a deadlock considering that it was impossible to make men live more than 1 for some km2 (like some current wild tribes of equatorial forests, suppressed by all of us) :
also we have invented farming, and our population has exploded (probably blocking a new glaciation according to some) !!!

In the 70 years the disaster was declared for the year before 2000, more oil, while it is still flowing, and it launched us in the nuclear, a madness, that continues.

Given the vastness of our technological potential, we must innovate, be creative, to move to effective solutions in the long term, making the best use of solar energy, in all its forms, wind, thermal stored in the free earth in solar superficial geothermal, as well for the winter heating with summer heat, only for to make high temperature concentration solar electricity stored underground, a bit like a volcano and reused at night and winter, for electric generator, perfectly possible, if the spirits get used to it, giving up the expensive follies of ITER (which will still not work in 50 years) and nuclear EPR priced already doubled, with always a risk of inevitable disaster sooner or later, emptying a whole uninhabitable region, incultivable !!
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 31/03/12, 10:30

sen-no-sen wrote:
Did67 wrote:For heating, reduced to the unit area: surely not !!! They simply made the wood themselves, burned 10 or 15 cubic meters without "counting", it was just their job, not money ...


Everything is a question of reasoning, they burned wood certainly, but no uranium, no fuel ... the impact was not the same, the time either.



OKAY. I reasoned "energy consumption" or kWh used if you want ... I understood that that was the subject.

The impact on nuclear waste or CO² of fossil origin: we are 100% agree.

Be careful not to idealize the past though: London and all major European cities were suffocating because of SMOG and particle pollution in the city was appalling!

Finally the population was not the same: what we can do at 100, we can not necessarily do at 1000 (the French population has not evolved at this rate, but the density in some peri-urban areas if, and even more).
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 101 guests