NegaWatt scenario, a sober and clean energy future

[Did67]

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.

Here too, to think:

- what has the biggest impact: a power station well piloted, well managed, well maintained or a multitude chauidères or worse stove and inserts dissénéninés ???

- a hypermarket or 15 mini-markets in 15 "villages" (count the delivery / distribution of products

And of course, I did not specify it: my idea is not to raze the existing one, but to stop building - sometimes on the best agricultural land (an "economic cost" and "non-economic" = landscape !) - individual subdivisions as far as the eye can see on the outskirts of towns, without public transport, "supplements" the housing we need.

Not to mention that in an "intelligent" model of a small collective, many functions can be shared: car, a washing machine, a "studio" of friends, a large room for "family celebrations" which translates into: savings in material / resources drawn from nature AND savings in operation (heating, etc ...).

Still, I would have to admit that people are intelligent!

But dismissing the idea from the outset seems very little "econological"!

[Did67]

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

You could develop please?

In your sentence, we seem to understand that it is cheap energy that "led" to large ensembles.

What is not true: it is the urgent need, the rapid urbanization, which has created a very important need for housing, especially for the new townspeople from the countryside who were emptying themselves and the emigrants. It was necessary to act very quickly and massively ?. We concreted! Nobody knew then what would follow. Moreover, the period reports are touching: we see people from the countryside discouraging with wonder the "modern"! (WC, bathroom, large windows, small balcony ...) !!!

Cheap energy did not care insulation level. So we did not isolate! (No more than isolated individual houses of the same era !!)

But the cheap energy did not encourage the big together!

There is therefore "concomittance (it took place at the same time: construction of large units and cheap energy) but no cause and effect link (the one - cheap energy - did not cause, cause, l 'other - large ensembles).

[Did67]

The phenomenon of spillage is relatively recent, it is once more a resultant of cheap energy.

We must agree on "relatively": in Brittany, on the Côte d'Azur, it's not all new!

Peri-urban maybe a little more ...

But the "sprawl" does not bother me any more than the grabbing of good agricultural land for subdivisions as far as the eye can see.

In Alsace, it is appalling: the best land (the Loess, which are the best agricultural stags in the world - it is windy limon from ... China!) Spend every year under concrete, macadam (subdivision or industrial / artisanal areas) while wastelands, in piedmont, less easily accessible, remain at the idle stage!

In 5 or 10 or 20 years, the price of food products will skyrocket (because nowadays, "food" comes less and less from the sun - which it was 100% even a century ago! - but of more and more petroleum - machinery fuel, nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides and processing / packaging / transport -); and there, we will bitterly regret this lack of surfaces!

Like baby boys, nowadays, we make the idiots. We destroy!

[RIAZ]

Not to mention that in an "intelligent" model of a small collective, many functions can be shared: car, a washing machine, a "studio" of friends, a large room for "family celebrations" which translates into: savings in material / resources drawn from nature AND savings in operation (heating, etc ...).

Of course ... But this is not the model of the admirers of the DRAKE LANDIND community!

But the cheap energy did not encourage the big together!
...
There is therefore "concomitance (it took place at the same time: construction of large units and cheap energy) but no cause and effect link (the one - cheap energy - did not cause, cause, l 'other - large ensembles).

The thing is discussed !!!
The great and especially rapid upheavals experienced by our society and which led to population movements leading to the need to build everything from colanders to Kwh, have originated from the fast and massive availability of cheap energy.

[Did67]

The thing is discussed !!!
The great and especially rapid upheavals experienced by our society and which led to population movements leading to the need to build everything from colanders to Kwh, have originated from the fast and massive availability of cheap energy.

OKAY. Seen so everything absolutely is the consequence of a cheap energy.

So seen so, okay.

I admit that I thought "direct causation". We can say that cheap energy at the time is directly linked to the fact thatno serious insulation was not envisaged. Individually or in groups. Or that rising energy prices are making insulation today a reality and we are thinking about every new project. Individually or in groups.

So again, the fact that at the time, we built big together rather than individual subdivisions was not directly related to the price of energy.

This is the only argument against which I reacted.

[RIAZ]

OKAY. Seen so everything absolutely is the consequence of a cheap energy.

So seen so, alright .............

This reality encompasses all others. If we forget to start from this, we can roll out reinforced concrete reasoning that shows that 2 + 2 = 3 or 5 depending on what we want to prove.

Le "according to what one wants to prove" is important. This is the classic pattern where we find all those who, big or small, want to put their fancy or their business. For some it is the electric car, for others it is the nuclear (often the same for that matter), still others it is the capture / sequestration of the CO2 or the GMOs, and so on .. ..

[sen-no-sen]

RIAZ wrote:

The thing is discussed !!!
The great and especially rapid upheavals experienced by our society, which have led to population movements leading to the need to build everything from colifers to Kwh, are due to the rapid and massive availability of cheap energy.

Absolutely!
Large complexes were built to accommodate migrants arriving massively in the 60 years, France, then growing (the thirty glorious) needed cheap labor.
If energy is expensive growth is not possible to achieve (at least according to contemporary standards, it was otherwise during antiquity where labor and energy was almost the same thing).



Did67 wrote:

Here too, to think:

- what has the biggest impact: a power station well piloted, well managed, well maintained or a multitude chauidères or worse stove and inserts dissénéninés ???

- a hypermarket or 15 mini-markets in 15 "villages" (count the delivery / distribution of products

You reason based on the current functioning, outside the future must be thought on new bases.
A hypermarket = hyper parking, so a large number of vehicles, so very energy-intensive trips ...

Local shops were originally supplied by suppliers of proximities (peasants), the emergence of the concentration model has sounded the death knell of many of them.

In terms of energy production, again using efficient techniques (biogas, solar, geothermal) industrial disasters would be largely avoided.

[RIAZ]

The movement of goods will remain a necessity. It will therefore be necessary to rationalize energy expenditure.
Just an example: a shopkeeper who does a tour (as in the good old days!) Spends much less energy per customer served than the said customers if they have to go to the merchant individually.

Internet order + optimized delivery = easy 4 factor (on this point).

And we will not be even more unhappy ...!

We are so blinded by the free energy, that it's hard to be rational !!!!!

[sen-no-sen]

The movement of goods will remain a necessity. It will therefore be necessary to rationalize energy expenditure.
Just an example: a shopkeeper who does a tour (as in the good old days!) Spends much less energy per customer served than the said customers if they have to go to the merchant individually.
(...)

All in all, in my village, the cheese maker is still touring, on the one hand it is very practical and it is local products, on the other it allows to maintain social links (many elderly people can not more moved there make their run and take the news).

The same can not be said for dehumanized hypermarkets (pleonasm) ...

[Ahmed]

If energy is expensive growth is not possible to achieve (at least according to contemporary standards, it was otherwise during antiquity where labor and energy were almost the same thing).

Attention, the precision in parenthesis is ambiguous: ancient society did not function according to the model of growth, certainly hoarding did exist, but as a private and particular "vice" (denounced by Aristotle and many others).