To believe that giant installations will solve the problem is utopian, especially since the energy has to be transported afterwards and the losses are enormous over a great distance ... I think rather in particular installations: the panels on the roofs of houses ...
It should be noted that in the regions where there are the most solar panels it is precisely where the conditions are the least favorable (northern countries, Germany), the Mediterranean is very little equipped because of I'menfoutisme typically local. ..
And we must not forget a "detail" that is systematically forgotten: the manufacture and recycling of solar panels is very energy-intensive and very polluting ...
Warming up and purchasing power according to Jancovici (video)
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79304
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11037
+ 1 with chatam ...
The increase (real or artificial via taxes) would allow to develop REs more quickly at home (do not forget that it is 40% CO2 about ...) ...
For the meditannean little equipped, I agree only partly: in Turkey there is a lot of solar (thermal)!
For gray energy, I think you were thinking about PV panels first of all, no?
The increase (real or artificial via taxes) would allow to develop REs more quickly at home (do not forget that it is 40% CO2 about ...) ...
For the meditannean little equipped, I agree only partly: in Turkey there is a lot of solar (thermal)!
For gray energy, I think you were thinking about PV panels first of all, no?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Hello Chatam,
I myself presented my vision as simplistic ... but not utopian
I take a purely energetic point of view by saying that if it is missing, we can now capture much more than necessary with virtually no polluting discharge.
Transport is no problem with three-phase high-voltage lines (400 000V and above) with very reasonable losses: 500 mm² section with 3 resistivity. 10 ^ -8 gives 0,06 Ohm / km, that is to say 1000 km distances: 60 Ohm! By big thing anyway ... The THT makes it possible to lower I and RI² at the same time.
I think that we should not oppose centralized and decentralized production, especially for solar energy. Both are complementary and easily fit into a diversified energy mix (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and thermal).
As you point out, the regions equipped with PV are essentially those of the developed countries, and not necessarily well placed on the map of the solar field. But even in France, we have solar to capture. The glass of Pastis is not the only one responsible because the almost-all nuclear policy condemned the solar one. But I believe that the lines move recently, certainly slowly because the buttocks do not burn yet enough about the cost of oil.
Finally, PV technology has the merit of working, but is not optimal: deplorable performance (10%) and, as you say, CO2 pollution induced by the manufacture of cells and recycling. But I still prefer that to kneel before the Russians for their gas, to prostrate before the Emirs for their oil, and empty my wallet to pay taxes Carbon or Petroleum
@+
I myself presented my vision as simplistic ... but not utopian
I take a purely energetic point of view by saying that if it is missing, we can now capture much more than necessary with virtually no polluting discharge.
Transport is no problem with three-phase high-voltage lines (400 000V and above) with very reasonable losses: 500 mm² section with 3 resistivity. 10 ^ -8 gives 0,06 Ohm / km, that is to say 1000 km distances: 60 Ohm! By big thing anyway ... The THT makes it possible to lower I and RI² at the same time.
I think that we should not oppose centralized and decentralized production, especially for solar energy. Both are complementary and easily fit into a diversified energy mix (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar and thermal).
As you point out, the regions equipped with PV are essentially those of the developed countries, and not necessarily well placed on the map of the solar field. But even in France, we have solar to capture. The glass of Pastis is not the only one responsible because the almost-all nuclear policy condemned the solar one. But I believe that the lines move recently, certainly slowly because the buttocks do not burn yet enough about the cost of oil.
Finally, PV technology has the merit of working, but is not optimal: deplorable performance (10%) and, as you say, CO2 pollution induced by the manufacture of cells and recycling. But I still prefer that to kneel before the Russians for their gas, to prostrate before the Emirs for their oil, and empty my wallet to pay taxes Carbon or Petroleum
@+
0 x
Thank you Christophe for the interpretation of the word "mafia". I saw your previous post ...
Janco, if he understands that, should, for pedagogical purposes, formulate it clearly ... Let us do it because in the context of reporting, we do not say everything we want as we want. .
Last but not least, what does this "preparation" consist of? Prepare a woolen stocking? For what purposes? I am very opposed to this kind of measure: money is nothing if it is not used for effective action. Finally, these taxes are deeply anti-social: 80% of the population (middle and lower to upper middle classes) will have to finance them when these people are not responsible. The very rich don't give a damn about their gas tank, the very poor can't do it for a long time ...
In my opinion, we have to get the technologies out of the R&D labs and massively install kWh without oil and / or renewable: for the first, let's trust the French nuclear lobby (EPR + 4th generation RNR reactor in gestation). For the latter, we might as well say that we do not do much on an industrial scale ...
What is clearly missing is a global energy policy, rational and based mainly on the renewable.
And yet, to do that, there is no need for a tax: fossil oil will grow on its own and become an anti-economic product. That's why today's financing of renewable industrial projects is an excellent investment requiring only the raising of bank or stock funds without any tax levy. Even a boost would be welcome, knowing that we have a debt in France ...
Sacred projects in perspective ... but it's worth taking up these technologically accessible challenges today!
@+
Christophe wrote:But we must understand the subtext of his message: a progressive tax today would prevent or at least prepare for a crisis tomorrow
Janco, if he understands that, should, for pedagogical purposes, formulate it clearly ... Let us do it because in the context of reporting, we do not say everything we want as we want. .
Last but not least, what does this "preparation" consist of? Prepare a woolen stocking? For what purposes? I am very opposed to this kind of measure: money is nothing if it is not used for effective action. Finally, these taxes are deeply anti-social: 80% of the population (middle and lower to upper middle classes) will have to finance them when these people are not responsible. The very rich don't give a damn about their gas tank, the very poor can't do it for a long time ...
In my opinion, we have to get the technologies out of the R&D labs and massively install kWh without oil and / or renewable: for the first, let's trust the French nuclear lobby (EPR + 4th generation RNR reactor in gestation). For the latter, we might as well say that we do not do much on an industrial scale ...
What is clearly missing is a global energy policy, rational and based mainly on the renewable.
And yet, to do that, there is no need for a tax: fossil oil will grow on its own and become an anti-economic product. That's why today's financing of renewable industrial projects is an excellent investment requiring only the raising of bank or stock funds without any tax levy. Even a boost would be welcome, knowing that we have a debt in France ...
Sacred projects in perspective ... but it's worth taking up these technologically accessible challenges today!
@+
0 x
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79304
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11037
Remundo wrote:Janco, if he understands that, should, for pedagogical purposes, formulate it clearly ... Let us do it because in the context of reporting, we do not say everything we want as we want. .
It seems to me that he says it clearly in the video, no?
Remundo wrote:Last but not least, what does this "preparation" consist of?
Ben it's simple: the goal is to reduce our consumption and dependencies to fossils ... More fuel is expensive plus alternatives are (quickly) profitable ...
Remundo wrote: For the latter, to say that we do not do much on an industrial scale ... [/ b]
All the individuals who equip themselves would have an influence of the order of the industrial porduction not?
Remundo wrote:What is clearly missing is a global energy policy, rational and based mainly on the renewable.
And yet, to do that, there is no need for a tax: fossil oil will grow on its own and become an anti-economic product.
I totally agree that this is in line with the idea of a "global" tax ... a local tax would only have the purpose of stopping the "locals" ...
Remundo wrote:Sacred projects in perspective ... but it's worth taking up these technologically accessible challenges today!
It is not worth it for everyone apparently ... Otherwise the "blockages" that you mentioned above would not exist ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Hi Christopher,
I watched the video again and no, it doesn't seem clear to me ... He talks about "paying for insurance" for the upcoming mess. I would rather avoid breaking the pots, and that is not impossible
. At another place, he says "the lower classes will realize that it is better to insulate the house than to pay for fuel". To "realize" is one thing, to be able to finance the works AND the overtaxed fuel is another, to curdle the loaves is a third, by far the most probable 
It is a path not to be neglected, but I do not believe that it is enough unless you are a lover of economic decline. When a glass is empty, you can tell yourself that you are less thirsty, but after a while, you have to refill it to live. You use the word profitable: it refers to "alternatives", therefore to the producers of alternatives, who will thus find themselves in a position of strength: the individual will have in front of him two sellers of energy: the fuel will cost him a "first buttock ", and the" alternatives ", aligning themselves almost on fuel", and him eating a good piece of his second buttock ...
City dwellers will be particularly exposed to this fooled energy market because it will be almost impossible for them to install solar, wind, hydro or go cut wood. Their autonomy will hardly exceed 5% ... On the contrary, the rural people, so mocked, treated as "pecnos", will have a nice turnaround in the situation, especially if they have a small stream running next to their house. ... They will be easily self-sufficient and even have a large surplus: tightening the price of oil will give them an excellent income, to the detriment of 75% of the population, who live in cities.
Yes absolutely, but in my mind, "industrial" refers to a factory specially dedicated to production, say capable of supplying 100 homes. It is certain that in your vision where, on average, each household would be approximately 50% semi-autonomous, "non-industrial" production would equal industrial production in the energy mix.
I believe things are evolving and will change quite drastically over the next 30 years. We finally discuss "blockages" attached to the period 1960/2000, roughly speaking, driven by a considerable post-war economic boom and a profusion of oil not worth much ...
There will always be some eclectic interests in slowing down "the global econological machine", but I think they are no longer able to block it, and that is today. You only have to see how much ecological issues were present in the last presidential campaign (for low consequences, I agree). Mentalities are shaping very slowly ... And as soon as the wallet is going to shed 40 Euros to fill the tank of a moped, "the global econological machine will take the turns".
I'm not pessimistic, the patience of a few decades should prove me right ... and also to the "econologists" who have developed moderate and reasonable ecological theses as true pioneers ...
See you soon
Christophe wrote:It seems to me that he says it clearly in the video, no?
I watched the video again and no, it doesn't seem clear to me ... He talks about "paying for insurance" for the upcoming mess. I would rather avoid breaking the pots, and that is not impossible
. At another place, he says "the lower classes will realize that it is better to insulate the house than to pay for fuel". To "realize" is one thing, to be able to finance the works AND the overtaxed fuel is another, to curdle the loaves is a third, by far the most probable the goal is to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and dependency ... the more fuel is expensive the more the alternatives are (quickly) profitable ...
It is a path not to be neglected, but I do not believe that it is enough unless you are a lover of economic decline. When a glass is empty, you can tell yourself that you are less thirsty, but after a while, you have to refill it to live. You use the word profitable: it refers to "alternatives", therefore to the producers of alternatives, who will thus find themselves in a position of strength: the individual will have in front of him two sellers of energy: the fuel will cost him a "first buttock ", and the" alternatives ", aligning themselves almost on fuel", and him eating a good piece of his second buttock ...
City dwellers will be particularly exposed to this fooled energy market because it will be almost impossible for them to install solar, wind, hydro or go cut wood. Their autonomy will hardly exceed 5% ... On the contrary, the rural people, so mocked, treated as "pecnos", will have a nice turnaround in the situation, especially if they have a small stream running next to their house. ... They will be easily self-sufficient and even have a large surplus: tightening the price of oil will give them an excellent income, to the detriment of 75% of the population, who live in cities.
All the individuals who equip themselves would have an influence of the order of the industrial porduction not?
Yes absolutely, but in my mind, "industrial" refers to a factory specially dedicated to production, say capable of supplying 100 homes. It is certain that in your vision where, on average, each household would be approximately 50% semi-autonomous, "non-industrial" production would equal industrial production in the energy mix.
It is not worth it for everyone apparently ... Otherwise the "blockages" that you mentioned above would not exist ...
I believe things are evolving and will change quite drastically over the next 30 years. We finally discuss "blockages" attached to the period 1960/2000, roughly speaking, driven by a considerable post-war economic boom and a profusion of oil not worth much ...
There will always be some eclectic interests in slowing down "the global econological machine", but I think they are no longer able to block it, and that is today. You only have to see how much ecological issues were present in the last presidential campaign (for low consequences, I agree). Mentalities are shaping very slowly ... And as soon as the wallet is going to shed 40 Euros to fill the tank of a moped, "the global econological machine will take the turns".
I'm not pessimistic, the patience of a few decades should prove me right ... and also to the "econologists" who have developed moderate and reasonable ecological theses as true pioneers ...
See you soon
0 x
Bonsoir
For photovoltaic panels, I will consider them as an alternative to other non-renewable electricity products when the factories that manufacture and recycle them (if they exist) will only operate on solar energy.
I do not believe it, in the short or medium term.
The solar potential of southern countries is neglected, but partly because the technology is not accessible to poor countries, which after all, may only have to make electricity or electricity. heat, essential for us
A+
For photovoltaic panels, I will consider them as an alternative to other non-renewable electricity products when the factories that manufacture and recycle them (if they exist) will only operate on solar energy.
I do not believe it, in the short or medium term.
The solar potential of southern countries is neglected, but partly because the technology is not accessible to poor countries, which after all, may only have to make electricity or electricity. heat, essential for us
A+
0 x
Since I am pro-carbon tax, I will answer in bulk:
However, when we look at vehicles with a "borloo bonus" (thus emitting little CO2), they are not really big luxury sedans (by the way on this subject Mercedes pulls the blast because its sedans are full of "penalty" ...).
One can be for a carbon tax and against medical deductibles, one does not prevent the other.
I do not have the source on hand but tankers like Total talk about 2025 rather.
It all depends on what we do with the tax revenue. It can for example be assigned to insulation aids for modest households, which in my opinion would be much smarter and more durable than the "tank premium".
No, the tragedy of our Western societies is that even the little supermarket cashier emits too much CO2: The average of a French is 2 tons while scientists estimate it would take an average of 0.5 ton.
Yes, but the greenhouse effect is a problem to solve right now, and oil and fossil fuel reserves in general are good enough to cause huge damage.
Do the math with a barrel at 70 $ usd (analyst forecast for after winter) it's not profitable enough.
Moreover, part of the revenue from the carbon tax could be used to finance R&D on renewable energies.
The more I see reports on the ever richer and more numerous on the planet who are brewing colossal sums, they they have not had any discussion on the increase of taxes coming on polluting vehicles
However, when we look at vehicles with a "borloo bonus" (thus emitting little CO2), they are not really big luxury sedans (by the way on this subject Mercedes pulls the blast because its sedans are full of "penalty" ...).
There I think that when I see reports like tonight where an elderly lady with a brain tumor will have to pay the deductibles on the home nurse's travel, and that on her tiny retreat ..... c is disgusting.
One can be for a carbon tax and against medical deductibles, one does not prevent the other.
The peak-oil is in 40 years
I do not have the source on hand but tankers like Total talk about 2025 rather.
even though, I agree, this can widen social inequalities ...
It all depends on what we do with the tax revenue. It can for example be assigned to insulation aids for modest households, which in my opinion would be much smarter and more durable than the "tank premium".
80% of the population (middle and lower middle classes and upper middle class) will have to finance them while these people are not responsible. The very rich do not care about their gas, the very poor can not do it for a long time ...
No, the tragedy of our Western societies is that even the little supermarket cashier emits too much CO2: The average of a French is 2 tons while scientists estimate it would take an average of 0.5 ton.
And yet, to do that, there is no need for a tax: fossil oil will grow on its own and become an anti-economic product.
Yes, but the greenhouse effect is a problem to solve right now, and oil and fossil fuel reserves in general are good enough to cause huge damage.
That's why today's financing of renewable industrial projects is an excellent investment requiring only the raising of bank or stock funds without any tax levy. Even a boost would be welcome, knowing that we have a debt in France ...
Do the math with a barrel at 70 $ usd (analyst forecast for after winter) it's not profitable enough.
Moreover, part of the revenue from the carbon tax could be used to finance R&D on renewable energies.
0 x
Hi Supertux,
For the financing of an oil surtax, advocated by Jancovici, I am against and I maintain that 80% of the population will finance it; it will be all creditworthy people except the "very rich" who will go directly to countries where it will probably be absent, for example in the USA. It turns out that when Europeans think about slowing down their economy with green taxes, the United States get their hands on Iraqi derricks and the Canadian tar sands, and boost their economy by devaluing the $ and letting their debt run ... knowing full well that they will be remade with oil. Ecologically disastrous, economically formidable ... in the short term at least.
Ecological scientists are very nice with their estimate (I'm one of them for that matter) ). But what do you want the cashier to do? It is proposed an energy mix totally devoid of renewable. And again, the French cashier is not the worst from the CO2 point of view thanks to nuclear energy. Only sustained renewable policies can change the situation.
Fully agree. The biggest danger, moreover, does not come from CO2, at least not directly ... It is the methane hydrates buried in the bottom of the oceans: if we spit enough CO2 to destabilize them, we cross a point of no return: the warming of 6 ° by 2100 would drop to 10 ° C. We will go from a climatic slap to a real punch of which no one can measure the quantitative consequences
How is the price of the barrel so important for the profitability of renewable energy plants? The immense strength of renewable is that energy is free: it falls from the sky and does not require extraction, especially for solar. It also does not require energy-intensive transport because the electricity networks are in place and already largely amortized.
Advantageous pricing policies are already in place in many countries for renewable kWh and many wind / hydro / solar SMEs are not experiencing the crisis without making too much noise ... Investing now in these installations is eminently profitable since you yourself announce peak-oil for 2025. To speak of accounting, you amortize the installation over 15 to 20 years, and in 2025, when oil is soaring, you sell kWh at a high price " all benefit ".
On a geopolitical level, the advantages are even stronger. This will cut the whistle to Vladimir with his gas, and to "DoubleYou" with his oil. Basically, this would completely break the economic-military strategies of the Big 2, and at the same time, it would allow the economic development of India, China and South America with moderate energy tensions.
Finally, there will always be skeptics or lobbyists who have left their brain in the locker room ...
See you soon.
Supertux wrote:No, the tragedy of our Western societies is that even the little supermarket cashier emits too much CO2: The average of a French is 2 tons while scientists estimate it would take an average of 0.5 ton.
For the financing of an oil surtax, advocated by Jancovici, I am against
and I maintain that 80% of the population will finance it; it will be all creditworthy people except the "very rich" who will go directly to countries where it will probably be absent, for example in the USA. It turns out that when Europeans think about slowing down their economy with green taxes, the United States get their hands on Iraqi derricks and the Canadian tar sands, and boost their economy by devaluing the $ and letting their debt run ... knowing full well that they will be remade with oil. Ecologically disastrous, economically formidable ... in the short term at least.Ecological scientists are very nice with their estimate (I'm one of them for that matter)
). But what do you want the cashier to do? It is proposed an energy mix totally devoid of renewable. And again, the French cashier is not the worst from the CO2 point of view thanks to nuclear energy. Only sustained renewable policies can change the situation.Yes, but the greenhouse effect is a problem to solve right now, and oil and fossil fuel reserves in general are good enough to cause huge damage.
Fully agree. The biggest danger, moreover, does not come from CO2, at least not directly ... It is the methane hydrates buried in the bottom of the oceans: if we spit enough CO2 to destabilize them, we cross a point of no return: the warming of 6 ° by 2100 would drop to 10 ° C. We will go from a climatic slap to a real punch of which no one can measure the quantitative consequences
Do the math with a barrel at 70 $ usd (analyst forecast for after winter) it's not profitable enough.
How is the price of the barrel so important for the profitability of renewable energy plants? The immense strength of renewable is that energy is free: it falls from the sky and does not require extraction, especially for solar. It also does not require energy-intensive transport because the electricity networks are in place and already largely amortized.
Advantageous pricing policies are already in place in many countries for renewable kWh and many wind / hydro / solar SMEs are not experiencing the crisis without making too much noise ... Investing now in these installations is eminently profitable since you yourself announce peak-oil for 2025. To speak of accounting, you amortize the installation over 15 to 20 years, and in 2025, when oil is soaring, you sell kWh at a high price " all benefit ".
On a geopolitical level, the advantages are even stronger. This will cut the whistle to Vladimir with his gas, and to "DoubleYou" with his oil. Basically, this would completely break the economic-military strategies of the Big 2, and at the same time, it would allow the economic development of India, China and South America with moderate energy tensions.
Finally, there will always be skeptics or lobbyists who have left their brain in the locker room ...
See you soon.
0 x
loop wrote:The solar potential of southern countries is neglected, but partly because the technology is not accessible to poor countries, which after all, may only have to make electricity or electricity. heat, essential for us
When I spoke about the Mediterranean, I also thought about that of France, much richer on average than the north, and yet no solar panels on the roof while there are plenty in the North ... when I spoke of jefoutism ...
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 0 Replies
- 5695 views
-
Last message by Exnihiloest
View the latest post
30/05/22, 19:43A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 6 Replies
- 4600 views
-
Last message by izentrop
View the latest post
15/08/23, 18:47A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 281 Replies
- 37911 views
-
Last message by izentrop
View the latest post
13/03/24, 19:48A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 53 Replies
- 26534 views
-
Last message by ABC2019
View the latest post
20/05/20, 08:32A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
-
- 37 Replies
- 18837 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
22/01/21, 10:41A subject posted in the forum : Climate change: CO2, warming, greenhouse ...
Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 154 guests