Video: Crossword on the oil crisis ...

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 3




by jean63 » 09/05/06, 01:55

It just ended it was not bad ... but I found Ripostes a little less rummage (Calvi was not too confident compared to his habits ...) .... Jancovici had to speak 5 minutes in all c is a shame ...


Exact I noticed that Jancovici could not speak, he was entitled to barely 5 minutes while Cohen the economist that we often see in "c'est + clair" on FR5 with Calvi had to speak at least 1/2 hour. I had the impression that JY Calvi did not want to let Jancovici develop his ideas which clashed compared to the other participants much more down to earth, and yet Janco he is clearly above all the others because he masters all areas and has a much more global vision. I find his analysis very relevant, he could not finish his sentence on estimates of global warming and its implications.

Everything else, we have heard it a thousand times ... renewable energies passed over in silence or almost. Or it was too short or Calvi distributed the speaking times very badly; I am disappointed with this program, yet I like the debates led by Calvi. Did he have instructions to guide the debate? Janco had time to say that a computer = 350 kg of oil !!!

I will go to the Janco site to see his comments on his passage to "Crosswords" .... before discovering econology, I often consulted the Jancovici site, it is a wealth of very precise information.

We find that
Despite thundering declarations on the post-oil era which has already started, or climate change which would be a major threat, it is clear that our daily lives do not see any trace of it for the moment. Humanity has never consumed as much black gold, gas and coal as in 2005 and, in France, the rise in the global average of the last century only really prevented us from sleeping for a few days during the summer 2003. Of course, tomorrow will be different from today, because that is the very definition of a change, but how can we be convinced that we are off to a bad start when, as the “skeptics” do not hesitate to do? remember, is everything okay yet?

A first certainty comes from mathematics, which - alas - does not become invalid because the conclusion displeases us: with a finished starting stock, the oil supply will go through a maximum then decrease constantly, and this conclusion also applies to coal and gas. Therefore, when will the inexorable beginning of oil decline, which must be distinguished from the "end of oil", an expression that has only media interest? The response of oil tankers - the only ones with primary information - fluctuates between 2010 and 2025, that is to say almost tomorrow. Even by referring to gas and coal, mathematics prohibits prolonging more than a few decades an increasing consumption of fossil fuels.

The second certainty concerns the climate: 20.000 years ago, at the height of the last ice age, the planet had lost only 5 ° C in average temperature compared to now. A few more degrees for the global average in one or two centuries would therefore be a climatic shock, with consequences unimaginable in the first sense of the term, that is to say, impossible to imagine in detail. Indeed, such a rapid climate transition applied to a few billion sedentary individuals has never happened in the past, near or far. Above all, the inertia of the climate system and the lifespan of CO2 in the air are such that the temperature will rise for at least a few centuries after human CO2 emissions have started to decrease.

Despite the above, we live today with the dangerous illusion that energy will remain abundant and cheap for eternity. It is therefore logical that we cry crazy as soon as anyone advocates raising the price! But to ask the question of the price of energy is already to have answered it: all other things being equal, the price of an exhaustible resource whose consumption would like to increase constantly can only explode. A market price remaining low “as long as possible” would not even be good news: we could then emit so much CO2 that our (grand) children will inherit a monstrous climate bill, without much residual energy to get there. cope, and without even having enjoyed the party. What come nuclear and renewable, then! Although useful, they will not be enough to replace oil, gas and coal in a few decades: we will have to go on a diet
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79002
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10934




by Christophe » 09/05/06, 17:35

The program is available on the following link:

https://www.econologie.com/mots-croises- ... -2932.html

jean63 wrote: Janco had time to say that a computer = 350 kg of oil !!!


Exactly ... what is this figure? during manufacturing (gray energy) or during its entire lifetime (+ recycling)? Or the two (three)?

jean63 wrote: it's a wealth of very precise information.


Yes it is much more complete than economical .. We can hardly fight on the field ... Finally we are especially complementary: show him the problems and we "try" to solve them ...
Last edited by Christophe the 03 / 05 / 11, 18: 07, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 3




by jean63 » 09/05/06, 18:02

Exactly ... what is this figure? during manufacturing (gray energy) or during its entire lifetime (+ recycling)? Or the two (three)?


I don't know, he said that at the very end of the broadcast; I guess he talks about it on his site. Anyway, it is obvious that we do not touch much in a day that has not had "business" with oil near or far (design, manufacture, transport ..... etc). It must be difficult to really estimate the oil cost of a given object at an instant t, because for the PC, if we must talk about its demolition (transport to India + "cost" in human lives - which are not worth expensive for the WTO - killed by cancer linked to the breakage of components ... etc, we are badly crossed). This is why I always have the instinct to keep and make it last (I still have a cathode screen, it is surely more "greedy" in energy than a flat screen? !!!).
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
User avatar
lio74
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 333
Registration: 15/03/06, 23:16
Location: Haute-Vienne and SAVOY




by lio74 » 09/05/06, 18:10

houlala what dexterity of the post :!: :!:

hi thrifty : Cheesy:

thank you Chris for the link .. I will check the end of the parse yesterday ... 00:30 hard (too tired)!

otherwise I find that it was a lot of talk, of figure but no concrete solutions !!!!

green policies, there is not one who thought based his campaign on concrete solutions by funding projects !!!

jean63 wrote:
...
I will go to the Janco site to see his comments on his passage to "Crosswords" .... before discovering econology, I often consulted the Jancovici site, it is a wealth of very precise information.
...
.

what is the STP site
0 x
"To do something is expensive, to do nothing will cost much more." Koffie Annan
next species endangered: Man ... and it will be good for him !!!
MAN IS A VERY DANGEROUS POLLUTION NATURAL!
User avatar
lio74
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 333
Registration: 15/03/06, 23:16
Location: Haute-Vienne and SAVOY




by lio74 » 09/05/06, 18:17

re thank you jve take a look :!: : Cheesy:

Econology wrote:Well in theory this is where Econologie.com intervenes right? : Cheesy:


yeah, is there someone who talked about it during the debate !?
because if one or more green elected officials would finance projects such as the pantone .... well, they would have a few more ways :!: :!:
0 x
"To do something is expensive, to do nothing will cost much more." Koffie Annan

next species endangered: Man ... and it will be good for him !!!

MAN IS A VERY DANGEROUS POLLUTION NATURAL!
User avatar
Misterloxo
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 480
Registration: 10/02/03, 15:28
x 1




by Misterloxo » 09/05/06, 21:02

former oceanic wrote:Here I saved it from the freebox, but the final file is 1,33 GB. It's way too big to upload!

It's an .mpg file, I will have to find something to reduce it.

Can someone save me time if someone has already done this type of operation?


You can use virtualDub or virtualDubMod or even Windows Movie Maker (supplied with winXP) to convert it to divx or wmv (Windows Movie Maker)

@+
0 x
Learning disobedience is a long process. It takes a lifetime to reach perfection. "Maurice Rajsfus
To think is to say no. "Alain, philosopher
User avatar
krissg29
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 80
Registration: 07/11/04, 21:26
Location: Finistere center
x 2




by krissg29 » 09/05/06, 21:10

I also saw the show.

Even if it was a little "messed up", it deserved to switch to PrimeTime, to make everyone understand that there is a fact (no oil forever) and no or few solutions (in any case solutions applicable for an equivalent of current energy consumption).

Jean-Marc Jancovici still had time to make an interesting comparison by saying that oil, even at 3 € per liter, is still VERY cheap.
explanation:
1 liter of petroleum used in an engine allows the engine to do some work. If you put a man on a bicycle until he has done the same job, how long will it take? and how much will it cost, even at SMIG?
0 x
It should not be confused and ingenious engineer
User avatar
jean63
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2332
Registration: 15/12/05, 08:50
Location: Auvergne
x 3




by jean63 » 09/05/06, 23:33

Auto Moto. But automakers agree that one energy alone won't replace oil, but that a bundle of energy, combined with savings, may be the answer

Jean-Marc Jancovici. A bunch of energy will not be enough to keep a car per adult of driving age, with fuel at 1 euro per liter. Currently, we consume 3.500 million tonnes of oil every year, more than half of which goes into land transport. To use the example of biofuels, we only produce 20 million tonnes per year worldwide. Even by increasing the area of ​​land which is dedicated to its production, we will not succeed ... As for the fuel cell, should we remember that we do not find hydrogen (Editor's note: its fuel) in nature, but we make it with electricity? If you take into account the CO2 emissions from the fuel cell from the well to the wheel (Editor's note: that is to say all the stages of manufacture), a fuel cell car is roughly equivalent to an HDi diesel car. And if we wanted to make hydrogen using the electrical energy produced by nuclear power, that is to say without CO2 emissions, we would have to at least double the number of nuclear power plants in France. Finally, handling hydrogen (from production to our tanks) consumes a great deal of energy.


This is a very small part of the interview with JM Jancovici at Auto-Moto found in the JMJ manicore.com site, it gives a small overview of all the ideas he could not develop; compared to what he puts forward (and which seems very thoughtful), he could only express a tiny part. we must not lose sight of the fact that he is a polytechnician and specialist in environmental problems of the planet, a priori he knows what he is talking about !! To be convinced you have to read the content of your site (if you have a lot of time) and then you can start chatting by saying less bullshit (that's valid for me, of course). there is in particular a chapter on CO2 on land, sea and atmosphere which is extraordinary.
0 x
Only when he has brought down the last tree, the last river contaminated, the last fish caught that man will realize that money is not edible (Indian MOHAWK).
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79002
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10934




by Christophe » 10/05/06, 09:31

lio74 wrote:yeah, is there someone who talked about it during the debate !?
because if one or more green elected officials would finance projects such as the pantone .... well, they would have a few more ways :!: :!:


1) obviously they haven't talked about it
2) for the Greens, their response (from the national "energies" delegate in person and orally) in 2002 was as follows: "Sorry sir, there is nothing we can do for you!" I doubt it has changed ...
0 x
Rulian
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 686
Registration: 02/02/04, 19:46
Location: Caen




by Rulian » 11/05/06, 19:18

This is the show is downloadable HERE.

For those who have not seen, take the opportunity to also take the program "Ripostes" on petroleum, which is much better.

Thanks to ecorage!
0 x

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 251 guests