The energy challenge

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
dede2002
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1111
Registration: 10/10/13, 16:30
Location: Geneva countryside
x 189




by dede2002 » 31/07/15, 15:24

The question of firewood for cooking also concerns me, knowing that firewood for Europeans is a much greater consumption.
And that there are multinational companies that are grabbing land in Africa to grow wood, financed by "carbon credits", wood intended to supply "green" heaters in Europe in 20 years ...
0 x
dede2002
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1111
Registration: 10/10/13, 16:30
Location: Geneva countryside
x 189




by dede2002 » 31/07/15, 15:54

Another thing that shocks me in previous writings is the assertion that organic farming is a step backwards, citing famines in Europe.

It is, however, more than a thousand years of experience, which is certainly augmented by current knowledge of agroecology.

But for example the famous famine which pushed the Irish in America was due to a "modern technique", the monoculture for the profit of a chief!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 31/07/15, 16:25

If I spoke of "deviation", it is because it is perhaps useless to detail the various aspects of the AB (although in itself it remains interesting), whereas the basic problematic was badly posed by Pierre Yves.
That is, on the one hand the impossibility of petroleum-based agriculture and on the other hand the absurdity of enrichment for all (since it can only be done at the expense of others) : here are the points that you approach with great accuracy and the relief of a relevant historical perspective.
Precisely, another error relates to history which is presented as a linear and cumulative evolution (or "progressive", if one prefers) which could be interrupted if one "stops feeding the machine" and that the only valid stake would be to find substitutes for the materials which have so far supported the process. It is to be blind to the deep contradictions of the mechanisms which have led us to where we are now and to the need to invent a radical change of societal model: any "tinkering" aiming at reducing the symptoms can only make the outcome better. brutal.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 31/07/15, 16:58

1) For my part, if I maintain that "organic" agriculture (in the sense "only labeled AB") is not a model which breaks with modern agriculture and some of its limits, I did not support that it is a flashback. It is indeed an evolution compared to a questioning of the "classic" intensive model (massive use of fertilizers - extraction or synthesis -, machines, pesticides, therefore energy from outside agriculture) .

2) modern agriculture is strongly linked to energy: in France, if we include the production of machines, fertilizers, pesticides and the transport / transformation of agricultural products, French agriculture consumes around 10 million toe out of approximately 160 million consumed ...

While in our grandparents' time, it was generally (and some modest light bulbs close), autonomous. The draft horse, or the ox or the pair of cows for the more modest families, fed on products of the land of the family and produced the main part of the fertilizer (manure, liquid manure) of the exploitation. As well as work - with men.

So the generalization of our model, in addition to quickly emptying the last potash and phosphorus mines, would be accompanied by growth in world energy consumption.

3) Contrary to what one might think, "organic" (simply labeled) is not a break because the alternative methods are not necessarily energetically more efficient: more mechanical work, treatments with much larger volumes of "mixtures", therefore much more expensive in energy (if we can treat with a chemical pesticide at 100 l / ha, many "porridge" are used at doses of more than 1 l / ha - these are orders of magnitude, varying with each product ...

4) We will therefore not escape a debate on "how far to push the fact of razing the last large forests ... Brazil is becoming, for the moment, a large global agricultural producer (including energy derivatives -" agrofuels - ethanol "), at the cost of rampant deforestation ... Indonesia is becoming a major producer of palm oil, which our food industry is fond of, on the same basis ...

Humanity could decide to raze all these forests for good [this is what is happening today, without any "formal decision" having been taken, simply by letting the agro-industry take its course]. So, without calculating, maybe we could double the world population ???

So what ???

We would fall back on a limit further ...

With an increasingly shaved earth ...

In a finite world, there is no infinite growth possible. Any mathematician who is interested in sequences and limits knows it!

Collectively, man, in the sense of humanity, remains the bearer of the hope of his ancestors ... To clear, push back the limits (which were only the limits of the "village", or of the seigneury ... so until then , it always worked; the imbecile man believes that it is worth "proof" that one can continue ...

Remember this fable of the water lily which doubles its surface every week: on a large pond, there was a water lily, which doubled its surface every day ... From when could we still react if we wanted to avoid the fed up is completely invaded ??? The day before! Half of the surface was covered. We could still circulate widely ... And the next day, everything was covered. Too late.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 31/07/15, 19:13

the foolish man believes that this is worth "proof" that we can continue ...

No need for imbecility (even if it helps!), Only a lack of lucidity and too much receptivity to propaganda ...

Humanity could decide to raze all these forests for good [this is what is happening today, without any "formal decision" having been taken, simply by letting the agro-industry do it].

Indeed, nobody objectively wants the destruction of nature, but the simple unconscious submission of each agent to the fetish of value is enough ...
On the indefinite increase of the population, it does not seem at all a fatality, since what is called the demographic transition manifests itself as soon as favorable conditions appear.

AB, as it exists in our countries is not the radical progress desired by its promoters because it finds its place within a system whose purpose is in contradiction with its own; this, as you note, does not prevent that on a number of points, it represents an advance.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Pierre Yves
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 37
Registration: 03/12/07, 13:36
x 3




by Pierre Yves » 01/08/15, 10:24

Ahmed wrote:Well, the debate has strongly deviated! :P

The initial question is that Europeans are not willing to negotiate their way of life and emerging countries very eager to imitate them, Pierre Yves in conclusion, somewhat hastily, that a large part of the solution lies in the provision of greater quantities of energy for the whole of the world.
This pragmatism, which is only the polite formulation of resignation, nevertheless comes up against an unavoidable reality: our extractivism model can not, by definition, be generalized.


You are right the debate has deviated. Organic, labeled or not, was not the subject.
But in your opinion, the initial question was badly posed. I do not agree. In your opinion, your message shows that you are reading this question incorrectly.
You say "[given such things] Pierre Yves concluded, a bit hastily, that a large part of the solution lies in the provision of greater amounts of energy for the whole world."
It is a nonsense. I do not offer a solution, I say: "[given that such things] therefore we are doomed to produce more and more energy, and to use it more efficiently". I am not proposing a solution, I say that it is a necessity, on pain of seeing the disappearance of most of the earthlings.

Now back to [since such things]. These are two things that are clear from the original question.
1] There are more and more of us.
If you think it doesn’t inevitably a need immediate more energy, you have to offer your solutions. This is what I expected from this discussion, but I was hungry.
For my part, I clearly indicated how I saw things:
- We are more and more, so the imperative reaction, necessary is to produce more energy. It is not a solution, it is a necessity.
- The solution would be to find other modes of production, consumption, life, and to apply them to all. The solution would not only be to propose models that would work well on paper, it would also be necessary that these models could be accepted and applied by everyone. We are far from having this solution. So in the meantime if we do not want to see the majority of humanity perish, we are forced to produce more and more energy to take into account that the Terrans are more and more numerous. [*]
You are right, it is a resignation. But I hope to be clear enough to make it clear that this is not a final resignation, but a necessary resignation, pending a solution. The solution should not be easy to find, since, I have not read any during this discussion.

2] In the [since such things], there is also: we are less and less poor. Indeed, emerging countries are emerging, and consuming more and more.
If you think it doesn’t inevitably an immediate need for more energy, you must offer your solutions. This is what I expected from this discussion, but I was hungry. [**]

[*] to show that there is a difference between a good solution in theory on paper, and the possibility of applying it effectively, I quote a message from Christophe at the very beginning of this discussion, which clearly translates these two aspects an effective solution:

"I will not be disturbed AT ALL by a humanity which would consume 10 times more primary energy, provided that this one is 100% renewable ... 
The concern is neither in the potential nor in the technology: we have EVERYTHING in hand to do without nuclear and fossil energy and it is doable in a few decades ...
BUT IT WILL NOT BE! 
Because it's all about profitability, being able I should say. "

This is the difference between wishful thinking and an effective solution.

Other speakers also noted that the leap between theory and practice can be time consuming:

"The change currently needed to save the ecosystems necessary for our crazy growth in the near future is so enormous .... that it will not happen!"
“To possibly avoid a disaster, we need a radical, global and immediate paradigm shift: personally, I believe in it!” (Highfly-addict)


For my part I think it will take time, but I still hope that it will be possible, and in the meantime I "resign myself", we are doomed to produce more energy.

[**] During this thread, I have read challenges to this consequence relationship that I make between the emergence of poor countries and a necessary increase in consumption:

"Why [not question the emergence of poor countries ..]? Because we cannot blame them for making the same major mistakes as us?" (highfly-addict)
"It is true that the European model, which is painfully maintained thanks to artifices, has aroused such admiration in the impoverished countries that the latter try to imitate us when it becomes invalid." (Ahmed)


There is no question of admiring the European model. It is a question of achieving a dignified life for all: to have drinking water, to look after, to be educated, to allow all the children to go to school, etc,
But this triggers a whole series of consequences, well analyzed by Chatelot:

"a primitive society can subsist in equilibrium on its territory if it remains entirely primitive, therefore the high mortality which goes with it and limits the population ... we cannot consider that as a solution!  
when we introduce half the progress, medicine, we produce overpopulation, and if we leave the rudimentary means that suited a small population we produce the exhaustion of local resources  
cooking food over wood fires is a good example of a catastrophic rudimentary means to desertify " 


I add that it applies to cooking over a wood fire, and everything else. As soon as you put your finger on the gear, everything goes through. We replace wood with petroleum, and here are the oil wells, the tankers and the refineries. Or we replace the wood with fossil electricity, even topo. Or we replace be laws with wind turbines, and here are mines, high-end metallurgy, etc. 
And in any case you need roads, ports, schools, engineers, books, libraries, apartments, clothes, textile factories, hospitals ... 
And therefore more energy.
If someone has other solutions ... they may have a Nobel Prize.

Pierre Yves
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 01/08/15, 12:52

if someone owned la solution (formulation which I find absurd), it would certainly not obtain the Nobel Prize, so great is the will to change nothing, or rather, as a character of the "Cheetah" of Visconti to evolve: "For everything to remain as before, everything must change".

But I hope to be clear enough to make it clear that this is not a final resignation, but a necessary resignation, pending a solution.

The current contradictions are leading to an impasse today and the idea, whether full of good feelings, of increasing the amount of energy available, will only precipitate things and remove all the more a solution and, more serious , making any solution impossible ... The fight against alcoholism does not go through an increased production of Pinard (or by its ban), but by a lucid reflection on the causes of this addiction.

Christophe wrote: [quote] "I will not be disturbed AT ALL by a humanity which would consume 10 times more primary energy, provided that this one is 100% renewable ... [b]
It is a vision too hasty, energy is the means which allows the massive destruction of the conditions of life on earth; non-polluting energy would not change much on the bottom, since its destructive purpose would last ... Producing this type of energy without drawbacks directly linked to its production would only facilitate the mediate consequences, in all unconsciousness.

Any "solution" which would allow us to create a further illusion will only ensure the reality of the counter-predictive disaster to come.
I explain: as long as we do not believe in the civil collapse, it is inevitable; as soon as you believe in it and act accordingly, you can escape it. This is what we could call a counter-realizing prophecy: belief in its effectiveness makes it false, its negation makes it true ...

Hence my position ofprophylactic apocalyptician, because the solution is not the result of an individual, but of a collective approach which supposes a minimum of prior lucidity, lucidity that the media strive to make impossible with their permanent mantras to growth and employment.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 01/08/15, 13:18

Ahmed wrote:It is a vision too hasty, energy is the means which allows the massive destruction of the conditions of life on earth; non-polluting energy would not change much on the bottom, since its destructive purpose would last ... Producing this type of energy without drawbacks directly linked to its production would only facilitate the mediate consequences, in all unconsciousness.
.


disagree ! energy is a means that can be used for good or bad, but not only for bad

if modern energy sources did not exist, many people would starve immediately before the population fell back to that of the middle ages!

there is still a lot of technical progress to be made ... technical progress is not a quick fix, but everyone does what he can do: technicians advance technology, politicians should advance the organization of society to use progress well .... this is where it goes ... politicians are overwhelmed by events and organize nothing at all ... in France for several decades the ineffectiveness of politics wastes more in addition and completely spoils technical progress

if in france or europe there is no effective way to govern the disaster will happen and it will no longer be the west who will command

if the developing countries imitate us they will break their mouths with us ... if they find another way more effective than ours they will succeed where we fail and that will be us the underdeveloped country
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 01/08/15, 13:36

Did67 wrote:......
2) modern agriculture is strongly linked to energy: in France, if we include the production of machines, fertilizers, pesticides and the transport / transformation of agricultural products, French agriculture consumes around 10 million toe out of around 160 million consumed.........


that is to say 6%, that remains reasonable.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 01/08/15, 13:41

Chatelot, you write:
Disagree ! energy is a medium that can be used for good or bad, but not only for bad.

In absolute terms, you are absolutely right: this supposes postulating a neutrality of the technique which is not observed in reality.
The technique, and the energy that drives it, is deployed in a specific framework, oriented towards systemic ends contrary to our medium-term survival.
Having huge cheap energy resources has led our society to use them as a non-limiting factor, ie to encourage overconsumption of energy to save other rarer factors; other choices would no doubt have been possible, but an anachronistic rear projection phenomenon condemns us to a restricted vision.

Further:
but everyone does what they can do

Precisely, each agent directs its action, according to the skills that the company has encouraged, towards what the system rewards (conversely a talent that does not produce abstract value will be ignored) and it is impossible to escape this logic, at most we have the choice of how to comply with it ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 214 guests