I noted a passage whose intellectual rigor is more than doubtful. It is about the comparison of the useful surfaces to justify (I quote) "weak points of renewable energies". Thus, it takes 10 ha of Nuke power station to output 1,5 Gw while it takes 18400 ha to obtain the equivalent in wind power.
But what is this comparison to two bullets, without more details. Low energy density of course, but let's be more precise:
First remark, it is the surface of a wind field (including the intervals between the machines) and not its real footprint (limited to the base). We can make the most of free space in this field of wind turbines.
Second, for nuclear, should we not take into account the mining areas for uranium extraction, enrichment sites, fuel transfer and conditioning facilities, reprocessing facilities, storage of waste and its exclusion perimeter, without counting military surveillance sites, international installations of control bodies, why not, alert zones near power plants while we are there ...?
In short, limiting the area of nuclear operation to just the reactor space seems to me ill-founded.
We can find in the article other comparisons ... with solar for example, carefully avoiding to specify that if we can put photovoltaic or thermodynamic solar panels on a house roof, it is much more complicated to install a nuclear reactor. If the solar installations are on the roofs, how is it a surface area? I consider the surface used in this case as zero!
One of the subtitles is: Renewable: the account will not be there.
The account of what? Of an infinite exponential growth? By wanting to be predictive, the journalist projects himself into the future based on current criteria. How can he decide what our consumption will be tomorrow? Thus, it avoids formulating the slightest proposal for the evolution of our society, our lifestyles and consumption. He takes no risk on more spontaneous collective political decisions or attitudes. His scenario is not one.
The Black File of Green Energies with Science and Life
The coup in the evolution of consumption, they are not the first to do so. Anyway, renewable energies will not cover more than 50% of needs, in the most optimistic hypothesis of the evolution of consumption.
Now concerning the SV article, I find it a bit stupid to point out the intermittency problems that would arise with more than 20% of wind power whereas today we are not at 1.
Now concerning the SV article, I find it a bit stupid to point out the intermittency problems that would arise with more than 20% of wind power whereas today we are not at 1.
0 x
-
- I discovered econologic
- posts: 1
- Registration: 27/04/06, 13:23
SER response
Hi everybody,
Working in the sector of ENR (wind) I was disappointed by some passage of this article especially that it is supposed to be here of a review that I believed a serious minimum on the scientific level ... if certain truths, either - saying hidden, deserve to be communicated to the general public I did not know that this magazine concerned precisely the general public.
Anyway, I'm pretty much the SER's judgment on this article. I thought that the answer might interest some:
https://www.econologie.com/enr-droit-de- ... -3843.html
Working in the sector of ENR (wind) I was disappointed by some passage of this article especially that it is supposed to be here of a review that I believed a serious minimum on the scientific level ... if certain truths, either - saying hidden, deserve to be communicated to the general public I did not know that this magazine concerned precisely the general public.
Anyway, I'm pretty much the SER's judgment on this article. I thought that the answer might interest some:
https://www.econologie.com/enr-droit-de- ... -3843.html
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79126
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10974
Good synthesis Nikkozzblu (phew I succeeded ), I propose to make an article / new if you want?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79126
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10974
Hydraxon wrote:Anyway, renewable energies will not cover more than 50% of needs, in the most optimistic hypothesis of the evolution of consumption.
I don't know which term you are thinking of but in the long term it will be 100% because we will have no choice when all the fossil resources are exhausted and if we consider that the fusion hypothetically mastered as renewable.
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Marcel wrote:I noted a passage whose intellectual rigor is more than doubtful. It is about the comparison of the useful surfaces to justify (I quote) "weak points of renewable energies". Thus, it takes 10 ha of Nuke power station to output 1,5 Gw while it takes 18400 ha to obtain the equivalent in wind power.
But what is this comparison to two bullets, without more details. Low energy density of course, but let's be more precise:
First remark, it is the surface of a wind field (including the intervals between the machines) and not its real footprint (limited to the base). We can make the most of free space in this field of wind turbines.
The space taken by the wind turbines is inconstructible, which limits the exploitation of the ground to agriculture ... but given their exposed position and in height, these grounds are most often unusable (and unexploited as in the USA ... ), moreover for their maintenance, there must be an access path for each which also blocks the ground ... we are far from a right of way limited to the base ...
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79126
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10974
Denmark is the king of wind turbines, around 35%, so an absolute limit ... but it is also the king of CO2 ...
https://www.econologie.com/europe-emissi ... -3722.html
https://www.econologie.com/europe-emissi ... -3722.html
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Christophe, in a previous post when you said:
More generally, it emerges from many posts the idea (ology) that the continued wastage of energy could solve the essential problem of our society, however, it seems to me that the headlong rush would only increase the pressure from other physical limits of the system: pollution and raw materials. And this not to mention the human impacts: increased inequality, competition ...
To think that Iter or the landfill of CO2 cannot be a solution is not Holocaust denial, but the realization that moving problems is not solving them.
In other words, how could technique solve the damage caused by an excess of technique?
From this point of view, the remarks that end Marcel's post seem to me to be very relevant and deserve to be developed.
I think that it is a carelessness, because, to my knowledge the ore is abundant only as much as the world park of nuclear power plants is very reduced?... nuclear would be energy renewable the most advantageous of all
More generally, it emerges from many posts the idea (ology) that the continued wastage of energy could solve the essential problem of our society, however, it seems to me that the headlong rush would only increase the pressure from other physical limits of the system: pollution and raw materials. And this not to mention the human impacts: increased inequality, competition ...
To think that Iter or the landfill of CO2 cannot be a solution is not Holocaust denial, but the realization that moving problems is not solving them.
In other words, how could technique solve the damage caused by an excess of technique?
From this point of view, the remarks that end Marcel's post seem to me to be very relevant and deserve to be developed.
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79126
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10974
No, it is not a thoughtlessness but a stupidity because that is what might be thought of by careless readers, taking into account THAT CO2 as a criterion for renewable ...
Otherwise yesterday I wrote a small article on "alternatives to alternatives": https://www.econologie.com/energies-du-f ... -3750.html
Otherwise yesterday I wrote a small article on "alternatives to alternatives": https://www.econologie.com/energies-du-f ... -3750.html
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Of which act! I point out to you (and to all those interested in this) that I just posted on miscanthus. I read your guide, apart from the need to save energy which is unanimous, I have a few general remarks to add.
The climate of concern linked to the energy depletion gives rise to many opportunistic vocations on the part of financial and / or industrial groups. State subsidies only reinforce these trends. On this last point, I must say that subsidies are paid twice: once by the taxpayer and a second time by the buyer. In fact, subsidized equipment has its price increased by the amount of the subsidy, I have seen this, for example, in the case of insert boilers, and there is no reason for the others to act differently.
It would therefore be urgent to show the greatest distrust vis-à-vis the many large projects where the interest of the citizen is very secondary.
Personally, I think we should take advantage of the changes underway to move towards more energy autonomy, and therefore democracy. Conversely, for example, nuclear energy, in addition to its well-known dangers, leads to a deficit in democracy: no debate prior, technocratization of control, close links between large industry and central power, lies and pressures on the media, infantilization of the consumer ...
The climate of concern linked to the energy depletion gives rise to many opportunistic vocations on the part of financial and / or industrial groups. State subsidies only reinforce these trends. On this last point, I must say that subsidies are paid twice: once by the taxpayer and a second time by the buyer. In fact, subsidized equipment has its price increased by the amount of the subsidy, I have seen this, for example, in the case of insert boilers, and there is no reason for the others to act differently.
It would therefore be urgent to show the greatest distrust vis-à-vis the many large projects where the interest of the citizen is very secondary.
Personally, I think we should take advantage of the changes underway to move towards more energy autonomy, and therefore democracy. Conversely, for example, nuclear energy, in addition to its well-known dangers, leads to a deficit in democracy: no debate prior, technocratization of control, close links between large industry and central power, lies and pressures on the media, infantilization of the consumer ...
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 1 Replies
- 3437 views
-
Last message by I Citro
View the latest post
12/10/10, 16:35A subject posted in the forum : Hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ...
-
- 1 Replies
- 2886 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
22/12/07, 18:05A subject posted in the forum : Hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ...
-
- 4 Replies
- 4548 views
-
Last message by nonoLeRobot
View the latest post
15/05/07, 16:29A subject posted in the forum : Hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ...
-
- 29 Replies
- 24731 views
-
Last message by Yves Thomas
View the latest post
17/08/08, 16:56A subject posted in the forum : Hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ...
Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : Bing [Bot] and 256 guests