Hulot, Minister at 100 Liters on time?

[chatelot16]

the comparison between photovoltaic and photosynthesis is funny

to cover 10 m000 of pahotovoltaic you have to pay immediately ... and wait at least 2 years before earning what you have spent

if we let wood grow on 10 000 m2 there is nothing to do it grows on its own ... and after a few years we can already cut some firewood and if we do not simply cut we ended up having beautiful trees that are even more valuable than firewood!

So to say that photosynthesis is ineffective seems questionable to me!

another comparison: photovoltaics makes electricity difficult to store ... photosynthesis makes food or timber naturally storable

[sicetaitsimple]

I see what you mean, but my thinking was different.
It is imperative to move away from considerations on isolated systems to take into account the overall complexity; this is the trick of propaganda on the "energy (or ecological) transition": the necessary and desirable evolution is instrumentalized in order not to change anything on the basis of the currently dominant system; it is a question of finding new outlets for the enormous mass of capital in search of profitable investments. Quite naturally, this research is oriented in the direction of speeches that can be heard, since responding to a legitimate concern, but completely subverting its purpose.
For example (because maybe you are still dumped! ), we must develop electric cars, less polluting, in order to be able, in the long term, to completely replace the vehicle fleet (no question of promoting new types of public transport, what a horror!): new form of obsolescence which allows new fruitful outlets ...

You write:

And then you make the comparison in terms of energy production! There is no photo!

Play on words?
We must not forget that these devices are intended to produce money, in which they are very effective, in other words very wasteful (it is the peculiarity of the economy to make efficiency and waste coincide, it all depends on which side you consider the equation: what is gain for one is loss for the other, because it is a game with almost zero sum (monetarily speaking) and frankly losing if we consider the external costs.

OK, your goals, your ambitions, your springs are at very high levels, I have no problem with that. You will just have a little trouble seeing it happen during your lifetime.

Mine are much more limited, if only to see the consumption of fuels or fossil fuels decrease by 1 to 2%% / year in France (let's be realistic and let's not think that we will be able to act widely outside our borders. ) would be enough for my happiness. Without prejudging the mix of means adopted to do so, nor the fact that some earn reasonable money there, which does not revolt me.

[sicetaitsimple]

the comparison between photovoltaic and photosynthesis is funny

to cover 10 m000 of pahotovoltaic you have to pay immediately ... and wait at least 2 years before earning what you have spent

if we let wood grow on 10 000 m2 there is nothing to do it grows on its own ... and after a few years we can already cut some firewood and if we do not simply cut we ended up having beautiful trees that are even more valuable than firewood!

So to say that photosynthesis is ineffective seems questionable to me!

another comparison: photovoltaics makes electricity difficult to store ... photosynthesis makes food or timber naturally storable

The answer is above the question, I copy it:

"Complement: of course in the first case (cultivation) there is a limited investment, in the second (PV), it is much more substantial!

But once again I was only talking about thermodynamic efficiency. It is not only Didier to allow himself a few provocations allowing us to think! "

[Ahmed]

Sicetaitsimple, you write:

OK, your goals, your ambitions, your springs are at very high levels, I have no problem with that. You will just have a little trouble seeing it happen during your lifetime.

My ambition is more modest than what you think: if I can open the eyes of a few, I would already be very satisfied! I am completely sure that it is impossible to change the essential with regard to the pervasiveness of psychic alienation and the very powerful counterfires of the system which will therefore go to the end of its deadly logic. I deplore it all the more since there are objective reasons allowing to avoid the worst, but it would then be necessary, counterfactually, to have the strength to believe in disaster! As long as we remain convinced that we can escape the collapse, we are paradoxically led to it inexorably ...
The only achievement that I can expect (there are conditions precedent! ), That's what B. Meheust name "the big blackout". Satisfaction, moreover, purely intellectual, as an illustration of the validity of my analyzes, because I fear it for those who are less advanced in age and who will suffer the full brunt of it, and its extensions, while they are not at all willing * to this confrontation and do not feel it is imminent ...

* All generations receive anachronistic training, valid for a time that is no longer theirs, but the changes currently underway are of unprecedented magnitude.

[sicetaitsimple]

Sicetaitsimple, you write:

OK, your goals, your ambitions, your springs are at very high levels, I have no problem with that. You will just have a little trouble seeing it happen during your lifetime.

My ambition is more modest than what you think: if I can open the eyes of a few, I would already be very satisfied! I am completely sure that it is impossible to change the essential with regard to the pervasiveness of psychic alienation and the very powerful counterfires of the system which will therefore go to the end of its deadly logic. I deplore it all the more since there are objective reasons allowing to avoid the worst, but it would then be necessary, counterfactually, to have the strength to believe in disaster! As long as we remain convinced that we can escape the collapse, we are paradoxically led to it inexorably ...
The only achievement that I can expect (there are conditions precedent! ), That's what B. Meheust name "the big blackout". Satisfaction, moreover, purely intellectual, as an illustration of the validity of my analyzes, because I fear it for those who are less advanced in age and who will suffer the full brunt of it, and its extensions, while they are not at all willing * to this confrontation and do not feel it is imminent ...

* All generations receive anachronistic training, valid for a time that is no longer theirs, but the changes currently underway are of unprecedented magnitude.

I would have agreed with you if we had traded 15 or 20 years ago.

Today, I am optimistic that technology has made and will continue to make the progress that will gradually free the world from the tensions associated with the supply of fossil energy, which remains its main fuel, because these progress will cause renewable energy to become cheaper than fossil energy, even if its intermittent nature will pose new challenges, which technology will solve ......

Once again, I specify, it is not tomorrow morning ..... I am not a stupid one either.

[Ahmed]

Far from me the idea that you would be a stupid!
Simply, with regard to systemic functioning, the energy constraint is certainly important, but its (possible) lifting will reveal another much more difficult to conceive at present and which seems to me to be perfectly unavoidable: see thearticle that I have devoted to this subject.
Even assuming that this constraint is only the effect of my unbridled imagination, abundant and inexpensive energy would only revive or increase the destruction of the world, for, ask yourself the question: what is energy for?

[sicetaitsimple]

see thearticle that I have devoted to this subject.

Sorry, that's too conceptual for me, but that's okay!

PS: for the "stupid", it was just me who reassured myself!

[Ahmed]

It is above all a format too small to be able to explain the concepts, it was in fact rather an introduction to a different approach intended to arouse curiosity and encourage people to go further ...
For the "stupid", I understood correctly, but I simply wanted to bounce back on this word ...

[Did67]

It is not only Didier to allow himself a few provocations to reflect!

Sorry if what I write may be perceived like this (with some exceptions - sometimes I knowingly "provoke", but less than you think).

In general, I think with the elements that I have on hand: information, observations, facts ... If this gives rise to provocations, it is (in general, once again), without the knowledge of my own free will!

Now, if this provokes without hurting, why not. That does not bother me. One of my satisfactions is in general feeling able to "walk alone". Although I love to share. The more than 10 posts are there ... It is not contradictory.

[Christophe]

One step forward, one step back ...

http://www.lemonde.fr/energies/article/ ... 53054.html

Nicolas Hulot backs off on the end of hydrocarbons

The bill, which MPs completed their review on Wednesday, provides for exceptions to the shutdown in 2040 of French oil and gas production.

It is definitely very difficult to do without fossil fuels. Even when it comes to simply scheduling the shutdown of oil and gas extraction in France, where this production barely covers 1% of national consumption. The Minister for the ecological and inclusive transition, Nicolas Hulot, experienced this, during the examination in the National Assembly, Tuesday 3 and Wednesday 4 March, of his bill putting an end to research and exploitation of hydrocarbons. The text, which will be the subject of a public vote on Tuesday, October 10, provides for exemptions that limit the scope, by not closing the valves of hydrocarbons hermetically.

(...)

Lobby weight

But, throughout two days of often tense discussions, Mr. Hulot faced, with a certain stoicism, the weight of lobbies but also the constraints of the legislation in force restricting his room for maneuver. Placed under crossfire, on one side of deputies defending with virulence the interests of the industrialists and the territories concerned - starting with the basin of Lacq (Pyrénées-Atlantiques) -, on the other of NGOs very active on the networks social, he had above all to come to terms with the current mining code, whose principles date back to ... an imperial law of 1810. This heavy corpus sanctuarizes in particular the rule of "droit de suite", which wants a successful prospecting is automatically followed by the issuance of an exploitation permit for the deposit.

(...)