Hulot, Minister at 100 Liters on time?

[Ahmed]

The energy transition is a necessity, but the one that is being put in place only drapes itself in this basic logic which it does not have to do with, since its raison d'être is quite different. This is the reason why I do not believe in its success. Achievable savings only serve to conceal the waste of the mutation which superimposes itself on the conventional energy landscape much more than it replaces it. These new possibilities of waste are a strong systemic constraint in a context of economic regression (economy = waste, to sum up for the use of the misunderstanding ).

[sicetaitsimple]

I am combining your two messages.

Yes, if we have a surplus in renewables, what you say holds. For now, we have I do not know how many nuclear units are running! And we are in the process of building them (EPR of Flamanville).

And I'm talking about there, the 15/20 years to come. My boiler does not have a longer life expectancy.

Today, we have a "bouquet" of energy. With potential for recoverable biomass - French forests are growing, and standing stock is growing. Even if we can worry about some disproportionate projects.

I am going to put it like this: as long as the renewables are not structurally in surplus, I would find it logical that we better plan the management of these different sources. And I find it incoherent, from a thermodynamic point of view (I had forgotten that you were in the energies!), To use MASSIVELY the form of electrical energy for thermal applications. Of course, as always, there are situations: "slight" renovation of an old Alsatian house ... So marginally, of course. But MASSIVELY, there is something wrong! [As long as renewable energies are not structurally in surplus - during heating period, of course !]

But I remain enraged that currently a basic house is equipped with electricity. Because the RT2012. And because for the manufacturer, it is the cheapest. Even here, in the "village subdivision" zone, with the Alsatian forest ...

This is what makes me angry. And there is an electricity "lobby" which is, whether we like it or not, a direct ally of the nuclear lobby. Including "thermal engineers" who are in the thermal, those that sellers of fertilizers, pesticides or tractors are "agricultural engineers". This does not detract from their competence. It's just the wrong paradigm. Or ethics?

We may not agree. I express a point of view!

I hear your arguments well, and I said well "I'm not sure I insisted enough that I was thinking at 20, 30 or 40. If you envisage at this time an intermittent electricity production that is sometimes largely in excess of the "noble" needs that you mention (motors, lighting, ....), you have roughly 3 solutions: .....

So I think we are not far from agreeing.

Then we can discuss "details". The thermodynamically "inefficient" use of a free primary energy, infinite (because of flow and not of stock) and renewable does not bother me for example at all, moreover photosynthesis to make the link with other discussions is a particularly inefficient mechanism!

[sicetaitsimple]

Another point on which (if I understood correctly what you meant?) There is another "detail", it is on the effect of RT2012. This has almost killed the electric heating by Joule effect.

You will be able to find a lot of articles on this subject, here is one:

https://www.quelleenergie.fr/magazine/b ... que-26603/

The gas lobby was more effective than the electricity lobby when this regulation was adopted!

[sicetaitsimple]

The energy transition is a necessity, but the one that is being put in place only drapes itself in this basic logic which it does not have to do with, since its raison d'être is quite different. This is the reason why I do not believe in its success. Achievable savings only serve to conceal the waste of the mutation which superimposes itself on the conventional energy landscape much more than it replaces it. These new possibilities of waste are a strong systemic constraint in a context of economic regression (economy = waste, to sum up for the use of the misunderstanding ).

No matter how much I read and reread your message, sorry I don't understand what you mean! It's easier when it comes to gardening!

[Ahmed]

Let's say that deciphering my prose requires some getting used to!

The mechanism of photosynthesis is particularly inefficient, you say. This is true considered on a particular scale, but overall it is the most powerful spring in life as it exists ...

[Christophe]

No matter how much I read and reread your message, sorry I don't understand what you mean!

+1 there are times I really have trouble following it ...

[Ahmed]

Try to look at all of this using the reading grid provided by F. Roddier (for example) and everything will become clearer (I hope ...).
I try to be concise and not to develop indefinitely the same words that can be found by carrying out archaeological excavations in the forum... Once we have managed to catch the logical thread, it's almost won!

[sicetaitsimple]

The mechanism of photosynthesis is particularly inefficient, you say. This is true considered on a particular scale, but overall it is the most powerful spring in life as it exists ...

So let's replace the context in which I said that, I quote my sentence "Afterwards, we can discuss" details. "The thermodynamically" inefficient "use of a free primary energy, infinite (because of flow and not of stock) and renewable does not bother me for example at all, moreover photosynthesis to make the link with other discussions is a particularly inefficient mechanism!

I was talking about thermodynamic yields, not of feeding the world, it is quite obvious that agricultural productions have a utility other than heating.

But you take a hectare of land and you plant the most productive crop there where you are in terms of production of dry matter (for example miscanthus in France, but I leave the choice to you) in terms of energy. Your goal is to burn it for heat.

And on the next hectare you "plant" a photovoltaic farm, which nevertheless has a rather poor conversion yield of the incident solar energy (around 15% I think today).

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

But fortunately, at least in countries like France, the PV to develop does not need to encroach on agricultural land.

[sicetaitsimple]

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 to reflect!

[Ahmed]

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.