The future will pass you it with biomass?

[izentrop]

From my point of view you are wrong. Certainly "the future will not pass through biomass" in terms of energy supply. But it is, and I think it will be, one of the multitudes of means allowing us to have a slightly more virtuous energy mix.

I think of our French forests previously spared because the exotic wood was always cheaper.

What is not seen yet in the stats is the growing impact of wood energy. The world gets pelletized and worse, every time I move around my home, I see more and more clearcuts, or even the small branches are recovered. It is obvious to me that it is to feed the wood boilers that have been created a little everywhere lately and especially the aberrant local power station http://www.akuoenergy.com/fr/kogeban
Their argument: CO₂ emissions avoided per year: 109 092 tons ... because they send this quantity into the atmosphere and suppose to replant the trees that will store this carbon again in the next 50 years. ... It will be too late to react effectively, climatologists hammer it for a long time.

This is a false argument, because we accelerate climate change

The more efficient the industrial processes, the more devastating they will be for our environment

You take any product made in the 50 years and a current product, it is clear that for a better service rendered, the raw material and the energy used to make it have been saved. In addition, standardization avoids waste (eg laptop chargers).
Example a wheelbarrow gained weight, flexibility and relative cost.
So I do not agree either.

[Ahmed]

Izentropyou are absolutely right if you consider each commodity in isolation, but what I take into account here is the overall product. It is obvious that if these goods were only intended to satisfy needs (we still need to define this term!), There would probably be a limit within which efficiency would play a positive role, but the production of abstract value through the flow of goods produced is, by definition, unlimited et necessarily growing ...

Totally agree with your response to Sicetaitsimple...

[sicetaitsimple]

Sicetaitsimple, you write:

By "atmospheric" renewable energy (sun, wind), by energy savings, by more efficient industrial processes, by nuclear?

The more efficient industrial processes, the more devastating they will be for our environment, we cannot get out of this relationship which seems to escape many (in their defense, the intense propaganda for "sustainable development" does a lot to obscure this reality) .

Well, as I was talking about CO2, and that of that, I specify "more efficient industrial processes in energy terms"

You approach (from my point of view) another subject that revolves around the influence of the degree of industrialization.

[sicetaitsimple]

What Chatelot says is the only thing that really matters: how to avoid extracting fossils from the ground (coal, oil, gas) which by their combustion will bring into the atmosphere of CO2 that would not have been if we had done otherwise than to extract them.

It is actually a very subtle manipulation technique which consists in saturating the information of a subject (here the RCA) in order to generate satiety in the listener "we talk about it so that means we take care of it"... whereas in reality the innumerable COPs and other international meetings are only used by industrialists wanting to share the share of the immense energy cake.

Elegant way to say that I have low eyesight and slow brain!

[Ahmed]

Sicetaitsimple, you write:

I specify: "more energy efficient industrial processes"

I understood well! As soon as a factor becomes more favorable to the industrial process, there is an acceleration of the production flow, if only by the fall in the cost price which, indirectly, results in a decrease in the profit requiring an increase of the production...

You address reproaches (nicely!) To Sen-no-senbut it's just that it's not so simple!

[sicetaitsimple]

.... It is obvious to me that it is to feed the wood boilers that have been created a little everywhere lately and especially the aberrant local power station http://www.akuoenergy.com/fr/kogeban
Their argument: CO₂ emissions avoided per year: 109 092 tons ... because they send this quantity into the atmosphere and suppose to replant the trees that will store this carbon again in the next 50 years. ... It will be too late to react effectively, climatologists hammer it for a long time.

This is a false argument, because we accelerate climate change

I do not claim that all uses of biomass energy are relevant nor underestimate the lobbying and subsidy hunting capabilities and / or guaranteed purchase rates of some project developers.

But instead of these wood boiler rooms connected to heat networks, what do you recommend as a solution?

[sen-no-sen]

Elegant way to say that I have low eyesight and slow brain!

Do not take it badly, it was a general remark.

[sicetaitsimple]

Elegant way to say that I have low eyesight and slow brain!

Do not take it badly, it was a general remark.

If I had taken it badly, I would not have answered! .

[sicetaitsimple]

Sicetaitsimple, you write:

I specify: "more energy efficient industrial processes"

I understood well! As soon as a factor becomes more favorable to the industrial process, there is an acceleration of the production flow, if only by the fall in the cost price which, indirectly, results in a decrease in the profit requiring an increase of the production...

This is certainly true of anything "new". Not for "basic", which accounts for a significant portion of global energy consumption. It's not the price of cement or steel that makes us consume more or less, at least I don't think so.

A notable exception (to link to my favorite thread) is obviously different for chemical nitrogen fertilizers, but here the price is directly related to the price of energy, the nitrogen of the air being free.

[Ahmed]

“Basic” products are subject to the same rules as others and must either expand their market in volume or diversify into other areas with potential for new developments. The large groups of these productions are not often only invested in their original business, but are backed by financial subsidiaries. Another strategy consists in using monopoly structures or agreements in order to maintain their rate of profit through a rent effect.
Assuming better energy efficiency through a new process or improvement, and arbitrarily postulating the impossibility of selling larger volumes *, this would translate into increased profit (lower production costs) and therefore higher growth. capital that should be invested next (whatever) to achieve a new profit ...

* This is denied by the new perspectives offered by the "energy transition" which can only take place through massive recourse to "old productions" of cement, copper and steel (everything is linked).