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 ...
Pierre Yves
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 37
Registration: 03/12/07, 13:36
x 3

The energy challenge




by Pierre Yves » 16/07/15, 15:43

The Terrans are more and more numerous; they therefore consume more and more energy.
The Terrans are less and less poor, their incomes increase; they therefore consume more and more energy.

We are therefore doomed to produce more and more energy, and to use it more efficiently. Is it possible before the planet burns down? Can renewable energies, energy saving, meet the huge needs of huge crowds in huge poor and emerging countries? Are they sufficient for them to develop to live in dignity, too? Will the future be rosy for everyone if it is all green?

Pierre Yves
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 16/07/15, 16:08

Excellent question. Vast question. Infinite question.

It starts with the need to define what is the “level of energy consumption” that we consider “normal”: American style? happy decrease? There is a factor of 1 to 10!

So the earth risks overheating with 2 billion people living in the American style as it can hold up with 15 billion with a "reasonable, a little decreasing life, which is not the Middle Ages"!

We are already in overheating. Must know it!

Then, second "hot" question: nuclear, not nuclear? fusion, not fusion?

We risk having a hot son, without finding an answer!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 16/07/15, 16:13

There will be no answer as long as the reasoning is based on false premises.
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 » 16/07/15, 16:30

Did67 wrote:Excellent question. Vast question. Infinite question.

It starts with the need to define what is the “level of energy consumption” that we consider “normal”: American style? happy decrease? There is a factor of 1 to 10!

So the earth risks overheating with 2 billion people living in the American style as it can hold up with 15 billion with a "reasonable, a little decreasing life, which is not the Middle Ages"!

We are already in overheating. Must know it!

Then, second "hot" question: nuclear, not nuclear? fusion, not fusion?

We risk having a hot son, without finding an answer!

I didn't say "normal" consumption, which, as you suggest, doesn't make much sense. "normal" is a false friend.
I speak - for 5 to 6 billion earthlings - of "living with dignity", which is vague and could also not make much sense. I therefore specify.
To live worthily is to have something to eat, but not only. It is also to be able to take care of oneself, to raise one's children, to look after one's children, to give them an education, both boys and girls.

we are already in overheating, I know.
Nuclear or not? You understand that my question leads to answering that one and a few others.
Pierre Yves
0 x
Pierre Yves
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 37
Registration: 03/12/07, 13:36
x 3




by Pierre Yves » 16/07/15, 16:33

Ahmed wrote:There will be no answer as long as the reasoning is based on false premises.

Could you clarify what those false premises would be? And take the opportunity to give your premises not false.
Pierre Yves
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79126
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974

Re: The energy challenge




by Christophe » 16/07/15, 16:53

Pierre Yves wrote:Is it possible before the planet burns down?


Not sure ... but we're lucky, a mini ice age is planned for towards 2030 (like this one: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petit_%C3%A2ge_glaciaire ) ... which will give a small respite (a few decades or even centuries) to humanity! : Mrgreen:

Unless it is more climate misinformation ...
:|

More seriously: I will not be disturbed AT ALL by a humanity that consumes 10 times more primary energy, provided that it is 100% renewable ...

The concern is neither in the potential nor in the technology: one has ALL in hand to do without nuclear and fossil energy and it is feasible in a few decades ... from here 2050 for 100% renewable electricity in France according to a "hidden" report from ADEME !!
BUT IT WILL NOT BE!

Because everything is a question of profitability, of power I should say and oil yields far more than biofuels and nuclear more than renewable electricity (to those who exploit them I specify!)...

And as we are in a system where "we" favor the profitability of capital before any other considerationwe will not be without fossil fuels as long as the markets are favorable ... ie before long and probably when it will be too late from a climate point of view ... and too bad for the losers ... (which will be in the majority)

So we can say that they will have screwed up the climate ... for a few thousand dollars in their pockets ...

What do not talk to me about democracy when we talk about energy!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 16/07/15, 17:12

Everything in your formulation suggests that a dignified life for all passes through an imitation of the Western model, especially as regards the addiction to the instrument which allowed an extractivism planetary for its only profit (at least apparent, because of counterparts are observed): this model is not, by definition, generalizable.

This is what tends to happen, hence your:
The Terrans are more and more numerous; they consume more and more energy.

The error in this formula consists in considering all the earthly on the same footing; I know it's actually a shortcut, but it's annoying.
In international conferences, the poorest countries are asked to opt for energy moderation (which they have never ceased to practice, but who would like to consume in their turn), while councilors have long impacted resources and are determined to continue along the same path.

"The earthlings are less and less poor": temporarily, a part of the population becomes richer while others become more miserable and it is premature to draw definitive conclusions, as if the evolution were necessarily linear.

The instruction that you present, rightly important, does not presume very little energy, unless it is a consumer education ...
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 » 16/07/15, 18:22

Pierre Yves wrote:I didn't say "normal" consumption, which, as you suggest, doesn't make much sense. "normal" is a false friend.
I speak - for 5 to 6 billion earthlings - of "living with dignity", which is vague and could also not make much sense. I therefore specify.
To live worthily is to have something to eat, but not only. It is also to be able to take care of oneself, to raise one's children, to look after one's children, to give them an education, both boys and girls.

we are already in overheating, I know.
Nuclear or not? You understand that my question leads to answering that one and a few others.
Pierre Yves


"Worthy", "normal" ... The word doesn't matter.

Is a European or American way of life "dignified" or "normal"? or Bangladesh / Sudan way ???

Air conditioning when it is 36 °, is it worthy or normal or is it a luxury?

Evacuate someone who has an infarction by helicopter? Is this the norm we want or accept that this person can die ???

4 X 4 ???

Etc Etc Etc ...

Worthy is a moral concept. Normal is just a commonly accepted standard, an "average" ...

Behind, whatever the word, it is necessary to imagine levels of energy consumption, for a given level of technology ...

To have, in the Sahel, observed that the "taxi-brousses" only left when they were full (17 people in 404 station wagons!) And with us the debauchery of energy to go just a little faster ... I pondered these questions. Energy. Time. Life. The death...

Overheating in the sense of global warming is only one element. Remember that food is energy. The energy balance of our "intensive" agriculture is bad ... and, in energy terms, "organic" is not necessarily better (but, hush, we must not criticize "organic"; "eat, it's bio "; that absolves everything).

I think that currently, we are already "consuming" more than the planet regenerates ... And there are still more poor people than rich people, with a life that is not very dignified (even if, worthy, they themselves are sometimes enormously so. more than us; I could testify!).

All a life like "average developed European citizen": I say not possible for long!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 16/07/15, 18:38

It is not relevant to establish a link toilet bag between technology level and energy consumption: this is true only in the case of the one that has recently developed in our northern countries (and exported to China!).
The extraordinary profusion of energy sources has led to overexploitation of this non-limiting factor and the problem is not the rarefaction of these usual sources, but the existence of alternative solutions to pursue what this energy is used for: destruction of conditions for life on earth.
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 » 16/07/15, 19:34

Ahmed wrote:Everything in your wording suggests that a dignified life for all goes through an imitation of the Western model

No, I am not trying to "imply". It would be the open door to anything and everything.
No, the Western model has nothing to do here. I said that the problem is to "live with dignity": "to have enough to eat, but not only. It is also to be able to look after oneself, to bring up one's children, to look after one's children, to give them an education, to boys as to children. girls. "
I do not think it's just a Western model. What do you think ?

Ahmed wrote:The error in this formula consists in considering all the earthly on the same footing;

No.
It is perfectly true that some Terrien consume more, much more, than others. But there is no mistake in saying that all consume more and more energy.
It can even move the knife into the wound, adding that it is the poor and emerging countries that grow the most in CO2. Which is desirable and normal. See this diagram, on my website, http://ecologie-illusion.fr/ .

Image

According to International Energy Outlook 2013 and OECD Factbook 2011-2012.

You say that the instruction assumes little energy. You're right, a blackboard, it's not the end of the world from a budget point of view. But I believe that the national education budget is the first budget of the developed countries.
And I remember my grandmother lamenting that her mother had taken her out of school because she had to go to work in the fields. It was also a question of budget. Education or work in the fields, you have to choose.
Pierre Yves
0 x

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 199 guests