Collapsology ... kezako?

[float]

we also have to think about production costs. .

This is not really my approach, because if we think about production costs, it's a given, oil and gas are unbeatable and for a good while, despite the peaks.
I have more of a 2-step approach:
- specification of needs (which implies rationality and democracy in choices)
- and availability of resources (re rationality and re democracy).
Here we are far from the market, the market which precisely led us to the problem(s)

The other approach which is to recover the carbon in the air (at what energy cost?) to bind it to hydrogen (at what energy cost?) and to finally release it into the air, frankly I don't do it. don't feel.
Let's say that making the effort to recover CO2 to release it in the end, I find it a shame not to take advantage of it to really reduce atmospheric CO2.
You're going to tell me stabilizing atmospheric CO2 wouldn't be so bad, which is not false.

Batteries... well, everyone knows that we won't have enough metals for everyone, unless there is new technology.

So yes, we can tinker with a little bit of everything while waiting…either for a technological miracle, or to get used to the idea of ​​a more sober world.

Since we have no technological miracle in sight, there remains DIY and the poor man's option (to do without it! ), very difficult to accept, I admit.
This is one of the important parameters of the problem....

[NCSH]

we also have to think about production costs. .

It's not really my approach, because if we think about the cost of production, it's a no-brainer, oil and gas are unbeatable and for a good while, despite the peaks.
I have more of a 2-step approach:
- specification of needs (which implies rationality and democracy in choices)
- and availability of resources (re rationality and re democracy).
Here we are far from the market, the market which precisely led us to the problem(s)

The other approach which is to recover the carbon in the air (at what energy cost?) to bind it to hydrogen (at what energy cost?) and to finally release it into the air, frankly I don't do it. don't feel.
Let's say that making the effort to recover CO2 to release it in the end, I find it a shame not to take advantage of it to really reduce atmospheric CO2.
You're going to tell me stabilizing atmospheric CO2 wouldn't be so bad, which is not false.

Batteries... well, everyone knows that we won't have enough metals for everyone, unless there is new technology.

So yes, we can tinker with a little bit of everything while waiting…either for a technological miracle, or to get used to the idea of ​​a more sober world.

Since we have no technological miracle in sight, there remains DIY and the poor man's option (to do without it! ), very difficult to accept, I admit.
This is one of the important parameters of the problem....

The production cost approach is essential, it is the main one to decide between what is desirable and what is possible.

The climate commitments to achieve Carbon Neutrality put a clear limit on the success of fossil fuels: in 30 years, they must have largely been eliminated...

As for the energy balances, they are what they are, there will be no miracle: 17 kWhe/liter of diesel/kerosene for the Norwegians thanks to electrolysers with 80% efficiency operating 24 hours a day thanks to wind power supplemented by hydraulics, rather than 24 with high-power alkaline electrolysers of 20% efficiency compatible with strong variations in power during the days...
So all you need is plenty of low-cost electrical energy.

As for the energy balance of DAC, it is enough to have heat, which can be provided by the synthesis of fuels...

As for 1 Mt of CO₂ in excess in the atmosphere, the cost of capture will have to be significantly lowered to begin to remove it, at a rate of 7.5 Mdt/year if we want to do that in 200 years.
It is the role of the development of synthetic fuels to make this solution still expensive (250 €/t CO₂ to be reached before 2030, but rather 50 in 2050) accessible.

[Janic]

it is only dreams and fantasies to delude oneself about a vision of the future which is only an abstract projection of the current world onto it. And again, this is only the work of wealthy societies who want to keep intact their advantages acquired through the overexploitation of limited resources and their impact on living things.
Certainly we are gradually perceiving among the populations that the current system cannot last long and that we must change our minds urgently since the politicians and "bosses" of the market economy have led us into an impasse under all its aspects.
But at this level this only happens extremely slowly, unlike events which accelerate in an inversely proportional manner.

[sicetaitsimple]

As for the energy balance of DAC, it is enough to have heat, which can be provided by the synthesis of fuels...

I still seem to have seen large fans in the photos of available DAC prototypes. To recover thousands of tons of CO2 from air that contains around 400ppm, you still have to mix a lot of air!
As for the heat "which could be provided" by the synthesis of fuels, why not, but this "available" or "fatal" heat can only result from a loss in the process.
In short, I am not convinced by the 17kWhe/l announced if we look at the entire chain, electrolysis, CO2 capture, and fuel synthesis process.
Unless there is a document detailing all of this?

[NCSH]

As for the energy balance of DAC, it is enough to have heat, which can be provided by the synthesis of fuels...

I still seem to have seen large fans in the photos of available DAC prototypes. To recover thousands of tons of CO2 from air that contains around 400ppm, you still have to mix a lot of air!
As for the heat "which could be provided" by the synthesis of fuels, why not, but this "available" or "fatal" heat can only result from a loss in the process.
In short, I am not convinced by the 17kWhe/l announced if we look at the entire chain, electrolysis, CO2 capture, and fuel synthesis process.
Unless there is a document detailing all of this?

Not all thermochemical processes are perfect, they need energy input.

There are several reports on these subjects, partial, of course, but already made public on this forum. for less than a year.

[float]

...

Your reasoning is based on 2 points which are unfortunately not valid:

1) We are not keeping climate commitments, energy consumption (fossils) is only growing.


2) Let the market do its thing, that's good, that's what we do. Fossil fuels are more profitable/practical/available than any other energy so we use them as a priority, so climate commitments are not met. QED, alas...

I fear that we will have to go deeper and call into question the validity of the capitalist system and its sacrosanct market.
It may be that climate commitments can be kept, with economic democracy.

Or else we have to find financially profitable solutions in the face of fossil fuels, and which make it possible to meet climate commitments.
I am still searching.
There are indeed some sources of clean energy like you mention in Norway, or geothermal energy in Iceland, but it is not quantitatively generalizable.

Don't be offended, I don't know you, but your attitude reminds me of an actor in the system who wants to establish his solution? What we commonly call a lobbyist?
Or a real nice guy full of good intentions who still has some illusions about the world in which he lives?

[sicetaitsimple]

[
Unless there is a document detailing all of this?

Not all thermochemical processes are perfect, they need energy input.
There are several reports on these subjects, partial, of course, but already made public on this forum. for less than a year.

Thank you very much!

[NCSH]

...

Your reasoning is based on 2 points which are unfortunately not valid:

1) We are not keeping climate commitments, energy consumption (fossils) is only growing.


2) Let the market do its thing, that's good, that's what we do. Fossil fuels are more profitable/practical/available than any other energy so we use them as a priority, so climate commitments are not met. QED, alas...

I fear that we will have to go deeper and call into question the validity of the capitalist system and its sacrosanct market.
It may be that climate commitments can be kept, with economic democracy.

Or else we have to find financially profitable solutions in the face of fossil fuels, and which make it possible to meet climate commitments.
I am still searching.
There are indeed some sources of clean energy like you mention in Norway, or geothermal energy in Iceland, but it is not quantitatively generalizable.

Don't be offended, I don't know you, but your attitude reminds me of an actor in the system who wants to establish his solution? What we commonly call a lobbyist?
Or a real nice guy full of good intentions who still has some illusions about the world in which he lives?

The climate commitments are made after December 2015, so we do not see the slightest effect in 2019.
We must project ourselves into 2030 to see the share of renewable electricity (hydraulic+wind+PV) appearing on this graph from 12 to 13 TWhe (out of 000)...

Renewable energy sources have long been inventoried, and are more than overabundant; remains to make them profitable. Non-fossil synthetic fuels are one of the solutions.

I am neither a lobbyist nor a “good guy”: I do not believe, like many here it seems, that we will be able to transform our energy sources in the next 30 or 40 years without resorting to capitalism. .

[float]

The climate commitments are made after December 2015, so we do not see the slightest effect in 2019.
We must project ourselves into 2030 to see the share of renewable electricity (hydraulic+wind+PV) appearing on this graph from 12 to 13 TWhe (out of 000)...

Taking the most recent charts we can find, we find record subsidies in 2022 for fossil fuels.


for electricity production in 2022, the global mix is ​​as follows, knowing that the margins for progress are mainly solar and wind, we see that for the moment, the contribution of these 2 sources is not very significant.


For the moment the facts seem to invalidate the wishes renewed at each COP.

Indeed, from 2015, we hope that renewable energy will take off. It's a wish...
There should be and will be a strong political leadership to counter the market.
When we see the energy subsidies of 2022 higher, we can doubt it.

Renewable energy sources have long been inventoried, and are more than overabundant.

I've been aware since the first or final class, of another century. , when we had no oil but ideas.
1500KWh/year of solar energy on average on French soil.
10m² and I heat a house. Brought back to a roof, it's nothing, except that everyone knows that it's not that simple. (seasonality, yields, storage and then we cry)
The problem is that with rare exceptions, renewable energies are not concentrated.
As a result, they require a lot of material to be exploited, and a lot of energy to build the converters, which are necessarily more numerous (wind turbines, PV, etc.) than power plant type converters.

remains to make them profitable. Non-fossil synthetic fuels are one of the solutions.

In my opinion it will never be, unless the market is distorted by adequate taxation on fossils. (dirigisme and political will, with the risk that the less fiscal distance from competition on the world market will nip any virtuous attempt in the bud)

Sorry but this capitalism is still a big mess, it is “it”, through us, the Men without will or without imagination, who runs the world in our place.

I am neither a lobbyist nor a “good guy”.

Not a villain either I hope?

I don't believe, like many here it seems, that we will be able to transform our energy sources in the next 30 or 40 years without resorting to capitalism.

It would be hacking capitalism, Gunter Pauli style. This is what seems the most intelligent and pragmatic to me.
It works well for agricultural production where waste often ends up in edible mushrooms rather than costly waste to dispose of, they are useful and they make a profit.

For energy I don't really see, apart from another particular case, in El Hierro, wind turbines and the STEP", "Pumping Energy Transfer Station". This supposes a particular configuration: strong wind and often (island at sea) and the altitude available for the step (volcanic island).

I still find it difficult to subscribe to your enthusiasm in preserving capitalism and the market.
As long as we believe on the TINA side of capitalism, this remains a truth and nothing will move significantly, because the market will bring back to BAU, moreover we have never left it.

Sorry, I'm fine, it's easier to counter initiatives than to propose them. I know it well, I am often on the other side (no I don't take revenge but I play devil's advocate)
You don't have to let that stop you, but something has to evolve so that renewable energies are more significant in the global mix.
To meditate...
In a perfect world, all brothers all that, all that there is a package of solutions, PV or solar concentration in the Sahara etc...
But the human factor...

[Ahmed]

...because the market will lead back to BAU, in fact we have never left it.

This is because the economy is at a fixed BAU!