GDP, growth and ecology: the inevitable blockage!
The demonstration consists in taking 3 heating fuels from the least econological to the most econological and of
simply show that these 3 examples are econologically inversely proportional to the GDP created.
In other words: GDP = f (1 / econology) or even more it is econological the less it is good for the GDP.
Conclusion: econology is not compatible with GDP.
corollary: il faut urgently another measure of wealth creation and growth.
We will quickly compare the following means of heating: oil, pellets, wood (or other "raw" biomass fuel) and "self-produced" biomass.
Demonstration is also possible with fuel types: diesel, diester and pure vegetable oil; self-made hvb or frying. The reflection and conclusion is exactly the same, obviously the figures will be slightly different.
We assume the 4 cases in 4 recent identical 120m² houses, well insulated whose annual gross energy requirements are: 120 kWh per m2. Therefore 14 400 kWh gross energy is required per year.
To simplify, we assume the cost of the identical heating system (or already depreciated) and we are only interested in fuel costs.
1) Oil heating:
a) Impact on GDP
14 kWh = 400 L of fuel oil.
At 0.65 € per L an invoice of 936 € / year.
It is not the bill that is important but rather what is counted in the GDP.
GDP is the sum of added values + taxes
One L of fuel oil is sold € 0,65 incl.
A barrel of oil costs € 57 ($ 80 a barrel and $ 1,4 / €) makes 159L or € 0,36 of raw material.
The rest, about 0,30 € are compatibilized for GDP,
or 3 cents of € per kwh of raw energy.
b) Impact on the environment
Oil is obviously the worst energy (after coal) in terms of CO2 during the stages of exploration, extraction, transport, transformation and combustion ...
2) Pellet heating
a) Impact on GDP
14 kWh = 400 kg of pellets
If the kg of Pellets is sold in large quantities at € 0,30 per kg (minimum price), an invoice of € 864 / year is obtained.
What is the price of the raw material needed for Pellets?
In any case, the selling prices are clearly aligned with those of fuel oil (see
https://www.econologie.com/forums/speculatio ... t3820.html ).
We can therefore assume that pellet energy occurs at about the same height as fuel oil in GDP, obviously related to kwh
i.e. 3 cts per kWh energy
b) Impact on the environment
The impact on the environment, especially CO2, is greatly reduced compared to fuel oil, but it is not zero.
Transport and processing but above all drying sawdust (in order to meet standards) are the main energy-consuming steps in the production of pellets.
3) Wood heating
a) Impact on GDP
Here too, prices are aligned with the price of fuel oil. The stere is negotiated from 40 to 50 € TTC.
For beech we have:
a) 450 kg / stere
b) 3.5 kCal / kg (1 Cal = 1000 calories) or 4,1 kWh / kg
See:
https://www.econologie.com/pouvoirs-calo ... -1437.html
A stere of beech thus gives approximately: 1850 kWh (that is to say the equivalent of 185L of fuel oil). It would therefore take 7.83 cubic meters to heat the 120m², or € 391 / year to € 50 per stere.
It is the cheapest energy (and 50 € it is already expensive for wood) but it is also the most restrictive.
However, we are therefore at 391/14440 = 2,7 euro cents per kWh energy. The share of wood heating in GDP is therefore necessarily much lower than the 2 other type of heating since
the selling price is already lower than the contribution to the GDP of fuel oil or pellets.
We can assume that the share of GDP in wood heating is
of the order of 1,4 cts per kwh.
This value can be further greatly reduced by: self-production of firewood (impact on zero GDP limited to costs) but also, unreported sales, something that is more difficult to achieve in other cases ...
b) Impact on the environment
Raw wood is the most ecologically interesting energy because it is the shortest production cycle: in almost all cases it is local production and requiring only a very low energy -vore transformation (especially if you split with an ax, a widely used practice).
Besides, in terms of CO2, even ADEME considers wood heating to have zero emissions.
4) Self-production
This is a somewhat special case and the reasoning above cannot be applied to it since it must be seen on a case by case basis.
Take the example of Miscanthus planted at the bottom of the garden.
Impact on GDP: 0 since it was not the subject of any monetary exchange!
Environmental impact: 0 if no chemical fertilizer is used.
Let us summarize the impacts from 0 to 3 according to the importance of the impact:
oil:
a) GDP: 3 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 3
pellets:
a) GDP: 3 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 1
Wood:
a) GDP: 1,4 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 0,2
autoproduction:
a) GDP: 0 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 0
Conclusion
It is clear that
the more it is good for the environment, the less it creates GDP.
Isolated cases will I say the skeptics? Que Néni! Take the same reasoning with Fuels (in the same order: diesel, diester, hvb, hvb auto produced) or even for other types of heating (oil, electricity, heat pump, solar) and the results will appear in the same order!
Conclusion: GDP is therefore simply NOT compatible with the concept of sustainable development.