Greta facing the deputies

[Paul72]

Only energy decrease will allow it. [limit global warming]

You want to ask for an "energy decrease" from Africans, Indians, etc. ?

We can ask the rich (us), but that only makes two billion people, while the poor and emerging are five billion. They are now the ones who emit the most CO2, and whose emissions are increasing.

Africans do not need to decrease (for the majority), that's for sure. We, among others, and many other countries, yes. Including the Indians who are among the most exposed to CR (along with the Chinese). In total population I mean.

[Paul72]

The interest? Maybe to survive in a world not too unlivable ...

there is nothing to indicate that reasonably predictable CR with known fossil reserves prevents survival .... It's just self-built delirium in the media from things that have never been demonstrated by any scientist.

"To survive" is no longer living. We will no longer have oil to adapt easily. In the tropics, without air conditioning, it will be hard to survive humid temperatures above 60 degrees

[Eric DUPONT]

renewables will simply replace fossils, they are already replacing nuclear power, it's only a matter of time.

[ABC2019]

The interest? Maybe to survive in a world not too unlivable ...

there is nothing to indicate that reasonably predictable CR with known fossil reserves prevents survival .... It's just self-built delirium in the media from things that have never been demonstrated by any scientist.

"To survive" is no longer living. We will no longer have oil to adapt easily.

So you admit that going without oil would make life a lot more difficult?

what do you call a "temperature humidity over 60 degrees"?

[sicetaitsimple]

But it is by looking at past developments that one can get an idea of ​​the evolution of the "near" future: it will be substantially along the extension of the curves of the past.

Of course it must be taken into account that the new renewable energies are recent in their modern form, it is normal that they have not yet proved their worth. They have a considerable handicap to overcome. they need to be given some time to overcome their backlog and catch up, then replace fossil fuels.

At the risk of repeating myself, because I wrote it a little earlier, we are talking about decades to appreciate the changes. And for the moment, we are roughly a decade away, because the development in significant volume of "new renewables" at the aggregate "world" level did not really begin until around 2010.

At the risk of repeating myself too, it is no longer a question of "proving themselves". Technology can certainly make more progress, but basically it works. The real change is that at least in some parts of the world it is now becoming cheaper to produce a kWh with "new renewable" than with "new fossil". And so, I repeat myself again, the new needs and the needs for renewal will certainly be covered more and more by "new renewables" (even if it is necessary to build fossil back-up). The "people" are still not crazy ....


Finally, we must take into account the leverage effects, new renewables but also other emerging technologies (in the volume sense):
- an electric kWh of solar or wind origin replaces 1 kWh produced from fossil energy, but this requires 2 to 3 kWh of fossils to be produced. The ratio between primary energy and final energy should decrease overall.
- a "renewable" electric kWh in an electric vehicle replaces around 4 kWh of fossil energy in a thermal vehicle,
and roughly 3kWh for heating with a heat pump

PS: your graph is a little too crushed considering the scales to see anything there. As you already have the figures on an excel sheet, can you draw a plot of the new renewables between 2010 and now?

[realistic ecology]

At the risk of repeating myself, because I wrote it a little earlier, we are talking about decades to appreciate the changes.

You are repeating yourself indeed, but you do not answer my objection: do we have decades ahead of us to rectify the situation? Taking into account the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

- The costs of renewable energies: the cost of electricity at the exit of the wind turbine is indeed interesting; but it is borderline intellectual fraud to present only this cost. We must then add the cost of the grid, fossil or nuclear power plants. The cost of renewables is therefore necessarily higher than the cost of a fossil / nuclear system, since they come in addition to this system.
Not to mention the subsidies: The subsidies granted to photovoltaics in France will represent

“€ 2 billion (billion euros) per year until 2030 (i.e. € 38,4 billion cumulatively) for a production volume equivalent to 0,7% of the electricity mix.” ”, And that“ full achievement calls for tenders in 2011 and 2013 on offshore wind power would cost public finances € 2 billion per year for 20 years (or € 40,7 billion cumulatively) for a volume equivalent to 2% of electricity production 1 ” (Report of the Court of Auditors "Support for renewable energies" - March 2018 - See also: The Court of Auditors alert on the cost of renewable energies - April 2018)

… Billions for 2 + 0,7% of the electricity mix!

- What will be the number of wind turbines to replace fossil and nuclear energies? And above all how many hectares of land phagocytosed by photovoltaic panels? Do we have enough land for these uses?

- Your considerations on primary energy final energy are correct, but what are they for this discussion?
You can also consider that the wind is only a tiny part of the primary energy which is at its origin, namely, the solar radiation. And when did we say that?

I repeat myself again, the new needs and the needs for renewal will certainly be covered more and more by "new renewables"

You repeat yourself but without a convincing argument.
The graph is more convincing. Its only weakness, which you point out, is that the boom in renewables is recent and that we can hesitate about the evolution of the curves in the future. But imagining the number of wind turbines and PVs to only keep pace with the growth in global energy demand I have little doubts (as you have few doubts to the contrary).

Can (new) renewable energies replace fossil fuels on their own?

Dilating the graph does not hide the considerable gap between fossils and renewables, nor especially the differences in growth.

[Eric DUPONT]

But it is by looking at past developments that one can get an idea of ​​the evolution of the "near" future: it will be substantially along the extension of the curves of the past.

Of course it must be taken into account that the new renewable energies are recent in their modern form, it is normal that they have not yet proved their worth. They have a considerable handicap to overcome. they need to be given some time to overcome their backlog and catch up, then replace fossil fuels.

At the risk of repeating myself, because I wrote it a little earlier, we are talking about decades to appreciate the changes. And for the moment, we are roughly a decade away, because the development in significant volume of "new renewables" at the aggregate "world" level did not really begin until around 2010.

At the risk of repeating myself too, it is no longer a question of "proving themselves". Technology can certainly make more progress, but basically it works. The real change is that at least in some parts of the world it is now becoming cheaper to produce a kWh with "new renewable" than with "new fossil". And so, I repeat myself again, the new needs and the needs for renewal will certainly be covered more and more by "new renewables" (even if it is necessary to build fossil back-up). The "people" are still not crazy ....


Finally, we must take into account the leverage effects, new renewables but also other emerging technologies (in the volume sense):
- an electric kWh of solar or wind origin replaces 1 kWh produced from fossil energy, but this requires 2 to 3 kWh of fossils to be produced. The ratio between primary energy and final energy should decrease overall.
- a "renewable" electric kWh in an electric vehicle replaces around 4 kWh of fossil energy in a thermal vehicle,
and roughly 3kWh for heating with a heat pump

PS: your graph is a little too crushed considering the scales to see anything there. As you already have the figures on an excel sheet, can you draw a plot of the new renewables between 2010 and now?

with offshore wind and photovoltaics, storage needs are limited

[sicetaitsimple]

At the risk of repeating myself, because I wrote it a little earlier, we are talking about decades to appreciate the changes.

You are repeating yourself indeed, but you do not answer my objection: do we have decades ahead of us to rectify the situation? Taking into account the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, I'm not answering because I just don't know how to answer.

Assuming that the answer is "no, we have no decades to rectify the situation", I will return the question to you: what do we do?

PS: for the curve, I suggested showing only the ENRs, with an adapted scale, starting around 2010.

[ABC2019]

At the risk of repeating myself, because I wrote it a little earlier, we are talking about decades to appreciate the changes.

You are repeating yourself indeed, but you do not answer my objection: do we have decades ahead of us to rectify the situation? Taking into account the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.

No, I'm not answering because I just don't know how to answer.

Assuming that the answer is no, I will return the question to you: what do we do?

we do as we have always done, we adapt as best we can with what we have ....

[Eric DUPONT]

yes, well, the rich will adapt more easily ... which is why they do nothing.