Greta facing the deputies

[realistic ecology]

do we have decades ahead of us to rectify the situation?
what do we do?

We do the best, at least the worst.
We are developing renewable energies, ET nuclear.

It will probably not be enough in time (surely not if we throw away the nuclear cartridge).

In addition, we should also reduce CO2 emissions.
To do this we have to be realistic, there are no other means than to reduce the standard of living in developed countries (which we cannot ask of countries emerging from underdevelopment). We must reduce the purchasing power of developed countries.
This prospect is frightening, which is why we invent stratagems to avoid reaching this end: we propose to save, to share, to consume differently.
It is an illusion. Purchasing power will always be spent, sooner or later, by oneself or by his heirs, with or without savings, with or without sharing. The savings do not exist.
Savings don't exist

But men being what they are, we cannot reduce purchasing power without there being waves. Men are what they are means, for example, that the rich, us, believe themselves poor, and will not accept a reduction in their purchasing power.
Sobriety is not natural

So what do we do, I don't have a guaranteed solution, but I at least know that there are illusions of solutions that are throwing us even faster into the wall. For example, get out of nuclear power and put all your balls in renewable energies. The idea of ​​renewable energies is beautiful, it inspires dreams, having a profusion of clean energy from the wind and the sun. In addition it contains an element of truth: indeed, one can obtain energy from the wind and the sun. But not in abundance, that's where the difference between dreaming and realism lies.

PS: The renewables growth curve alone is of no interest. What is instructive is to compare it to the consumption curve for fossil fuels. More precisely to the overall consumption of fossil fuels, and not only to the consumption of fossil fuels in the production of electricity.

[realistic ecology]

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

In developed countries even the poor are rich by comparison.
Just as they think they are poor by comparison.

[ABC2019]

do we have decades ahead of us to rectify the situation?
what do we do?

We do the best, at least the worst.
We are developing renewable energies, ET nuclear.

It will probably not be enough in time (surely not if we throw away the nuclear cartridge).

In addition, we should also reduce CO2 emissions.

or simply wait for them to shrink on their own by exhausting resources, which is most likely.

[Eric DUPONT]

do we have decades ahead of us to rectify the situation?
what do we do?

We do the best, at least the worst.
We are developing renewable energies, ET nuclear.

It will probably not be enough in time (surely not if we throw away the nuclear cartridge).

In addition, we should also reduce CO2 emissions.
To do this we have to be realistic, there are no other means than to reduce the standard of living in developed countries (which we cannot ask of countries emerging from underdevelopment). We must reduce the purchasing power of developed countries.
This prospect is frightening, which is why we invent stratagems to avoid reaching this end: we propose to save, to share, to consume differently.
It is an illusion. Purchasing power will always be spent, sooner or later, by oneself or by his heirs, with or without savings, with or without sharing. The savings do not exist.
Savings don't exist

But men being what they are, we cannot reduce purchasing power without there being waves. Men are what they are means, for example, that the rich, us, believe themselves poor, and will not accept a reduction in their purchasing power.
Sobriety is not natural

So what do we do, I don't have a guaranteed solution, but I at least know that there are illusions of solutions that are throwing us even faster into the wall. For example, get out of nuclear power and put all your balls in renewable energies. The idea of ​​renewable energies is beautiful, it inspires dreams, having a profusion of clean energy from the wind and the sun. In addition it contains an element of truth: indeed, one can obtain energy from the wind and the sun. But not in abundance, that's where the difference between dreaming and realism lies.

PS: The renewables growth curve alone is of no interest. What is instructive is to compare it to the consumption curve for fossil fuels. More precisely to the overall consumption of fossil fuels, and not only to the consumption of fossil fuels in the production of electricity.

well, the nuclear problem is that it is not controllable energy, it happens all the time. Do you have an idea of ​​the costs of a nuclear power plant: construction, employment over 60 years, maintenance, storage of waste over 100000 years, dismantling, fuel, insurance, free energy for employees and I forget the rapid intervention forces for protect the plant (hunters, army)

[Paul72]

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"?

I wasn't thinking of oil, but rather of agriculture (which by the way depends mostly on it today). Producing while maintaining yields in increasingly degraded conditions is already a challenge today, so with a much more extreme climate it will be a real pain.

[realistic ecology]

well, the nuclear problem is that it is not controllable energy, it happens all the time. Do you have an idea of ​​the costs of a nuclear power plant: construction, employment over 60 years, maintenance, storage of waste over 100000 years, dismantling, fuel, insurance, free energy for employees and I forget the rapid intervention forces for protect the plant (hunters, army)

Between fully controllable (gas plant) and fatal energy (wind), there are steps. Nuclear power is less flexible than a gas power plant, but is flexible (-10 to 15%); and most importantly can produce all the time.
As for the price, compare the electricity bills in Germany (which is said to be champion of renewables) and in France (which is champion of nuclear power).

[ABC2019]

"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"?

I wasn't thinking of oil, but rather of agriculture (which by the way depends mostly on it today). Producing while maintaining yields in increasingly degraded conditions is already a challenge today, so with a much more extreme climate it will be a real pain.

Ah yes ?

You realize all the same that whatever the climate change, there are regions that now have the same climate as those we will have in 50 years elsewhere, and that in most cases (except really the extremes such as the desert edges), is it going pretty well?

and if not, if we have to stop the fossils, don't you think it will not be so much trouble to do without?

[Eric DUPONT]

well, the nuclear problem is that it is not controllable energy, it happens all the time. Do you have an idea of ​​the costs of a nuclear power plant: construction, employment over 60 years, maintenance, storage of waste over 100000 years, dismantling, fuel, insurance, free energy for employees and I forget the rapid intervention forces for protect the plant (hunters, army)

Between fully controllable (gas plant) and fatal energy (wind), there are steps. Nuclear power is less flexible than a gas power plant, but is flexible (-10 to 15%); and most importantly can produce all the time.
As for the price, compare the electricity bills in Germany (which is said to be champion of renewables) and in France (which is champion of nuclear power).

Do you have an idea of ​​the costs of a nuclear power plant: construction, employment over 60 years, maintenance, waste storage over 100000 years dismantling, fuel, insurance, free energy for employees and I forget the rapid intervention forces for protect the plant (hunters, army) the whole divided by the number of kwh produced

[sicetaitsimple]

.....
So what do we do, I don't have a guaranteed solution, but I at least know that there are illusions of solutions that throw us even faster into the wall. For example, get out of nuclear power and put all of your balls in renewable energies.

.....

PS: The renewables growth curve alone is of no interest. What is instructive is to compare it to the consumption curve for fossil fuels. More precisely to the overall consumption of fossil fuels, and not only to the consumption of fossil fuels in the production of electricity.

Personally, I did not talk about going out of nuclear power, I even said the opposite 3 or 4 pages above. But it is clear, if we want to be "realistic", that there are very few countries that have power plants under construction in the world, and that even projects in development (that is to say in the phase preceding the decision to do) are few. So this is not a short-term solution, since we were talking about a few decades and "emergency".

"The RE growth curve alone is irrelevant.": this is an opinion that I do not share. If we look at it over the last ten years, it seems to me on the contrary very interesting, even if that does not bode well for its future development.

[ABC2019]

.....
So what do we do, I don't have a guaranteed solution, but I at least know that there are illusions of solutions that throw us even faster into the wall. For example, get out of nuclear power and put all of your balls in renewable energies.

.....

PS: The renewables growth curve alone is of no interest. What is instructive is to compare it to the consumption curve for fossil fuels. More precisely to the overall consumption of fossil fuels, and not only to the consumption of fossil fuels in the production of electricity.

Personally, I did not talk about going out of nuclear power, I even said the opposite 3 or 4 pages above. But it is clear, if we want to be "realistic", that there are very few countries that have power plants under construction in the world, and that even projects in development (that is to say in the phase preceding the decision to do) are few. So this is not a short-term solution, since we were talking about a few decades and "emergency".

"The RE growth curve alone is irrelevant.": this is an opinion that I do not share. If we look at it over the last ten years, it seems to me on the contrary very interesting, even if that does not bode well for its future development.

the only thing that the development of renewable energies shows is how much we are addicted to our western way of life and anxious not to lose it (otherwise we could do without).

And it also shows that we're going to drool over it anyway, since it's pretty obvious that they won't be enough to keep it going.

To be honest, the exact same thing can be said about nuclear.