Limiting Global: How CO2?

[ABC2019]

The only way to effectively fight against RCA is to limit the scope of reserves extracted.

and nuclear? ...
Shhhh! especially not to talk about this forum frequented by a majority of indecipherable antinucs.

Too bad, the pie chart that I posted shows that France, thanks to it and despite having closed a unit for no scientific reason, still emits 20 times less "CO2" than Germany in electricity production, supposedly guide the rest of Europe.

except that we do not do everything with electricity, and that all the reserves of uranium 235 only allow a maximum of a hundred GtC to be avoided, ie around 20 ppm; so it won't change much in the end - especially since again nothing says that those 20 ppm aren't just going to be produced a little later.

Or you have to build thousands of breeders, and that's another story, for a whole lot of reason.

[humus]

The only way to effectively fight against RCA is to limit the scope of the reserves extracted,

And therefore renewables are not, among other things, a way of limiting the perimeter of extracted reserves?
I am not following your logic.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

We must limit the perimeter of the reserves extracted to where there is something to be extracted, not go where there is nothing to extract because there is nothing to extract. Yet it is implacable logic!

[ABC2019]

The only way to effectively fight against RCA is to limit the scope of the reserves extracted,

And therefore renewables are not, among other things, a way of limiting the perimeter of extracted reserves?
I am not following your logic.

well no; How does installing wind turbines mean that we will stop extracting coal sooner? there is no reason for that. On the contrary, it is very logical, and it is illogical to claim otherwise.

I will give you a very concrete example. Here is the oil production curve since 1960



you notice that the rapid growth of the 60s was interrupted in the 70s, with even a temporary decrease during the 80s (against the oil shock). This is obviously due to the first oil shock (Yom Kippur War) and second (Iranian revolution), which actively pushed to seek to replace oil where it was not essential. It is in particular there that one mass-built nuclear or gas power stations, while closing most of the fuel stations. Not at all for CO2, at the time we didn't talk about it, but so as not to be dependent on the Arabs. It had some success, we actually reduced consumption a lot, and the growth that resumed afterwards was much slower.


But did that have the effect of reducing TOTAL production, integrated over time? Will the "replaced" oil ever be extracted? of course not. No one has decided not to touch the deposits on the sole pretext that we have avoided touching them until now and that they would have been exhausted if we had not made an effort before. The only result of the savings is not to reduce the total extract, it is to make it last longer. We continue to extract oil, and even more and more, and there is nothing to show that we are going to do without it before having scraped everything.

So no, installing wind turbines can reduce the annual consumption of fossils, but in no way guarantees that we will reduce total consumption, or give up reserves that could be extracted.

This is precisely the intellectual scam (very widespread) I was talking about.

[humus]

This is precisely the intellectual scam (very widespread) I was talking about.

Global energy consumption is only growing, see Jancovici curves for example.
Renewable energy would not be there, global energy consumption would still be more more carbonaceous from year to year, instead of simply being more.
The intellectual scam does not come from renewable energies, it is in the maintenance of an energy - intensive economic model incompatible with a drop in energy consumption.
Energy sobriety is not only insulating houses, it is also changing the economic model to switch to an a-growing global model.
Intellectual scams are:
- not enough ENR
- not enough and even not at all of energy sobriety. (capitalism)
- and claim to resolve / contain the RCA

[ABC2019]

This is precisely the intellectual scam (very widespread) I was talking about.

Global energy consumption is only growing, see Jancovici curves for example.
Renewable energy would not be there, global energy consumption would still be more more carbonaceous from year to year, instead of simply being more.

except that the reserves being finished, the consumption will inevitably end up stinging one day or the other, anyway, it is also what Janco says. And replacing part of the fossils with renewable energies (or nuclear) pushes back the peak, but it does not change the integral extracted.

The intellectual scam does not come from renewable energies, it is in the maintenance of an energy - intensive economic model incompatible with a drop in energy consumption.
Energy sobriety is not only insulating houses, it is also changing the economic model to switch to an a-growing global model.

even an "a-growing" model does not prevent fossils from being extracted at a constant rate, and therefore from exhausting them - with the same integral at the end, therefore the same CO2 concentration, therefore the same climate. The only thing that changes is the time it takes, but since we are probably already almost at the peak, the leeway on the date of the peak is very low anyway.

Intellectual scams are:
- not enough ENR
- not enough and even not at all of energy sobriety.
- and claim to resolve / contain the RCA

but I have just demonstrated to you by A + B that the RCA does not depend on the quantity of ENR or on energy sobriety, because as long as we need fossils, we will end up extracting them anyway. Take 5 minutes to think about the arguments instead of wrapping up your original idea.

Unless you know how to get CO2 production down to ZERO and get TOTALLY fossil-free, but I don't think that's the case.

Yet it is easy to understand: if you have 50 bottles of wine in your cellar; and if you keep drinking wine, you will end up drinking your 50 bottles (or your heirs) however fast you drink them. And you will have produced 50 waste empty bottles by the end.

Do you at least agree with this last assertion I hope?

[humus]

but I have just demonstrated to you by A + B that the RCA does not depend on the quantity of ENR or on energy sobriety, because as long as we need fossils, we will end up extracting them anyway. Take 5 minutes to think about the arguments instead of wrapping up your original idea.

It's all thoughtful, you have only described the reality well known to all.
I expose to you the cause of this reality the inherently growing global economic model, capitalism.
As long as this point does not change, you are absolutely right.

Unless you know how to get CO2 production down to ZERO and get TOTALLY fossil-free, but I don't think that's the case.

I do not know him but I know that as long as we remain in a growing economic model, as long as we do not question this model, (we do not revolt enough ), the subject will remain definitively closed on the reality that you describe.
Are you either fatalist and defeatist, or are you the creator / participant of a new paradigm?
Which camp are you in, which camp gives you the most joy?

[ABC2019]

but I have just demonstrated to you by A + B that the RCA does not depend on the quantity of ENR or on energy sobriety, because as long as we need fossils, we will end up extracting them anyway. Take 5 minutes to think about the arguments instead of wrapping up your original idea.

It's all thoughtful, you have only described the reality well known to all.
I expose to you the cause of this reality the inherently growing global economic model, capitalism.
As long as this point does not change, you are absolutely right.

Unless you know how to get CO2 production down to ZERO and get TOTALLY fossil-free, but I don't think that's the case.

I do not know him but I know that as long as we remain in a growing economic model, as long as we do not question this model, (we do not revolt enough ), the subject will remain definitively closed on the reality that you describe.
Are you either fatalist and defeatist, or are you the creator / participant of a new paradigm?
Which camp are you in, which camp gives you the most joy?

no it is not specifically a growth problem. Growth is consuming more and more over time. In the wine example, this would be the equivalent of drinking more and more wine every day. It would certainly be bad for your health, but for the question of the total quantity drunk at the end, that does not change anything: you will still have drunk 50 bottles at the end and produced 50 empty bottles.
Growth or decrease acts only on the temporal distribution of consumption, but not on total consumption. Growth is not the problem, even a society without growth would end up depleting non-renewable resources.

The problem is that our way of life requires tapping into non-renewable resources.

[humus]

I would like your answer on this point to know what type of person I am addressing.

Are you either fatalist and defeatist, or are you the creator / participant of a new paradigm?
Which camp are you in, which camp gives you the most joy?

no it is not specifically a growth problem. Growth is consuming more and more over time.

This is why I said above, bis repetita, to fight against the RCA it is necessary
- develop renewable energies, in order to do well, have no more than that, which implies
- develop sobriety
- and to be at least a-growing, which implies leaving capitalism.
This makes 3 inseparable measures, so please don't separate them by saying that one doesn't solve anything on its own.
It will be more honest as an exchange.

[Ahmed]

Become a-croissant, as wished Eclectron, is logically not sufficient, since it actually only slows down the process, as rightly pointed out ABC. The real concern is that of the incompatibility of an industrial society * with the living. Unfortunately, among those who are aware of this (and that is surely a lot of people), some think that it is through finer management that the contradiction could be resolved. And for that, they count on the use of computer technologies adapted to the complexity of the subject ... They forget that the computer infrastructure, like any technology, does not live in the sky of the ideas, but on the contrary supposes a particular type of global functioning which excludes this loophole. It is to this kind of conclusion that we end up by force of considering reality only in watertight compartments ...

* industrial society or capitalism are synonymous.