NegaWatt scenario, a sober and clean energy future

[Former Oceano]

It is not without aim, but less.

Use a laptop that consumes 40W instead of a tower while consuming 250W + the 50W consuming screen + speaker power

Give priority to low consumption appliances. A simple way to limit your consumption by taking a small counter. Since 13 years I work with a counter of 3KW. All my appliances consume little and if we must use an energy-consuming device (pyrolysis of the oven) we know that we can have nothing more than TV, 2 laptops and some lights.

Moreover, it is more promising to promote better because less energy-consuming than without.

There is surely a whole vocabulary and an ecologist strategy to review.

[Napo dwarf]

good already for those who say Negawatt is targeting 0 consumption would do well to shut up a little bit

please

I was at the presentation and it was not at all what was mentioned

on the other hand, where the objective is drastically reduce consumption to approach 0 is in buildings (passive)

for the rest there will always be cars, always as much or almost air travel, so always fossil energy consumption but in a much lower proportion


the senario aim for the majority of the time a comsommation of electricity and gas methane (it is the production that change)


and for the financing, France imports from 60 billion billions of fossil energy if we reduce the consumption of the buildings which represents 45% of memory (do not be angry with me there were many figures)
all the money we do not spend to import fossil energy can be used to finance the conversion of energy production (biomass plant, offshore wind, photovoltaic, ...)

then of course that this senario was made according to the known means of production considered "mature", they themselves say it I paraphrase "of course a new source of energy can be discovered we do not know if it will be the case, when it will be and in what proportion it can be used, all this cannot be quantified "

and so to finish it is an evolutionary senario which has been done again 4 times to take account of the technological evolutions, figures available, ...

[I Citro]

Reducing the speed on the roads decreases especially the deaths by accidents, but hardly the consumption of oil.

Stop saying stupid things. It is archie false. The energy needed to combat aerodynamic losses increases with the square of speed.

The disappearance of certain metals and elements is extremely much closer to us than the depletion of fossil fuels.
This will cause very strong constraints not envisaged.

The shortage of many metals and raw materials will indeed be felt faster than the shortage of oil. These perspectives are known and envisaged, as well as alternative solutions. It's good to mention it.

Compelling totalitarian solutions do not work

They have worked in the past and will still work if politicians have the courage.
Banning cars in cities, limiting speed on the road has already changed the cityscape even if manufacturers continue to make autistic people and sell useless "city cars" and 4x4s.
Totalitarian solutions work very well, denying it is not honest.

[clasou]

Hi,
In part, agree with dedeleco, if he hears that it does not reduce consumption, by the fact that people are actually more miles than before.
It's a bit like saying that the price increase reduces the consumption, same result as for cigarettes.

Now, I must be wary because I had heard christophe to do a survey (and I did not follow up But in fact rather an analysis of each.

it's going to seem banal, everyone is talking about co2, a tree stored may not be huge but for a long time (and in addition it can produce fruit).
Many a garden, but how many have said, want to fight my way I will plant a large enough, and more I will give fruit to a food aid association, (to flog twice)

bill more loss of crop, well it will change what, how much perso garden in France.
a + claude

[Christophe]

2011 update: http://www.negawatt.org/scenario-negawatt-2011-p46.html

Full video conference (3h30 ...) with slides: http://www.vo-live.fr/vod/u2sKpzZ.html



Summary .pdf: https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... IjTylN.pdf

Web summary:

The negaWatt approach is driven by the following maxim: "The cheapest energy is the energy we do not consume". The negaWatt association, a group of studies, proposals and actions to promote this approach and to ink it in reality, has released the 29 last September its "negaWatt 2011 Scenario".

Sobriety, efficiency and renewable are the key words of this scenario which aims to:
- show that France can provide for itself by considerably reducing the use of fossil and nuclear energies
- propose concrete measures allowing a real energy transition
- to make a technical contribution to the debate on France's energy policy.

The negaWatt scenario resonates the principles of the functional economy. So it's not oil, uranium or wood that we need, but to heat, enlighten or move.
Once these real needs have been identified, the scenario considers how to satisfy them in the most sustainable way according to 2 axes: sobriety and efficiency. The first aims to change the uses and behaviors and the second to provide a technical answer.

This scenario, which was written by some fifteen experts during 1 year, presents the following analyzes and conclusions:
- In the building, which today represents 40% of our final energy consumption, the areas of improvement are as follows:
◦ renovation of existing buildings and strong constraints in new
◦ reduction of m2 used in housing and offices.
- Transport represents 30% of our final energy consumption:
◦ revisiting regional planning policies in order to stop urban sprawl, revitalize rural areas and develop teleworking centers
◦ modulate use and increase the filling rate of vehicles
◦ change vehicle engines (electric, non-fossil gas engines)
- Change in industry representing 23% of current energy consumption:
◦ reduction of packaging and printed papers
◦ “repairability” and “recyclability” constraints and end of planned product obsolescence
- Agriculture represents 2,5% of final energy consumption, but generates very high non-energy GHG emissions (methane and nitrous oxide).
◦ Based on the Afterres 2050 scenario, the analysis mainly provides for the evolution of the diet aimed at a better nutritional balance and a reduction in overconsumption (carbohydrates, fats and animal proteins): less meat and milk, more vegetables, of fruits and grains.

Gains in final energy consumption decreased by 60% change the nature of the problem of energy production. It is therefore really possible to switch to an almost entirely renewable energy production in 2050: 90% of heat and mobility needs and close to 100% of specific electricity needs.

It is worth noting that this scenario is not based on any technological bet. Obviously, breaks are not excluded, but they are not predictable and therefore not taken into account.

Nothing revolutionary therefore, mainly a better management of the answers to our needs!

Source: http://www.greenit.fr/article/energie/9 ... -2050-4035

[dedeleco]

Being heavy to repeat, but we are not obliged to be negawatts, but to replace the fossil Watts, by the use of Watts of the sun, which fall on our heads wasted in summer, to store underground for the winter for heating, as functional to www.dlsc.ca , with -15 ° C at the moment and possibility systematically neglected by all, even despised, even by the ecologists !!!

Nobody believes it, while it is the certain revolution, which already works, for more CO2, more pollution, more nuclear to heat, and more in perpetuity absolute tranquility.


All future scenarios are often wrong because they are unable to see real progress, even when they are functional, as in www.dlsc.ca because these studies are like the sheep of Panurge to follow the others, the current modes, and to see nothing, how to avoid the precipice in front of the sheep, etc ...

[clasou]

Hello dedeleco,
Good me is english, so i do not know what dlsc.ca understands.
If you could enlighten me in French, a point that I hold dear is for a house let's say 100 m2 the surface that it would take and the temperature reached.

Because the earth is alive, what about these occupants, and likely chain reactions.
a + claude

[Napo dwarf]

if you do not mind

I think everyone is mistaken about the word "negawatt"
it is not a matter of energy consumption but of the goal of non-consumption of fossil and nuclear energy

the new energy production would be of photovoltaic, thermal, methanation and methanation renewable origin.

during the presentation of the senario, I wanted to ask the question precisely on the storage of the energy in the soil but it was not the object of the presentation
on the other hand I am sure that if you discuss with them to present the project they will have an opinion on the development potential

[clasou]

Hello to you,
But that does not mean doing anything with energy.
Do not isolate for example.
a + claude

[dedeleco]

Clasou:

Good me is english, so i do not know what dlsc.ca understands.

did not read the rehearsals on econology yet thorough:
read carefully:
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... mrk29Z.pdf
https://www.econologie.com/forums/chaleur-d- ... 10828.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/stockage-d ... 10173.html

and many others scattered on econology and elsewhere on google interseasonal heating to read with the automatic translations of google or others, often in English, because France stifles this possibility, never considered by the French ecologists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_store
nothing in French !!