Is Jean-Marc Jancovici a c ...?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by moinsdewatt » 01/09/19, 11:36

izentrop wrote:

Uranium, like all radioactive material, has an origin prior to the formation of the solar system. It would therefore be a "fossil fuel" which dates back to the big bang : Mrgreen:


Not at all. Uranium or Thorium, or even iron, gold, or copper, were not formed during the big bang.

They were formed during the explosion of stars in super novae.
And actually before the formation of the solar system.
1 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13716
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1525
Contact :

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by izentrop » 01/09/19, 13:43

sen-no-sen wrote:And by what process are the biological elements developed?
I had forgotten the sun ... That said, why do not you communicate clearly? As for Ahmed, we understand better or you want to come. : Wink:
Uranium or Thorium, or even iron, gold or copper, were not formed during the big bang ... They were formed during the explosion of stars in super novae.
But not only
Explosive nucleosynthesis is the creation of new chemical elements by a supernova, a collapsar1 or a fusion of 2 neutron stars during the explosive combustion of oxygen and silicon3. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucl%C3%A ... _explosive
Tour it comes well from the big bang ...
Last edited by izentrop the 01 / 09 / 19, 13: 54, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 16178
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5263

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by Remundo » 01/09/19, 13:46

in fact, the heavy elements require fusions under pressure and temperature conditions absolutely dantesque to form,

even the stars in their normal lives do not succeed. It is at the moment of their death, when they collapse on themselves, that they produce the heavy elements, then for some, explode again and scatter all the residues in the form of a nebula.

If the nebula is dense enough and rich in hydrogen, then a new sun can form, and create a solar system.

From what we observe, heavy elements, forming rocks by accretion, orbit more often at short and medium distance, while lighter gases (helium, nitrogen ...) tend to be very far, so the planets telluric are rather close to the stars compared to gaseous.
0 x
Image
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by moinsdewatt » 01/09/19, 14:29

izentrop wrote:
Tour it comes well from the big bang ...


Ah well in this case my birth to me it also comes from the big bang. : Cheesy:
1 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by sen-no-sen » 01/09/19, 14:53

moinsdewatt wrote:
izentrop wrote:
Tour it comes well from the big bang ...


Ah well in this case my birth to me it also comes from the big bang. : Cheesy:


Yes it's a pretty truism! : Lol:


izentrop wrote:I had forgotten the sun ... That said, why do not you communicate clearly? As for Ahmed, we understand better or you want to come. : Wink:


It seemed obvious to me that fossil fuels were the result of solar activity via photosynthesis.

Simply put, in the Universe we have only two sources of energy: thermonuclear fusion and nuclear fission *, all the rest are epiphenomena.
It remains the tidal energy which is the exploitation of the force of the tides and is thus obtained by slowing down the speed of rotation of the moon around the earth, but still without sun no rotation ...




* I voluntarily put aside "the energy of the quantum vacuum" which is not, with regard to our current knowledge, a thing which one can classify in the category exploitable energy in the measure or the expenditure of necessary energy at its extraction would be at least greater than the quantity of energy obtained.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by nonoLeRobot » 01/09/19, 15:29

Thank you Sicetaitsimple interesting as often. A little long to follow all the same, it repeats a lot.

On his graph ( https://jancovici.com/wp-content/upload ... graph5.jpg ) it is hard to see that oil consumption is ahead of GDP. Correlation is not causality ... you've already discussed it I guess. Not very convincing I find. What do you think ?

Otherwise the debate on the definition of fossil does not seem very important to me. In any case, if we refer to the CNRTL (National Center for Textual and Lexical Resources) he is right: - "Spec. Fossil fuel. Combustible substance resulting from the transformation of organic matter away from air. Peat, lignite, coals, oils and natural gas (...) are fossil fuels (LemaireEnvir. 1975). " ( https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/fossile )

We can find it logical or not, it is a definition, it cannot be false by "definition".
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13716
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1525
Contact :

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by izentrop » 01/09/19, 15:52

moinsdewatt wrote:
izentrop wrote:Tour it comes well from the big bang ...
Ah well in this case my birth to me it also comes from the big bang. : Cheesy:
Yes of course : Mrgreen:
The material ejected by an explosive nucleosynthesis, neutrons and protons forming the new uranium atoms, did not come out of nowhere. By extension, we can go back to the "big bang". :)
This may change the day the theory is refuted : Cheesy:

And the energy which contributes to the extension of the universe and which we call "dark energy", we still do not know where it comes from :)
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by sen-no-sen » 01/09/19, 16:16

nonoLeRobot wrote:
On his graph ( https://jancovici.com/wp-content/upload ... graph5.jpg ) it is hard to see that oil consumption is ahead of GDP. Correlation is not causality ... you've already discussed it I guess. Not very convincing I find. What do you think ?


Not very convincing?
It can be seen that the two curves are almost parallel.
In any case we remain in the banal truths, the capital produced on earth are directly or indirectly related to fossil fuels, and as for nuclear energy and ENR, they could not work without the fossils anyway, so it is perfectly logical that GDP is correlated with oil.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2922
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 397

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by eclectron » 01/09/19, 16:59

izentrop wrote:What is also essential is that nuclear power will be indispensable for the transition. He understood it (3: 00)

If carbon fossils are gently removed, it is very nice, but the current nuclear technology, even hearing the global fleet of power plants, is unable to meet the world's demand for energy for long. From memory, twenty years of fissile material. So it's collapse pretty quickly.
We must not hope to make a wall around France and live well indoors, if the neighbors have no electricity. We must think and act globally, and why not, set an example locally.
The current nuclear power is not generalizable worldwide, or really not long ...

Janco has barely sketched it, we must move to breed that would ensure more than 1000 years of global conso replacing all other forms of energy
We are not ready at all for this techno, there are only a few protos in the world.
If we manage to industrialize the techno in time, then we can play the electric car on a circuit 24 real size! : Lol:
And we will have time to develop the merger.

The other option is decay because saving energy and renewable energy is not going to be enough. Who is ready for the descent?

From my point of view, we have no choice but must move quickly.

Or so https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/1 ... l-grid.pdf
but that would require to agree on the scale of the planet ... : roll:

izentrop wrote:even if he can not help but the little murderous sentences : Mrgreen:

Yes, and he really imitates his caricatures : Lol:
1 x
whatever.
We will try the 3 posts per day max
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9837
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2673

Re: Jean-Marc Jancovici is it a con?




by sicetaitsimple » 01/09/19, 17:38

nonoLeRobot wrote:On his graph ( https://jancovici.com/wp-content/upload ... graph5.jpg ) it is hard to see that oil consumption is ahead of GDP. Correlation is not causality ... you've already discussed it I guess. Not very convincing I find. What do you think ?


Yes, I agree, it does not jump to the eyes ..... Especially since according to legend it is a comparison between global oil consumption (an absolute value) and a GDP per capita capita (a relative value), all on average sliding on 3 years .....

PS for Sen-no-sen: You may not have watched the entire video, but what Jancovici argued on the basis of this slide is that the evolution of oil consumption was a advanced indicator the evolution of GDP.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 291 guests