Innovations to reduce the consumption of fossil fuelsStandard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Innovations, ideas or patent to reduce fossil energy consumption, for example, new wind, new solar panels, geothermal system evolved ...
User avatar
eclectron
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1844
Registration: 21/06/16, 15:22
x 199

Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby eclectron » 28/09/20, 09:44

Note from Rémundo: Subject created on an initial debate between Ahmed and Eclectron from Free energy by Christophe Tetard
Ahmed wrote:Banal cognitive dissonance, since we struggle to represent to ourselves anything other than what exists in the small window of time which is ours and which, however, is only a very temporary phase ... It is all the more significant that we have a tendency to extrapolate a linearity of events which is justified only over short periods.


In social psychology, cognitive dissonance is the internal tension inherent in a person's system of thoughts, beliefs, emotions, and attitudes (cognitions) when several of them contradict each other.

My question remains a contradiction between what and what?


I readily agree that "my" (our) concerns are linked to our current culture, linked to the comfort that carbonaceous fossil fuels have brought us, I readily agree that these are concerns of the "rich".
The tribe in the forest does not have these concerns.
Okay, now if there are solutions to be all "rich", let's say all with a certain level of comfort, why deprive yourself of it ... as long as it does not harm more, or rather less, to the biosphere.

I clearly don't see any dissonance (contradiction). You have to explain yourself there!

The only contradiction I see is that currently we do not have this clean, abundant and as easily usable source of energy as carbonaceous fossil fuels.
I guess your energy verse in whatever form = growth = destruction of the biotope.
We did it, we don't have to continue.
0 x
"the party is over" Yves Cochet

Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9453
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 990

Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Ahmed » 28/09/20, 10:58

I guess your energy verse in whatever form = growth = destruction of the biotope.

The availability of abundant and cheap energies having led to the current situation, posing as a prerequisite a substitute source for the depletion of resources is hardly going in the direction of what you want. The fact that you suppose a reorientation of the objectives towards the human finality does not change much to reality; but let us overlook this: the real question is which level is desirable and which level would be possible? To this simple question it is very difficult to provide an answer; You seem to think that it is the current level, but why not clearly below, or even a little more (because if you wait, you will align yourself with the new deal?). More fundamentally, is "Standard of living" the correct concept?
0 x
"Do not believe above all that I tell you."
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 9436
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 515

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Remundo » 28/09/20, 13:06

to summarize, Electron defends positions of "comfort" which of course require energy, and partially justify its attraction for research in "free energy" which would be a means of releasing predation / degradation on the environment while satisfying human needs.

On the contrary Ahmed castigates modern consumerism (linked to extractivism) and its irrepressible need for energy. He advocates a decrease towards a more sober way of life because for him, free energy would possibly be an extension of predations on the environment (which is defensible because energy is the ability to change the state of environment, and even if the energy is free, the materials that it can bring into play in a consumerist system will not necessarily be).

Between the two, a beginning of debate thus settled to locate the acceptable limit between maintenance of comfort and moderate predation ... with "free energy" which would hover above.

The answer will be fuzzy for sure ... but the concepts are interesting. well worth more than the interminable ones ping pong to the con of the great doctors recently graduated from the Econology-Academie.
2 x
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 54862
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 1644

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Christophe » 28/09/20, 13:30

Ahmed is socially right ... even if, scientifically, electron's opinion is interesting ...

Clarck said that free energy applied on a large scale would dissipate so many joules on Earth that it would induce uncontrollable global warming ... in a few years ...

So the aspect of reducing the pressure on the environment thanks to free energy is not a given ... far from it!
1 x
Ce forum helped you? Help him too so that he can continue helping others - LET'S IMPROVE OUR EXCHANGES ON THE FORUM - Publish an article on Econology and Google News
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 3081
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 170

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby ABC2019 » 28/09/20, 14:39

just a small detail of vocabulary: free energy is perfectly defined in thermodynamics and it is by no means an "infinite" energy. There is free energy in any energy source: it is the amount of energy that can be transformed into work. For mechanical energy like wind power, a priori it is 100%, but for thermal energy, Carnot's efficiency must be taken into account. In short, it is a well-defined concept (in fact it is the free enthalpy which is really relevant, which is the available work "other than that of the pressure forces", therefore with the term p∆V in addition, but it's a detail).

Except that there is a linguistic subtlety which affects the Anglo-Saxons, but not the French, it is that "free energy" very normally translates as "free energy" ... but that in English "free" means also "free", and therefore the Anglo-Saxons hear "free energy" they also hear "free energy", and fantasize thoroughly about it. Which is of course false because free energy is by no means "free".

The ambiguity does not exist in French, but as those who know nothing about physics only translate the Anglo-Saxon sites which delirium on "free energy", they speak of free energy without understanding what that is. means ...
0 x

User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 54862
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 1644

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Christophe » 28/09/20, 14:45

ABC2019 wrote:For mechanical energy like wind power, a priori it is 100%


Uh and what do you do with the Betz limit ??? : Shock: : Shock: : Shock:

The only energy conversion with 100% efficiency is chemistry-heat ... and again, if we are talking about useful energy, it depends on the device : Cheesy:

Otherwise quite agree with the rest ...
1 x
Ce forum helped you? Help him too so that he can continue helping others - LET'S IMPROVE OUR EXCHANGES ON THE FORUM - Publish an article on Econology and Google News
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 9436
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 515

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Remundo » 28/09/20, 14:50

yes of course, here the term "free energy" has nothing to do with the thermodynamic potentials which would require several years of lessons to be well understood.

Note that in French, we speak of "free" energy, a word that I have never appreciated much, it is the energy of Helmholtz F = U - TS
for those who want to rub it a bit: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiel_thermodynamique
but it remains very obscure for the uninitiated.

So in this subject "free energy" designates the movement of thinkers of overunity who hope to extract "freely" an unknown energy from terrestrial experiences.
1 x
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 9436
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 515

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Remundo » 28/09/20, 14:51

Christophe wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:For mechanical energy like wind power, a priori it is 100%


Uh and what do you do with the Betz limit ??? : Shock: : Shock: : Shock:

The only energy conversion with 100% efficiency is chemistry-heat ... and again, if we are talking about useful energy, it depends on the device : Cheesy:

Otherwise quite agree with the rest ...

there is a very stupid one: the electric heater: 100% of electricity-heat conversion

the same when you rub something mechanical-> Heat 100% (eg the brakes of a car, or even its c ...... well I go out : Arrow: :P )
0 x
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 54862
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 1644

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Christophe » 28/09/20, 15:04

Yes but no because we are talking about primary energy ... therefore an electric heater is very far from having 100% efficiency ...

For similar friction: to set in motion it was necessary to spend more primary energy than what we will recover ... (10 to 20% of primary energy on a thermal vehicle passes through the brakes ... and that for emergency braking!)

In addition, the movement-heat conversion is rarely a useful energy (good ok except in rare cases like rubbing the C ... that's useful !!! : Cheesy: : Cheesy: ) ...

There is a name for "lost" energy I don't know how to say anymore ... I think "ultimate energy"? It is far away ...
0 x
Ce forum helped you? Help him too so that he can continue helping others - LET'S IMPROVE OUR EXCHANGES ON THE FORUM - Publish an article on Econology and Google News
Rajqawee
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 354
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Corsica
x 99

Re: Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

Unread Messageby Rajqawee » 28/09/20, 15:17

Oh, so we're gonna talk about philosophy, actually.

My personal opinion is that we need both points of view (we will call it the "necessary comfort" position and the "sobriety" position), because the two are not done at the same time. I'm trying to structure it all.

Indeed, we must define what human needs are in terms of comfort (ie in terms of the ability to transform the environment).

One might be tempted to answer with an absolute position, which is that in fact, human beings need almost nothing. We have already done this, some 45 years ago (and then before), living as hunter-gatherers. It works, and we live. Well. But we weren't very numerous as humans, and besides, we didn't know anything else.
Yes, because we also have the problem of hedonistic adaptation: although this level of comfort seems trivial to us (for example, we press a button and the light is there), it is has not always been there. But suddenly, it appears to us today as a need. A need ... to be happy.
Let's be clear - and that's what I see in people - once you have experienced a level of comfort, naturally enough, going back to "less comfort" is often very badly experienced.

Well, from there to saying that comfort = happiness, there would be only one step. But this is a false trail, and we know it. The most comfortably seated people are not especially happier than the others (again, hedonistic adaptation!), In any case, not for long.
Moreover, many people voluntarily put themselves in situations of total discomfort, for their ... pleasure (sport!). Like what, we can lose comfort and find it interesting. Even joking!

But then it's a little stupid: to lose comfort is to be less happy, but to have it, that would not serve much more. For me, that's ... exactly that! It is symptomatic of an addiction. You can't do without it, even if taking it doesn't really give you pleasure. As a society, we are addicted to comfort (suddenly, to energy). Often also on an individual basis.
However, if you are addicted, suddenly doing without what you are addicted to is a sacred risk. It created extreme tensions. As they say, often it is better to wean yourself off.

So in fact, we need both visions: we both need comfort because we are all dependent on it (and above all, our societies are largely dependent on it). But at the same time we need to limit the use of it, because it becomes harmful. And for that, it would especially take pedagogy to teach people that the race for comfort does not lead to happiness.

This is the path I have been taking for 10 years (many call it minimalism), which I find is logical and consistent with ecology, is to "have so much fun while spending less" (energy. Not money. but often it comes to the same).

Okay, the pavement is fine, but what is the level of comfort that we keep? That is the destination, and no one knows it since it is also changeable! As an individual, I have already "sacrificed" a lot more comfort than I would have probably accepted when I started the path. Because at that time, I started from much further.
Our societies will find it even more difficult to define this “desired” level of comfort, because it will be more complex. One thing is "certain" for me, is that we know for the moment in which direction we must go: less consumption.

And in fact, that's the crucial point, I think: to understand, and to make it understood, that a good part of our comfort is harmful so why not just let go of it? Not only will we be happier, but in addition, we will be less harmful to the environment.


Finally, free or free energy: it will remain energy. It's still the transformation of the environment. It doesn't change, I think, nothing about the above problem.
2 x


Back to "Innovations to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 1 guest