What PV surface for the world's energy?

[Obamot]

Hello

I think the calculation is wrong, because "full need" represents the consumption of a wealthy minority.

Yes and no.

Yes, because the question raised is as powerful as it is relevant.
No (which is actually more of a "yes-yes" ) because the FULL NEED as understood by the Désertec project, already included priority socio-economic development, disadvantaged areas of exploitation at first (then to extend beyond in the search for a new balance ... But having given primacy to said areas) It was also the strong point they had and why I subscribed to the idea.

But from a simple pragmatic point of view, as it stands, the FULL NEED would be "only" 100 km² (peanut on the scale of the deserts of the planet, so on that side, no problem the margin ... It depends essentially what the human being will do with it ...)

And besides, it is not said that its growth would be exponential, since we are entering the era of energy efficiency. And that we all expect a lot from the development of the technological breakthrough that will change everything: the PV at 40% yield (this would be theoretically possible according to Maloche, who had published a link ...)

But of course that will not resolve the substantive issues. It should not be forgotten either that the lifestyle of the "well-to-do" is not the most enviable / desirable humanly speaking. We cannot therefore wish such a "punishment" on others! Suddenly the "well-off" are no longer those we believe since they change sides and become all those who consume the least! it is a question of paradigm shift! And so the "real haves" already exist, they are very numerous and moreover they ignore each other! (Well, not all far from there, go to the depths of Tibet to meet the monks in the monasteries, they know very well what they are and do not consider themselves to be as well off or superior: moreover to solve "this problem" , they do not have the right to touch money and theoretically live exclusively on alms ...)

So those who live on very little would rather be the ones showing us the way in the right direction. So it is up to us to go in the direction of reducing energy-mining waste at all costs (except at the correct price). Again, if we start from this principle, the FULL NEED would stabilize at an "ideal" level, but would it increase for all that? One thing is certain, it would end up balancing out unless the man leaves everything to the ground (so as far as the wisdom of men allows it! And it is far from certain when we see the disastrous report on the CI∆; and which shows what the armed wing of power can do;)

Then yes dede2002, it's a good reflection (much better than the initial question asked by this thread, which has the merit of existing because it gives it meaning ...), because we obviously have to go towards a "minimalist system" "(failing that it is utopian).

If we take the reasoning to the extreme, For a fair system and as a new theoretical model of decay to work, it would be well to define under what conditions. Like creating some reverse trends and installing them over the long term (there would be a lot of things to do in the transitional period, when we are just trying to timidly exit nuclear ...) but above all it would be essential that the elites give the la.

By way of example, starting from the harshest: that the better-off know how to live in the "renunciation" of all the superfluous and that the others do not dispute their new "social" status for all that, insofar as if they have arrived from it where they are, it is thanks to who they are and depending on why they have become so! This will necessarily involve reviewing the entire social hierarchy, that of memberships and "social merits", and by which we would symbolize the "personal development"in society! One has already tried it, his name was Ghandi.

Once we have conquered our fears, perhaps we will have to go so far as to renounce individual security in favor of collective security! All this requires a great deal of maturity and enormous sacrifices, but it will be the price to pay to stop the destruction of the planet ... Perhaps we can already find this in certain tribal societies (which in addition we destroy suddenly of cannons because it would not fit with our current "theoretical model" ...)? And among them perhaps there is possibly what some call "Dangerous terrorists"!

In fact, we must be against these people since they help America to question itself (since we know that it is one of the engines of all the bastringue), which is actually backing down. 'as much the advent of a society having signed the end of waste! Since Wa $ hingtøπ will prefer to make adaptations rather than a radical change: failing the "great evening"long awaited! (Nah Ahmed, I'm joking, I'm saying this for a joke) [second degree mode: OFF]

If we redo the calculation in relation to the world population, because there is no reason that the south has less than the north (especially if production is "delocalized" to the south), the result will differ significantly ... ?

We will go towards a rebalancing, and it is very shy but it has already started, and it will be very very long, we will certainly not see the end of it during our lifetime.

[dede2002]

...
So those who live on very little would rather be the ones who point the way in the right direction. So it is up to us to go in the direction of decreasing energy and mining waste at all costs (except at the correct price).

Fully agree!

It's easy to say, but seen from the other side we still sparkle the opposite!

It will be necessary to show the example, the words will have no effect ...

It is true that now energy efficiency is better, autonomous installations are developing everywhere in the countryside and even in cities.

The question would be: how many m2 of panels (and solar ovens) per person to cover the needs, and what are these basic needs?

[Ahmed]

Obamot, I only venture in your texts armed with a machete, so all this is dense: many things should be criticized, but you immediately provide a fix!
I admit that this kind of amalgam is a little disturbing or, at least disconcerting!

However, I try a few remarks; you write:

And besides, it is not said that its growth would be exponential, since we are entering the era of energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency is an absolute decoy, already noted in the midst of the IXX s by the English economist WS Jevons: all efforts to optimize consumption lead to a rebound effect by extending the use of the resource.
This obviously applies to "technological breakthroughs which will change everything" and which would render unnecessary the motivation which were at their origin ...
There is, contained in this idea of ​​energetic sobriety, less the will to leave a model that everyone knows condemned, than the desire to overcome a contradiction inside a model to better perpetuate it.

[dirk pitt]

energy efficiency can work but only under the constraint of resource availability.
if the availability of the resource decreases, one is tempted to continue living at constant comfort by using less resource for equal comfort

[Obamot]

Obamot, I only venture in your texts armed with a machete, so all this is dense: many things should be criticized, but you immediately provide a fix!
I admit that this kind of amalgam is a little disturbing or, at least disconcerting!

It's a process that I discover while reading you, it's new for me!

However, I try a few remarks; you write:

And besides, it is not said that its growth would be exponential, since we are entering the era of energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency is an absolute decoy, already noted in the midst of the IXX s by the English economist WS Jevons: all efforts to optimize consumption lead to a rebound effect by extending the use of the resource.
This obviously applies to "technological breakthroughs which will change everything" and which would render unnecessary the motivation which were at their origin ...
There is, contained in this idea of ​​energetic sobriety, less the will to leave a model that everyone knows condemned, than the desire to overcome a contradiction inside a model to better perpetuate it.

Yes, just. What should be done? Wait for the collapse?
We have seen in the past that the total collapse of an economic system has caused a lot of victims elsewhere, is this the price to pay? Or should we still - year after year - make therapeutic relentlessness a paradigm shift tool: should we not advocate median solutions, on the one hand to reduce inequalities and on the other to stimulate the right choices in the direction of an optimal definition of needs and related real demand?

So when I suggest that the growth of energy needs would not be exponential, it does not go without an adaptation of the needs according to those of the growing base VS those of the "self-proclaimed economic elite" stabilizing and gradually regressing in favor of those at the base, because this would also benefit in the long term from the benefits of energy efficiency. This is to create a principle of communicating vase, while in current logic, it is rather the so-called funnel method (everything being intended to end up in only one pocket: that of the "winner" , who is both the loser, but he doesn't know it yet ...)

The question would be: how many m2 of panels (and solar ovens) per person to cover the needs, and what are these basic needs?

Vast question: "...Not expensive enough, son...."

Bein the problem is there, except when it is only a question of paying the OM in the underprivileged countries, any infrastructure is overpriced when it comes to investing in equipment and infrastructure! So they don't, because there is no money! That explains why these countries do not develop or badly ...

China has understood this well (even if not the only one), which invests locally when it trades with a country, (because they have had it all and they therefore know very well the needs, and not only intended for look good, they are numerous and have every interest in satisfying the populations! And this is what they do at home - and as everywhere in the world with some scandals to the key, but harshly repressed - the face of China has drastically changed, the road network has improved incredibly, for example, even if not yet everywhere, some regions are unrecognizable compared to the 70s. “Change” is therefore possible, even in a country that operates according to its own model: a kind of market communism (which by the way has just overtaken America as the world's leading economic power!)

So a change is possible!

So they are not content to buy raw materials at low cost (I am not talking about the muscular methods of looting "à la Wall $ treet" with the "Vulture Funds" denounced by Eva Joly) and which go so far as to murder recalcitrant political leaders) no, China offers infrastructure to the countries with which it trades (dam roads, power lines, etc.) which then allows these countries to develop. Europe had started the same with the Transmediterranean, but curiously was stopped dead by the "Arab Spring", guess by whom?

So yes, it's not much, but for them it's a lot. So no, that does not solve the problem as a whole (it will not happen? I have a doubt ...)

So as a first step, we must not put these countries on a drip with one hand and keep them begging with the other. It will be necessary to manage to pay more for raw materials, because the low cost paid hardly benefits them, because "it is always too expensive" for them and far too cheap for us. One of the first balancing measures I would see would be for the price of raw materials to be weighted by the surplus in foreign trade and GDP country by country. Thus (but here I am in utopia ...) emerging countries (hear those whose heads are kept underwater which makes their feet emerge) would pay for raw materials even less than what they cost today (it has to bring more money to the well-off ... the real, the humble ...) and our (dis) advantaged countries would gradually pay a fairer price. On the one hand, this would force technologically advanced countries to find minimalist and sustainable solutions (only they can afford R&D) and on the other hand, supplier countries would receive a "fair price" for their exports. A form of economic solidarity would then be born. We need to blow up this world of international speculative finance and leave only market arbitrators by forcing the parasites of rating organizations to review their distribution grid (which is currently a predation grid). And above all, we must dismantle all the "too big to fail" starting with the biggest: G + S.

From there there is also the track of lowering energy costs. Excluding the price of solar panels, even from China, are still exorbitantly expensive for the underprivileged countries and the great mass of people around the world. Yet it is they who need it most. We would have to go towards innovative solutions for the production of mass solar panels, as with this method which would allow them to be printed with the offset printing process, which would reduce the price of the panel in AO format to a few euros (you still have to wire, etc ...). But obviously there, that would change the situation ... And of course, the cost of exports should be lower for the disadvantaged countries, which would not go without posing some customs problems! (Since there will always be clever little ones to earn more in rich countries and to source technology via disadvantaged countries, it will be a bit of a snake biting its tail at the start ...)

[Obamot]

Et Ahmed, above I try to reason with a certain pragmatism on things that seem basic and that are not covered as is, and even there for these elementary questions, big difficulties arise even with us!

I would say (without fear of the cutter, go ahead ) that in the current state, the South is in intensive care especially when the North suffers from pneumonia (example: the "Health Care"Obama's repatriation of field hospitals to" save "the" poor "populations of America, deprived the southern states for which they were intended ...), this leads to work on simple emergency measures and targeted, which are not even covered by the most elementary of the actions of International Organizations elsewhere in the world: infant and child mortality, mortality rate, the effect of which is in particular the result of "hunger riots" deaths due to poverty, not to mention the economic crises and wars and the rise in the cost of staple foods, etc., to name a few causes, even in the face of such catastrophic situations, what is the raison d'être of the WTO ... !?!?!?!? Except being an "umbrella or even repressive agent of the system ..."

So we can well wish the "best of all worlds", but in the meantime, in emergency medicine, we sort the injured by severity of trauma, we set priorities, we save lives on site and send the most seriously injured to the hospitals, we treat ailments and we bury the dead, and only after that we try to improve the ordinary! It is then that we eventually think of health insurance, but it is very late ... Even if from my point of view, in the current state, it would be up to the stock market policemen to require market players to pay the premium via a tax on financial transactions ...! While the reverse is true, it is the South that helps the North through the plundering of raw materials and other unpaid resources at the price that the sustainable subsistence of producing countries would require.

But agree with the fact that it is not necessary by hasty measures / decisions, which could jeopardize a change of paradigm: this is the main difficulty of measures which aim to obtain lasting change. However in the state we are not there yet and in my humble opinion.

And in this context, I recognize Dirk Pitt that energy efficiency is only worth the constraints of a threat of supply disruption that they suggest upstream. Except that this is contradicted by the will of the legislator in Germany and Switzerland (in particular) which put itself in a precarious position by deciding a nuclear exit, which contradicts this idea according to which it would be only one worse to go (even if not entirely in risk management and logic: since no immediate drastic measure but spanning several decades ... Luck that is not left to the ore exporting countries ...)

[Grelinette]

I just read the comments diagonally and I said to myself that, finally, considering that human energy needs are very different according to the places of the planet is not necessarily a judicious parameter.

I'm a little ugly, or devil's advocate, if you prefer, but ....

Hello
I think the calculation is wrong, because "full need" represents the consumption of a wealthy minority.
If we redo the calculation in relation to the world population, because there is no reason that the south has less than the north (especially if production is "delocalized" to the south), the result will differ significantly ... ?

Certainly ... there are some who consume too much ... and others really not enough. But the whole makes it possible to have an average which gives an overall volume. The refinement parameters of the question may therefore not be there.

Furthermore, if we reduces the needs of "the wealthy minority", even by many, and increases the needs of the "majority of the very poor", even just a little, how much energy would we need? ....
(Perhaps we are still in a variant of Parretto's Law? ...)

You should almost take the problem from another end with the following parameters:

1) The quantity of energy that the solar rays arriving on Earth offer us is globally Es (for solar energy)

2) Human technologies at the point allowing to capture this energy have a capacity of capture of Ch% (for Human Capacity in%)

3) There are many other parameters objectives: such as the place of collection, the loss of energy during transport, etc, etc, ...

4) ... and there are many other parameters subjective such as the possibility for states and populations to reason and estimate their real needs, etc, etc, ... (here, we approach complex geopolitics)

All of this is purely mathematical and theoretical (therefore far from human nature), but that perhaps allows us to pose an equation with parameters that can serve as leverage to propose several scenarios ...

[Obamot]

Certainly ... there are some who consume far too much ... and others really not enough

Kesako

energy efficiency can work but only under the constraint of resource availability.
if the availability of the resource decreases, one is tempted to continue living at constant comfort by using less resource for equal comfort

_________________



Click my signature

Note again Dirk Pitt, that your little sentence would possibly suggest in second intention, that we could not trust the human race, it's not wrong, sometimes I don't understand it myself. But :


source: eau-evolution.fr

As for the "probity" that we would like to see in the human species:
If we look at politics, we are in the midst of tragicomedy!

[Ahmed]

Yes, Dirk Pitt, the search for efficiency only makes sense if it is not a simple avoidance strategy, but even as it is, the level of comfort considered "normal" is far too high if we place ourselves in a medium-term perspective and there is nothing to indicate a will which takes this reality into account.

Obamot, you have nothing to fear from my cutter! It only helps me to draw paths among the undergrowth!: D
What I find it hard to understand is the mixture of genres that you like: factual reasoning ties in with moral considerations, the least of which can be said is that they are far from effective! You don't get it wrong yourself, however the wording leaves a certain ambiguity ...

You write:

Yes, just. What should be done? Wait for the collapse?
We have seen in the past that the total collapse of an economic system has caused a lot of victims elsewhere, is this the price to pay? Or should we still - year after year - make the relentless therapy a paradigm shift tool ...

I note a contradiction in the text above: relentless therapy is never a tool for change, simply a strategy of resignation, and that is what it is all about.
I grant you that a collapse would be unfortunate, probably much worse than those observed in the past, but pushing it back will only make the outcome more brutal and the denial of reality does not lead to the right decisions.

Grelinette , indeed, it would be wise to take the problem upside down, but not as you suggest, from an accounting point of view: how much can reasonably (?) need each individual, in terms of what it would be possible to have .
No, by proceeding in this way, one would very quickly realize the impossibility of the thing (given that the energy is not expended in the "vacuum", but to transform nature).
The problem, and it is vast, would be the decoupling of energy and material well-being ... Vast program which would require heartbreaking revisions for which our psyches are not at all prepared.
Likewise, from a simple practical point of view, we are so deeply involved in this fatal path, that it may be very late to initiate the saving fork: our level of societal complexity is such, that even supposing a sudden (and very speculative!) lucidity, this could only happen at the cost of great sacrifices (a system would be destroyed before its successor is functional).

[Obamot]

Obamot, you have nothing to fear from my cutter! It only helps me to draw paths among the undergrowth!

Who is it "brush"? Beware of double-edged cutters, we could be injured ...!

What I find it hard to understand is the mixture of genres that you like: factual reasoning ties in with moral considerations, the least of which can be said is that they are far from effective! You don't get it wrong yourself, however the wording leaves a certain ambiguity ...

You write:

Yes, just. What should be done? Wait for the collapse?
We have seen in the past that the total collapse of an economic system has caused a lot of victims elsewhere, is this the price to pay? Or should we still - year after year - make the relentless therapy a paradigm shift tool ...

I note a contradiction in the text above: relentless therapy is never a tool for change, simply a strategy of resignation, and that is what it is all about.
I grant you that a collapse would be unfortunate, probably much worse than those observed in the past, but pushing it back will only make the outcome more brutal and the denial of reality does not lead to the right decisions.

A moral turnaround is expected without any electoral aim, it is a prerequisite. When it comes to an inherently personal matter, privacy is of no concern to anyone, that's where it comes down to liability issues.

In the European landscape, I note that Angela Merkel is acclaimed (initially by her own), yet she has extremely limited room for maneuver. We can say that in the state, Germany which is considered as the "locomotive of Europe" is the extreme limit of the concessions that this people (that a people?) Is ready to make to maintain its level of life! They are hard workers, rather than strikers at heart ... And we can not say that they have no moral sense.

On another page I said that a paradigm shift did not suggest a softer life, but on the contrary more effort and sacrifice.

Whether we like it or not, it is real-politik which seems to impose itself (and will then impose itself on the rest of Europe) and in this game, the most meticulous will always be one step ahead!

However in Europe more in the South, we note that the more we would be revealed the less we would be correct ... So the moral sense that I see is not located here. It is a fluctuating environment which can be of variable geometry depending on the guru

There is another way: the sciences are more and more exact, but their interpretation is too often misleading, of many other times one borders the code: perhaps it would be better to start there with a kind of large international criminal tribunal of impostures who would punish very severely those who loaded the dice knowing very well what they were doing! (In criminal proceedings we call that "the will to harm", this notion should extend in the register of intentionality to other considerations ...). It would suffice to establish a progression in the measures of constraints. For example
- During the first decade, this Tribunal could content itself with making denunciations.
- Then the second decade, to distribute bad points to "rogue states of econology".
- From the third decade we would start to challenge and arrest the authors of the biggest deceptions who would be sentenced with a suspended sentence.
- And finally in the fifth decade, it would be a prison like any court.
- Last but not least, these measures would gradually apply to second knives and to the whole of society!

And there suddenly, on this simple scale of leaders reduced in number in the high spheres of knowledge at the start, we would see a kind of progressive revolution in the change of attitudes and this in different areas of human activity: chemistry, health, economy , statistics, legal, social sciences and obviously a snowball effect on the stock markets, the real price of raw materials, the recalculation of the price of consumer goods relating thereto, an increase in the quality of goods and services: in short, everything that we no longer do by not applying in everyday life what is theoretically taught on the benches of universities and colleges ... The process having been progressive, this would not have resulted no significant negative side effects. On the contrary.

And people would follow suit, as is historically proven.

Although normally there should be no need to appeal to the moral sense, intimate conviction and benevolence towards others should suffice, if indeed we had mostly achieved "lstate of being human"having evacuated their fears!

Who will have the courage to start first?