On the importance of Air Travel

The great petrol shortage issue.

Here is my stance on what humanity should do to preserve part of its level of world connectivity, speed and convenience of travel and richness of cultural and merchant exchange, for the next decades.
There is currently a fuss over nuclear power, and the need for green energies, and sustainable development.
Of course, most of us simply agrees to the fact that a change is necessary. Oil is running out anyway.
But, I fear we are not taking the measure of the scale of our predicament.

Humanity survival is at stake. Just that. This is because global warming is not a joke, and has already wiped out the insect biomass in this world, thousands of species going extinct, which in turn de-stabilizes the ecosystem and our food chain.
This will affect prices first. Because of more hail, more heavy rains, and more brutal storms, agriculture will suffer heavy crop losses. We could “counter” those losses by paying ultra expensive protective green houses and the likes.
If this is not done, and crops are lost, supply will have to come from another place, which will be in the state of over-demand, and the prices will rise.
This is to put in addition with fishes disappearing because of Oceanic acidity increasing and cause a wide food chain rupture.
In short, the riches will need to pay their food a hundred times more, and they will be able to afford it. And the poor will die.

This is already too late to reverse, unless we actively find cheap solutions to remove the CO2 from the oceans and the air as well to a lesser extent.
In the meantime it would be wise to not worsen the situation by stopping our fuel consumption, now. And also on another front, replant all the forests where applicable.

This needs to take the shape of a massive and immediate transition to hydrogen power, generated thanks to nuclear power.
Allow me to develop. Nuclear power generates local heat, and steam : water vapor. Plus, once a year, a few tons of radioactive material that needs to be immersed into the decay pool. Then some years later vitrified and buried.
People need to understand, this is an extremely little amount, compared to the power produced. And the whole generation cycle is CO2 neutral, it does not impair the atmosphere. Which is the vital part.

Check this out:
http://xkcd.com/1162/

This comic strip should give you a sense of why Uranium is power, and coal is evil.

Goal 2, relates to the problem of diminishing standards. When oil is no more, we will have to give up on many things.
Computers might probably still exist, because the pieces can be transported by boat, there is no urgency. And boats can run on steam, or wind like back in the days, or batteries like submarines, or nuclear power like aircraft carriers.
But we won’t have coconuts no more. Nor bananas for that matter, or strawberries, oranges etc. god knows the size of the list.
Taking the bicycle to work is doable, when it rains it’s going to be “California dreaming”…
Moving all your stuff when a family moves home will require an expensive transport service that will operate with what’s available (horses?).
Constructing a building will cost tremendously more because of the need to convey concrete and heavy steel pillars.

Now if you are convinced, let’s continue to the main thesis, transition to hydrogen. Because liquid hydrogen combustion engines work the same than current oil combustion engines, the industry transition would not be as painful as, say, everybody back to cycling.
Two main transportation modes should transition: ground and sea.
Because boats don’t crash, and cars are small devices (relatively) that stay on the ground, this is the safest place to start.

This in turn, would allow to let the sole industry given the right to use oil to continue to function : Air transport.
Planes cannot function on hydrogen, because it would mean to try to patch tanks so that they never leak. Which at the scale of the machines we are talking about, is very difficult.
It would also augment the weight too much due to necessary re-enforcement.

This is why it is of ultimate importance :
Air travel, is the only thing that allows to go to the other side of the planet, in less than 2 days. It could even be a direct flight between two big destinations. Only a few hours to connect continents !
This is grand, this is actually the grandest thing humanity has ever had.

Louis C K: “people on planes are the worst […] did you soar into the clouds impossibly?  [..] You’re sitting in a chair IN THE SKY. You’re like a Greek myth right now.”

Air travel can get your mail delivered in 48 hours, wherever. This is plain crazy.
It can allow you to travel anywhere in the world in the space of your two weeks vacation a year. This is crazy, and we need to realize it.
It allows people to eat coconuts in Nordic countries.
This is key to worldwide stability and mutual understanding, as little as it is today, of other cultures by people who dare to travel. This is also key to multiple businesses. This fast material world connection is of ultimate importance, and it needs to be saved.
It also is the only way to rescue Alpinists, or connect boats to icy regions like Siberia or Greenland. It is thanks to it that we have google maps. The list goes on !
It can only work in world where petrol exists for it.
When petrol is going to cost a hundred dollars a litre, and this will happen, nobody will ever be able to fly again but a handful of super riches. This is not desirable for the good of humanity.

Therefore we need to spare whatever we can from now on, and dedicate it all to Air transport, and switch everything else to something else, hydrogen for example.

Les subventions au solaire

Comme le résume un certain Gérard B. dans un commentaire sur un article du monde:

On n’expliquera jamais assez le mal fait par la subvention, artifice économique consistant à favoriser indûment un secteur donné en le prélevant sur un autre. Dans le cas du solaire, sont favorisées les personnes aisées, possédant un logement et des capitaux pour une installation, en faisant payer les plus modestes par une majoration du tarif électrique.

Non seulement ça, mais les verts qui voulaient faire du vert avec cette idée ont en fait, fait du marron, car plus de panneaux solaires = plus de pollution.

Pourquoi ? “ah il va nous servir la sauce classique, produire un panneau pollue tout ça tout ça”. Peut être mais le fait est que je n’en sais rien. Ce que je sais, c’est que le solaire est tellement intermittent, et jamais présent au bon moment, qu’il faut développer les centrales au gaz et au charbon pour palier au manque. Le vent et le soleil font défaut l’hiver à 18h, ce sont les moments de pics de consommation les plus intenses. Le deuxième effet pervers, était qu’a cause des subventions, les compagnies d’électricité FERMENT ces centrales justement puisqu’elles sont éteintes trop souvent et donc sont maintenues à perte, ce qui est un surpoids ingérable alors que de l’autre côté il faut payer les producteurs privés 10 fois le prix du marché.

Donc, les professionnels du milieu (Réseau de Transport d’Electricité – RTE) le prévoient, d’ici à 3 ans : on risque un blackout majeur en Europe les jours de grands froid. Réduire la filière nucléaire à 50% ne servira qu’a multiplier les prix, alors que l’UFC estime déjà à 1 300 000 le nombre de foyers en précarité énergétique, augmenter fortement les rejets de CO2 (du fait du remplacement par du gaz/charbon), le risque de blackout, et mettre 150.000 personnes au chômage (source: Eric Besson).

Il y a un rapport, de 85 pages, qui reprend lui même un rapport de 1300 pages commandé par les verts, qui résume les auditions sur les acteurs du milieu suite a une commission parlementaire, mais bourré de désinformations pour passer la pilule de la propagande d’extrème-verte. Lire le contre-rapport est édifiant, puisqu’il n’est pas accessible en ligne, je le loge pour vous sur mon blog, le voici:

Click to access energies-ils-lont-dit-sous-serment-171013.pdf

Juste les 2 premières pages et les 5 dernières suffisent, pour vite tout comprendre. Alors oui, Michel Gay est biaisé, n’est pas très bon usager de la rhétorique, mais 80% de vérité pour démonter le discours original de Majnoni d’Intignano qui m’a l’air ici aussi bête que ses pieds, et manipulatrice qu’une psychopathe avec un trouble de la sociabilité.