Politique & Société

Politique & Société > Réchauffement climatique, CO2 : le futur Eldorado ? > Poster une réponse

Expéditeur :
	[b]Satori[*n]9960 a écrit :[/b] [quote] [b]Arnold De Schwartzenprout a écrit :[/b] Et t'as lu l'étude en question, ou tu te rapportes uniquement à ce que dit Marianne ? Parce que, hein, dans l'intro, elle dit : [quote] The disappearance of energy savings in the longer run could be explained by the energy performance gap, the rebound effect and/or by concurrent residential construction projects and renovations associated with increases in energy consumption[/quote] Mais elle dit aussi : [quote]For example, according to a report from DECC (2012), while UK domestic energy use increased by 22% from 1970 to 2007, if new insulation or more efficient heating technologies had not been installed during that time period, this increase would have been more than double.[/quote] [quote]However, studies estimating the direct rebound effects of the adoption of particular efficiency measures affecting heating are rare and, in most cases, they only use a relatively short-term before and after comparison without a control group and/or without controlling for confounding variables (see Sorrell, 2007 for a review). Gillingham et al. (2016) also point to the fact that there is more evidence on the nature of the rebound effects for gasoline used for transport and for electricity than for natural gas or oil for residential heating purposes.[/quote] [quote]One of the reasons explaining why gas consumption in households is not decreasing in most places is the well-known building energy performance gap (EPG) (see Zou et al., 2018 for a review). While there are two main definitions of the energy performance gap, the one relevant to the analysis presented in this paper is the one that defines the energy performance gap as the difference (or gap) found between the predicted building energy performance in ex-ante evaluations –i.e. the potential simulated energy savings-, and the actual ex-post performance of a building (Zou et al., 2018). [/quote] Par exemple, il y a clairement un contresens entre l'article et l'étude. Dans l'article, il est dit que les gens montent le chauffage quand ils ont "rentabilisé" la rénovation. Ce n'est absolument pas ce que dit l'étude. Ce que dit l'étude : [quote]It is possible that households that made those investments would adapt their energy consumption behaviours during the first few years after the installation to accelerate the amortization period. If this is the case, households that spend more money upfront on the adoption of EE measures may experience smaller rebound effects in their energy consumption—they may be more likely to reduce heating consumption.[/quote] La première chose, l'étude parle d'une possibilité, et non d'un fait :) Ensuite, elle parle du fait que les gens ne montent pas le chauffage une fois que c'est rentabilisé, mais qu'ils réduisent beaucoup pour rentabiliser plus rapidement. Ie : Ils ont un budget chauffage, la mise à jour a un cout, qu'ils se doivent d'amortir rapidement, et que si tu peux te payer d'un coup la rénovation, alors tu es plus enclin à réduire ta consommation puisque tu ne souffriras pas de l'effet rebond "J'ai du me priver de chauffage pendant 3 ans pour rembourser l'emprunt pris pour la réno, maintenant je peux remettre mon chauffage." De même, hein, quand l'article dit texto que "More specifically, the literature indicates that we may expect differences in the energy consumption of households after adopting a particular measure for households with different income levels, mainly due to price sensitivity." ça n'est pas "holala plus de confort" mais "Les pauvres se chauffent parce que maintenant ils peuvent se chauffer en fait." La conclusion de l'article ? Du mépris de classe. Est-ce une surprise de la part de Marianne ? [quote]We found, however, that the introduction of EE technical improvements seems to procure a more stable pattern in gas consumption in the years following implementation. This result in itself[b][red] suggests an important positive outcome derived from energy efficiency[/red][/b] retrofitting as upgrades act as mediating factors for volatility in energy demand. Also, the introduction of EE technical improvements measures makes households on deprived areas more responsive to changes in energy prices. This represents a positive outcome as EE measures may be acting as tools for the flexibility of the energy demand in the residential sector. [red][b]They also reduce inequalities[/b][/red] between groups of consumers allowing households at the bottom of the gas consumption distribution to increase their gas consumption in absolute and relative terms regarding their peers at the top of the distribution. This result implies positive impacts of EE measures in reducing fuel poverty in deprived areas of the UK geography.[/quote] La conclusion de Marianne ? "Connards de pauvres" :))) Bref, l'article pue le mépris de classe, et lire les sources, comme toujours, c'est une chose utile. Ce que, là encore, tu n'as pas fait, et tu as, là encore, laissé le soin aux autres de le faire. [/quote] Avant d'envoyer le message, veuillez recopier le code de sécurité :
Règles du Forum

(*) Si un sujet ne reçoit plus de réponses durant 90 jours, il est effacé sauf s'il s'agit d'un article (auquel cas le premier message est conservé). Vous pouvez créer un maximum de 25 articles (vous pouvez retirer ce statut à un de vos sujets). Les articles sont destinés à être conservés et permettent de présenter le background de votre personnage ou de partager vos passions avec la communauté. Il est possible d'accéder à la liste des articles d'un membre en consultant son profil.