DPE: unbelievable but true!

[dedeleco]

Gas engine to divide the DPE by 2,58 for 73 € !!

who speaks of using it, I put another on the mantelpiece.

[jlt22]

LOGIC 12 said:

Which is largely 3 times higher than the actual conso above 142,85kwh / m2 / an.

The technician was not wrong. This is the figure that should be retained for nuclear power.

The 2,58 figure is a figure that was established a long time ago, when coal-fired plants were the majority.

The performance of a nuclear power station is not a question of opinion!

WRITTEN BY
BENJAMIN ON
Columnist - President of Global Chance

In a point of view published in "Les Echos" 30 March, "Heating: how a small figure squeezes electricity in favor of gas," Rémy Prud'homme, while defending electric heating and nuclear, puts in because of the value of the "small coefficient of 2,58", which officially allows in France to pass from the quantity of electricity available to a user to the amount of energy that it took to produce it, and in fact the weapon of the crime against electric heating.
It is not wrong to question the value of a coefficient several decades old. Calculated at a time when the French electricity generation fleet consisted mainly of coal, oil and hydraulic power plants, the 2,58 coefficient was the quotient of all the so-called "primary" energy quantities that had to be in one year to produce, transport and distribute electricity and that actually distributed to the French that same year. It obviously deserves a revision since the electric generating fleet has evolved a lot since the 1960 years. The same calculation, carried out on the same bases in 2009 leads to a coefficient of 3 instead of 2,58, thus reinforcing the power of the murder weapon!
So no hesitation for our academic emeritus, avoid the unbearable heaviness of physics and decide that the nuclear, the main tool of the French electricity generation park, miraculously escapes the common rule and has a coefficient 1: l nuclear power would be produced without any loss from the uranium mine to the output transformer of the plant.
Let's forget that a nuclear power plant is primarily a thermal plant like the others, whose steam, the one that turns the turbine, instead of being produced in a coal or gas boiler, is produced by the fission of uranium inside the reactor!
Let's forget that we had to import the "fuel", the uranium, forget about the huge plumes of water vapor of our power plants, which show the heat losses of nearly 70% that this nuclear power generation generates and we decide (taking advantage of the qualifier "primary electricity" often used wrongly to designate it) that it escapes the laws of thermodynamics! This is not expensive paid to ensure the future of the manufacturers of convectors and that of Areva, and finally fight effectively against the two current profiteers that points our man: gas and antinuclear.
Defend without laughing such a proposal today is, at the option, obscurantism or manipulation. We have of course the right to love nuclear power and to defend electric heating. We have no right to twist knowingly or simply by inculture the facts to make them more consistent with its objectives. The performance of a plant, even nuclear, is not a question of opinion.

Source:
http://www.lesechos.fr/opinions/points_vue/020453945653-le-rendement-d-une-centrale-nucleaire-n-est-pas-une-question-d-opinion-.htm

[LOGIC12]

hello: there are houses heated entirely with convectors, with all day a VMC which leaves a not insignificant part of the hot air supplied outside. however, the VMC is not useful 24 / 24 hours although some claim it. It is even said that EDF is at the origin of this system that enriches them not badly.

In condominiums, even recent, so in principle well isolated, people complain that as soon as they cut the radiator, it is quickly cold.
They must have a good ECD, and yet ...

On a forum, there was even someone who had bought a Haussmanian appearance, he had restored it = redone painting. Uninsulated walls, ceilings at 3,50 and who wanted to heat it with electric heaters at all costs.
Without even talking about ecology, he does not even realize what it's going to cost him especially with uninsulated walls: a real sacrilege.

As for me, this studio is easily heated with 1000 watts of power in the main room, we stop or reduce well when we leave the day, the conso is very reasonable. And for the bathroom, which is not cold, a quarter of an hour or 20 mn of conso per day, it is more than reasonable.

We must not forget the not very old fashion of the lamps which made 500 watts, some used to heat a little in half season ...

I do not want to cheat by putting a gas stove by pretending to use it.

This DPE as it is done is going to freak everyone, and it is done express so that people run to the new energy merchants etc .... who rub their hands.

And when I see the behavior of EDF employees and even GDF with energy, it is a shame to waste that way on the pretext that we pay almost nothing.

Something I noticed: at the pharmacy where I go sometimes, there is a good heat, and there is no heating strictly speaking ....
I asked the question: well, it is the ceiling lamps which at the same time they illuminate heat very well. There must be at least 2,5 at 3 kw of lighting permanently, and when it is hot, we put ..... the air conditioning ...

A business without lights, it does not exist, even with notions of energy nuccléaires etc. And in the hypers, we could take advantage of the zenith light, a good part of the day, and no, we illuminate.

In short, only the small people are concerned about saving energy.

[Christophe]

The 2,58 figure is a figure that was established a long time ago, when coal-fired plants were the majority.

Yes and especially where the share of hydraulics was higher (because the demand is lower) because 100 / 2.58 = 38.8% average efficiency, it is much too much for a nuclear power plant that is closer to 30% than 40 %! https://www.econologie.com/le-rendement- ... -3228.html

With 88% of the electro-nuclear production at 30% of yield, to reach an average yield of 38%, it is necessary that the remaining 12% is at 100% of yield or constituted at 100% of EnR ... or this n is not the reality!

The higher the share of RE, the closer this coefficient approaches 0.
With 100% EnR, the EP (direct) cost of a KWh is 0. I do not know if the method takes into account the indirect costs (construction, maintenance ...). I guess so ... at least I hope so!

So yes currently the coefficient 2.58 seems to me lessened.

Then you have to read the article (thanks for finding it) and its tone:

The output of a nuclear power station is not a matter of opinion! (...) The same calculation, carried out on the same bases in 2009 leads to a coefficient of 3 instead of 2,58, thus reinforcing the power of the murder weapon!
So no hesitation for our academic emeritus, avoid the unbearable heaviness of physics and decide that the nuclear, the main tool of the French electricity generation park, miraculously escapes the common rule and has a coefficient 1: l nuclear power would be produced without any loss from the uranium mine to the output transformer of the plant.
Let's forget that a nuclear power plant is primarily a thermal plant like the others, whose steam, the one that turns the turbine, instead of being produced in a coal or gas boiler, is produced by the fission of uranium inside the reactor!
Let's forget that we had to import the "fuel", the uranium, forget about the huge plumes of water vapor of our power plants, which show the heat losses of nearly 70% that this nuclear power generation generates and we decide (taking advantage of the qualifier "primary electricity" often used wrongly to designate it) that it escapes the laws of thermodynamics! This is not expensive paid to ensure the future of the manufacturers of convectors and that of Areva, and finally fight effectively against the two current profiteers that points our man: gas and antinuclear.
Defend without laughing such a proposal today is, at the option, obscurantism or manipulation. We have of course the right to love nuclear power and to defend electric heating. We have no right to twist knowingly or simply by inculture the facts to make them more consistent with its objectives. The performance of a plant, even nuclear, is not a question of opinion.

[Did67]

It is true that the DPE is misinterpreted because people actually believe that an "E" housing is equivalent to an "E" electrical appliance.

We have the opposite phenomenon with electrical equipment. today almost all the devices are A, but currently "A" is not great. I don't know where it is, but he was talking about redoing the ladder.

A = E
A + = D etc ...

1) I agree with moby25 or logic12 on this: "ep" is very vague. And incomprehensible to those who do not look at a forum like this one ...

2) That said, the household appliances clearly shows that the effect of the display is not null at all and "directs" the market: once displayed, the manufacturers found themselves "in the obligation" to make progress in terms of consumption (which they did not care about before, as long as no one read the tiny label attached to any device with its serial number ...), simply to sell. Suddenly, everyone finished "A" and the best, to distinguish themselves, invented the A +, then the A ++.

We can imagine that by posting adverse DPE, houses with an E or F will sell or rent less well. And that the builders or owners will have to consider solutions leading to a better ranking. That said, the market is far more viscous than that of home appliances. So maybe it's just a dream.

I am nevertheless thinking of a depreciation of these premises (or conversely, an increase in the price of houses A). I often remind those who build and who "hesitate" when it comes to insulation, who only calculates profitability without considering value. The most common reasoning is: "if I put € 10 in insulation, how long will it take to recover this amount by reducing heating costs". Often it takes a long time to push the insulation a bit. Now, the correct answer is: your house will be worth € 000 more in 20 years when peak oil is behind us, you will earn € 000 in added value AND all the savings on fuel! Random numbers, of course (but the principle, I absolutely do not doubt)

And no offense to I do not remember who above: E or F, it's bad; even if it conforms to the RT 2005 [which was quite simply a "minimum" RT dating from a time when, in France, energy was not a problem since ... nuclear; at the same time, the germans were developing the label "passivhauss" and the sweats "minergie" - but we have Areva and EdF].

[Gaston]

That said, the market is far more viscous than that of home appliances.

Not only is the market more viscous, but in addition to that of home appliances, it is constrained by a limited supply.

I often remind those who build and who "hesitate" when it comes to insulation, who only calculates profitability without considering value. The most common reasoning is: "if I put € 10 in insulation, how long will it take to recover this amount by reducing heating costs". Often it takes a long time to push the insulation a bit. However, the correct answer is: your house will be worth € 000 more in 20 years when peak oil is behind us, you will earn € 000 in added value AND all the savings on fuel! Random numbers, of course (but the principle, I absolutely do not doubt)

But for the next buyer, if the house is worth € 20 more, it is because he hopes to recoup the difference in the fuel savings. Especially since insulation does not have an "infinite" lifespan, and the added value it represents must end up decreasing

[LOGIC12]

hello: If rats or mice do not "eat" the insulation its lifespan is very long.

Often we hear that the glass wool in the walls gets mugged ... Well, my 75 home has 5 cm of LV in the walls.

One day we made a hole in the brick wall and we saw the glass wool impeccable and tense (not packed at all), it looked like it had been laid the day before.

We often see people looking for ruinous miracle heating, that they will never sleep.

What is miraculous is isolation. Even an insulation of the time just after the first oil shock, it makes a big difference compared to an uninsulated housing.

[dedeleco]

5cm LV 1975 in the south of France is exceptional at the time.

This is not a HLM of the time!

Put a single gas heater (2 to 3 Kw with exhaust on the old gas line of the boiler Dumps 2,58's DPE to its original value without cheating, suffocating or expensive maintenance !!
http://www.chauffe-eau.fr/fr/achat/radi ... AU3105.htm
http://www.chauffe-eau.fr/fr/achat/radi ... UMV220.htm

Child I lived with this type of gas heating, with much less security than currently (night light without anything)!
And I survived !!

[Did67]

But for the next buyer, if the house is worth 20 000 € more, it's good because he hopes to recover the difference on fuel savings.

:

Effectively. There, it is the "label" effect which will play.

Well done in relation to discussions of people who mistakenly "think about it". as well).

[moby25]

For the life of the insulation, everything depends on the quality of installation and the quality put in the insulation at the beginning.

I think there are different lifetimes for example between different LDV brands.

As said above, I was also pleasantly surprised by the 7cm of glass wool in the walls of my 1984 home. She was still in very good condition and tense.

Conversely, in my attic which has been refitted in 2000, I have the impression that wool has moved