Fukushima nuclear; sign a green electricity contract!

[chatelot16]

I had the intension to create a subject the top, as much to continue here

a new electrical company sells the same electricity as EDF ... therefore no additional ecological quality

what could make a new electric company, it is a more ecological tariff, favorable to the small production that EDF does not want to buy ... favorable to the variable tariff to incite the consumers to avoid peaks and to adapt to the sources variable energy

we can not put a filter to sort the nuclear electricity and the wind electricity ... but with an automatic fueling of the big consomateur device just when the wind turbine produce the more one decreases the need of nucleaire

accepting ALL the small electricity producers we will show how the small stream make the big rivers

is it possible to create a new electric company?

when an individual has electricity from water mill or wind turbine EDF does not want, or has impossible requirements

my new company would have a type of circuit breaker allowing the purchase and the sale of electricity without problem with the standard meter of erdf which is already able to do it

[Christophe]

a new electrical company sells the same electricity as EDF ... therefore no additional ecological quality

Yes, but there are "green" compensation mechanisms! (in theory because in practice a Belgian consumer association has shown that it was not all rosy cf: https://www.econologie.com/forums/qualite-de ... 10586.html )

This is what made me give up signing "green" with the historical operator (there is nothing else at home) ... while waiting for real green operators to arrive here (Enercoop is on the verge of the Belgium)

[chatelot16]

I was going to forget an important quality of an ecological electric company: constant price of the KWh and very low price of subscribers for the small power: no reason to favor the big consumer!

the big consumer will be rather interested by tariffs variable with the production, to favor the machine with automatic demarage

[Christophe]

I come (finally) to sign at www.energie2030.be (top of the Greenpeace ranking).

In recent weeks, Belgian residents at Electrabel can now terminate at any time with only 1 months notice (before it was on the anniversary date and I forgot all the time ... like everyone else!)

To me the joys of electricity 100% green (and not green fluo!)

I would make a subject with details soon!

ps: besides ... the green is less expensive (it's not a joke)!

[thierryc]

We have to distinguish the different types of electricity suppliers, there are those who have their own means of production and those who can not afford it ...

Enercoop, for example, seeks to produce its own electricity or buy it directly from particular suppliers. Of course, the cooperative does not have state aid, so members must go out of their pocket in relation to the regulated tariff. In fact, renewable energy costs more than nuclear energy so far, so someone has to pay the difference: \, it is the people most committed to the environment who stick to it.

Otherwise there is Planet YES that I saw mentioned below. They do not have the means to produce so they buy EDF electricity. But beware only the original electricity 100% renewable! Because EDF on the whole of its production created 1% of renewable energy via its EDF ENR sector. As a result, Planète OUI's goal is to increase the demand of renewable energy consumers so that EDF is obliged to increase its production.

Then there are the other so-called low-cost suppliers such as Direct Energie, Lampiris, ... They offer partly 100% renewable offers but they do not follow the tariffs regulated by the State, in other words overnight, their tariff can double!

http://www.planete-oui.fr
http://www.enercoop.com

[Did67]

In fact, renewable energy costs more than nuclear energy so far, so someone has to pay the difference: \, it is the people most committed to the environment who stick to it.

It's a little more complicated !!!

EdF has always used "renewable" energy: dams, run-of-river dams, tidal power plants, etc.

In recent years, we have added wind and PV production for which there is a purchase obligation.

All this goes into the "mix", whose "composition" varies depending on the season, the weather, the time ...

Until recently, this was sold under the "normal" price (blue, regulated, special prices) ...

So until then, everyone had "a little" of renewable, a lot of nuclear power, etc ... in what they consumed.

And then "heads of marketing" realized that it was possible to sell "green" electricity at a higher price, on condition of qualifying it as such, to advertise, and to ride the "green" wave. ".

At the level of production, nothing has changed (following this marketing I mean - it changes because companies, netreprises, individuals invest in installations producing "renewable").

Simply, we put an Excel table and we say:

a) at the precise moment, there is such and such a "renewable" power; we can therefore sell this power at a higher price to subscribers ...

b) the others, we assign them all the non-renewable.

At the bottom of Excel, there is always the same mix.

The distribution is all theoretical.

And the overall turnover is, in the last column on the right, higher.


Ex virtule ets encrypted. Today, there is wind and the weather is nice. On the French network we have:

Nuclear 700
200 wind
100 PV

Until the marketing ruse, we sold 1 at the "normal" price. I take 000 cents to keep it simple. So 10.

And then we invent the "green current":

we sell 300 renewable electricity, certified, to "green" customers willing to pay more for their own conscience, at 15 cents. So we collect 4.

the nuclear 700 are sold at normal rates, to others. And so we cash 7 000.

Total product: unchanged!
Total encased: 11 500 instead of 10 000.

Look for the error. [There are not any ; it's called greenwashing; Of course the example is archi-simplified, but it illustrates the fact that an electron has no origin]

Now, in fact, the day when the "green" demand exceeds 300, some producers will be tempted to invest to make this juicy business flourish.

But currently, it still passes, for wind and PV, a subsidized purchase price.

We are, to my knowledge, very far in France (do not forget all our dams: in mountains and over water - Rhine, Rhone, in addition to wind projects, PV related to the obligation to purchase / subsidized price). Knowing that there are some eamines, on the "spot" the electric energy was sold at a negative price !!! There was too much production in Europe: wind, sun, power plants ... The producers paid to get rid of it. Of course, if they can sell it as "green electricity".

[Alain G]

Welcome to Ecology thierryc!

I do not see very well how EDF would make a greater effort towards the ENR by leaving an independent sell in its place!

Many problems concerning Planète Oui on the Oueb:

http://www.ciao.fr/Planete_OUI_Fourniss ... is_1404860

http://forum.lesarnaques.com/travaux-el ... 13898.html

http://forum.lesarnaques.com/travaux-el ... 58708.html

An article on "Green electricity suppliers: watch out for mirages":

http://www.terraeco.net/Fournisseurs-d- ... ,7702.html

Inquiry - Since the opening of energy markets to competition, alternative suppliers have been competing for arguments, particularly ecological ones. To find their way around, the energy ombudsman has launched an online comparator with a great deal of communication. But it takes more than a picture to understand the very particular world of electricity.



That's it, you have subscribed to a "100% green electricity" offer. What a joy to light up with renewable energy! Except that there is a catch: "it is the same electricity which is delivered to all the customers connected to the French electricity network, whatever the supplier and the type of offers", explains the site Energie Infos, put in place at the end of October by the national energy mediator. "If you are under a supposedly renewable energy contract and you plug in your vacuum cleaner at 19 p.m. at peak consumption, you will be supplied by coal-fired power stations", summarizes Nadine Levratto, economist at the University of Paris X.

This precision made, at the other end of the line, is it green? Not necessarily. To understand well, let's trace the path of "green" electricity. Somewhere in Europe, a wind turbine turns and injects electrons on the grid. There, no fuss, they mingle happily with their colleagues from hydro, nuclear or coal. Only the owner of the wind turbine knows how many green electrons he has produced at the source. Imagine that you consume in the year 1 000 kWh (1 MWh) - yes you are very economical. Logically, your supplier must have produced this amount of energy with his own wind turbines or bought it from someone who owns it. What comes out of your outlet is not very clean, but at least you think that on the side of your provider, shopping is the equivalent of 100% renewable.
Virtually green
Failed: your supplier can also purchase a green certificate. Most of the offers are based on this third possibility. The problem is that with this system, carried by the main European electricity companies within RECS [1], "a supplier who buys nuclear electricity on the wholesale market can very well claim his attachment to the values ​​of sustainable development in its commercial prospectuses thanks to the green certificates that it will have acquired from other operators ", explains Nadine Levratto in a research work on the subject.

How is this sleight of hand possible? A green certificate allows a producer, who is not linked specifically to a supplier and sells his electricity on the European wholesale market, to prove that he has indeed injected 1 MWh "green" into the network. This certificate then enters a parallel market and can be sold completely disconnected from the real electricity to which it corresponds.

This is where your supplier comes in: in response to your MWh, it "buys or produces" standard "electricity and resells it to its customers with in addition a green certificate", explains Energies Infos. By destroying the latter, it thus reserves in a way the corresponding MWh of green electricity, which can no longer be claimed by someone else. You "consumed" it, virtually.
A marginal impact
A pirouette that represents an interesting communication weapon for companies, to which the market was first opened. Eco-citizens may be more reserved. Because this transmutation of nuclear power into green does not change the root of the problem: how does your gesture help develop renewable energies? This green electricity "fictitiously attributed to consumers (...) would in any case have been produced and consumed without them", notes economist Nadine Levratto.

Of course, it provides additional income, and therefore an incentive, to producers of such energy. But it is often about owners of dams, "which is a technology largely amortized and among the most profitable", specifies for its part Greenpeace. "With the offers based on green certificates, I only contribute marginally to the additional cost of producing" green "electricity. In fact, the corresponding production facilities also generally benefit from the obligation to purchase mechanism" , confirms Energies Infos.

The real engine is there: to support the development of these sectors, EDF must buy renewable electricity at a very advantageous price. For solar panels, it reaches 600 € / MWh against 45 € / MWh on average for "standard" electricity on the European market. Do not worry about EDF: it is the consumers (of EDF like other suppliers) who finance this difference, via the Contribution to the public service of electricity (CSPE) which appears at the bottom of their bill and is paid to the group. . This does not prevent a producer from selling a green certificate in parallel and therefore from charging the supplier's customers for the "green value" of their electricity a second time.
Real alternative suppliers
Here is the "Chloé Touteperdue" [2] definitely dumped ... What should we do then? To begin with, look at what your supplier is actually buying. But above all, look at the "sides": what are the investments promised in renewables, what is the policy in terms of reducing consumption, or in terms of sustainable development in general?

And if you are not convinced, look for an alternative model. For example, Planète OUI buys certificates but also electricity that goes with Germany, Belgium, Switzerland ... The darling of comparatives, Enercoop, passes exclusively by agreements with French producers. But this has a price, which has pushed Planète OUI to do its green shopping abroad: since producers can sell their current at a high price to EDF, Enercoop must pay them an equivalent price if it wants to convince them . But unlike EDF, the cooperative receives no reimbursement from the State.

She also lodged a complaint in 2006 with the European Commission, denouncing what the CEO of Planète OUI Nicolas Milko calls the "EDF monopoly on the CSPE". The problem could be solved by the NOME law, the examination of which is scheduled for spring 2010. A law which should make it possible to respond to the many criticisms of Brussels on the French electricity market. "To date, the government has not consulted us," regrets Nicolas Milko.

[Did67]

So basically, it's the same opinion!

I doubt that buying green electricity "pushes" to develop this production!

a) As said, production should become the limiting factor - which I do not think!

b) In any case, the selling price is still lower than the subsidized redemption price. So for now, the "economic model" involves subsidizing production via the C¨SPE in effect, CSPE which applies to all consumption.

And I find that good! This amounts to "slipping" everyone's bill a little and not charging the real price - mass price - to pioneer "green" consumers!

These are two models that are juxtaposed.

On the one hand, with the CSPE model, everyone pays for the change to "more renewable energy". As their development progresses, everyone's bill will get higher, encouraging them to save.

On the other hand, with the Enercoop model, which is certainly laudable, consumers of "green" electricity pay for "green" electricity at its market price. If it weren't for the dams already amortized, this price would probably be around 30 to 40 cents ...

The CSPE model supposes to adapt with the existing one: EdF, the Caisse des Dépôts et Consignation (financial arm of the State which manages the CSPE) ... It is therefore "hands in the sludge". Or "counter-revolutionary. But involves everyone."

The Enercoop model is ideologically "purer". But it only involves a few pioneers. Its "weight" in the energy debate is negligible!

We could do a political reading: "social-democratic" model or "militant model" ... !!!

[chatelot16]

the role of enercoop is not only to sell, it is also to buy!

it seems to me that inercoop is the only one who buys the small production!

the CSPE system would be fine except that it only applies to producers big enough to fulfill complicated conditions

buy your electricity at enercoop allows enercoop to buy electricity from those who could not sell it otherwise

of course it would be even better to modify the regulations to benefit all the small production of the CISPE

[Did67]

it seems to me that inercoop is the only one who buys the small production!

For the PV, EdF has the obligation of purchase. Even if they drag their feet ...

For wind, I do not know what the conditions are.

Maybe there is the small hydro sector? microturbine type (old mills), for which there is no regulation.

Enercoop using the network of the historical operator must not however escape the "technical" constraints, kind of decoupling, with specific boxes / specific standards / approved body ???