Certainly, but a commitment is a commitment. And the state should not run away ...
You know the expression: "
promises are only binding on those who believe in them! »
Already that giving bonuses to some smells of injustice (because everyone would also like to have their share of the cake) and in addition buying back above the market price, underlined the impossibility of making the system last.
Clearly the first come first served and too bad for the others. It's like the premiums for electric, hybrid or low-emission vehicles (giving rise to inevitable “cheating”) that couldn't last either. It’s self hypocrisy (but in politics it isn’t the case) or more simply playing on a developing market to make people believe that we believe in it or more realistically keeping control of the market and prevent local autonomy independent of the EDF and nuclear lobby.
Because we are in a "market economy" = doubly guilty state! (This is not a personal opinion, it is a statement.)
Not guilty, but responsible (or accomplice) as for contaminated blood!
The purchase of current more expensive than that of the network can be explained in 3 ways:
- the risk which is the responsibility of the investor (eh, if there were "rich" kulaks that would be known ... that's why I took this example).
Some farmers have realized that installing PV or wind power makes their land more profitable and better than cultivating it, even by going into debt (they will probably regret it one day when they will only be paid for with little taps. )
- from an accounting point of view, it is necessary to reckon with the depreciation / renewal of the installation. I am not even sure that the game is worth the candle, because a peasant had to borrow to pay for the installation. Indeed the peasant was made once again with additional debt
It could also be understood as "indirect aid".
Indeed, but to hide a reality that could only manifest itself at one time or another (the municipalities that have done the same will also bite their fingers whatever the inhabitants who will open their wallets once more ! Matter of habit !
Unless they are self-consumed to disengage from the electric lobby! (as for water networks)
- the mutualist motive of wanting to decentralize the production of electricity, to (partially) solve the problem of the "load factor" of the network (which is the bête noire of electricity suppliers) and obviously through this to support renewable energies that it is better anyway to be decentralized for this reason.
This is where the hypocrisy is manifest, the reason invoked resembles that of nuclear power plants for military purposes (the bomb) which served as a pretext to self-justify them by the use of thermal "waste" for peaceful purposes. what is the supply of electricity (without worrying (at the time) about the fate of combustible waste).
This does not call into question all the efforts made for renewable energies, but we are not in the land of bisounours. EDF has a de facto monopoly (by ErDF) and is not about to let go of the piece no matter what the cost it costs. At most, renewable energies will serve (since they are more and more profitable) to reduce, if not mop up, the cost of dismantling end-of-life power plants, but more by paying a high price for the electricity of these renewable energies which, once built, will have to get rid of these kW produced and there at low cost. The fucked you count! Long live the business!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré