Wind energy in France and Germany: key figures

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 10/09/08, 14:02

My opinion on the question is as follows: HLMs are often better designed than modern constructions made by developers seeking the maximum commercial coefficient: an electrical installation costs about 1/10 of a central heating ... all included! So in the context of a rental property investment, 99% of heating is 100% electric: we bury it is an investment, we seek the best return and it is the tenant who will pay the bills!

Quite simply because the HLM office knows that it is he who will be responsible for managing the heating!

Example: Christine lived in a luxury residence in the Alsatian countryside with electric heating. Ditto when we lived in Guérande in 2003-2004.

These 2 constructions were around ten years old.

See also this (German HLM heated with wood and insulated): https://www.econologie.com/forums/arte-plane ... t4103.html
Last edited by Christophe the 10 / 09 / 08, 14: 26, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 10/09/08, 14:16

C moa wrote:[...] The 300 tons are not only in the base, a large part is in the pillar from where my confusion ...
Ah? Very surprising, I had never heard that ...
In this little film, it doesn't show in any case ...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3f83v ... e_business

And when we see that:
Image
we don't really understand the interest of all these pretty bolts if "...a big part [concrete] is in the pillar ..."

: roll:

C moa wrote:[...]
lumberjack wrote:I even said that it was bio-degradable ...
If it takes 100 years for a dam, why would it not hold 100 years elsewhere, except at sea because there I think it is really aggressive as an environment ... Finally even if the base lasts 50 years it is already not bad.
This is not a figure out of the hat, it is a wind farm which says that the life of a park is 20 to 25 years ...
Yes, for the life of the machines, and perhaps the blades ...
It is also Planet wind which says that the concrete does not hold long because of the efforts of the wind, the sea air and all that (cf. your original message)?

C moa wrote:[...]
Woodcutter wrote:I am not sure that the majority of the wind turbines are located "in the plowed fields" ...
Honestly, I don't know, but here too, it is a wind farm that says so.
Ah? (twice) Where that? A sioupled quote?


C moa wrote:[...] ["Wind power generation does not produce toxic or polluting emissions or waste.". They don't say in the production phase, they say "LA production "which implies construction, maintenance, dementing ....
I'm still in bad faith ??
Yep, production is production, not construction ...
But I already said that anyway, in this little game of amalgamations, the "Pros" were as bad as the "cons" ... :frown:

Then, you do not use the terms on which I do not agree, that is to say "...the builders say there is no impact on the environment... "Now that is transformed into: Wind Planet says that...
A little serious than hell! :x

C moa wrote:[...] In the answers to the misconceptions in the pollution part, they speak of everything except their impact in terms of construction, maintenance and insanity.
Perhaps because precisely these impacts are fairly well known, predictable and that there are solutions to minimize their impact?
But it's true that they don't talk about it in this co-communication, which seems logical in a text intended to give a good image! No ? : Wink: It does not mean that it is never addressed it seems to me ...


C moa wrote:[...] At the end of 25 years it is not only maintenance, certainly the tracks are made and the piers arrived but it will be necessary to completely reconstruct the wind turbine after the previous one was destroyed. This means redoing the impact studies, redoing the soil studies (the wind turbines will have evolved by then) and of course building the new equipment.
Ah? (ter)
The pylon, the blades and the basket I am not sure that it is the most expensive in the cost total park layout ... (if Rulian has the answer?)
For impact and soil studies, I do not see the reason, but hey, you are surely very well informed.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 10/09/08, 14:23

Mécalmévous !!!
Image

I don't think the feet of the wind turbines are made of concrete ... but may have been in the past?

On the other hand: I never understood pkoi on (= Northern Europe) did not make feet in triangles like the electric pylons.

In Spain and California there are many like that: the cost must be much cheaper ... but it's uglier ...
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 10/09/08, 14:30

jonule wrote:[...] otherwise let me tell you that your google link on gouv.fr is worth nothing to me, I told you 1000 times this lobby ment. your PDF dates from 2003. [...]
What is good with Jonon is that he tells such huge stories that it is difficult for him to be a credible interlocutor, after ... : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:

Without messing around, this kind of talk is absolutely ridiculous, don't you realize it?
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 10/09/08, 14:33

jonule wrote:[...] tines you were talking about concrete for your PDF:
The waste generated by the deconstruction of the nine EDF nuclear reactors at shutdown represents significant quantities (600 tonnes of non-nuclear waste, and 000 tonnes of nuclear waste) and are of diverse nature (materials, pipes,
concrete...). This waste is managed in the same way as waste generated by the operation of a power plant: it is sorted, compacted and
packaged before being transported to storage centers adapted to their nature.
[...]
Well, and if we report to MW, how much is it in non-nuclear waste?
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 10/09/08, 14:34

Jonule, he doesn't lie: he tells a lot of bullshit ... But it's often copied / pasted because "green" gurus have stuffed his slack ...
0 x
C moa
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 704
Registration: 08/08/08, 09:49
Location: Algiers
x 9




by C moa » 10/09/08, 14:40

Woodcutter wrote:Then, you do not use the terms on which I do not agree, that is to say "...the builders say there is no impact on the environment... "Now that is transformed into: Wind Planet says that...
A little serious than hell! :x

Well a question, who is behind the wind energy planet "the federation of wind energies" ?? I don't think you are fooled when you read the "Local Wind Energy Promotion Associations".
For impact and soil studies, I do not see the reason, but hey, you are surely very well informed.
In France, all classified and / or monitored installations must carry out construction impact studies and this is normal. When a refinery, a treatment plant, an agricultural installation ... wants to replace an obsolete installation with new equipment (a storage tank for example) even if it is identical to the first, they must redo a complete study and it is again subject to authorization (depending on its category) why would it be otherwise for wind energy ??
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 10/09/08, 14:54

C moa wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:Then, you do not use the terms on which I do not agree, that is to say "...the builders say there is no impact on the environment... "Now that is transformed into: Wind Planet says that...
A little serious than hell! :x

Well a question, who is behind the wind energy planet "the federation of wind energies" ?? I don't think you are fooled when you read the "Local Wind Energy Promotion Associations".
It doesn't answer my question: where did the reference to the manufacturers who would have said something go?


C moa wrote:[
For impact and soil studies, I do not see the reason, but hey, you are surely very well informed.
In France, all classified and / or monitored installations must carry out construction impact studies and this is normal. When a refinery, a treatment plant, an agricultural installation ... wants to replace an obsolete installation with new equipment (a storage tank for example) even if it is identical to the first, they must redo a complete study and it is again subject to authorization (depending on its category) why would it be otherwise for wind energy ??
No.
Wind turbines are not ICPE.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 10/09/08, 14:58

Christophe wrote:Mécalmévous !!!
Image


(bis)
0 x
jonule
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2404
Registration: 15/03/05, 12:11




by jonule » 10/09/08, 15:11

Woodcutter wrote:jonule wrote:
[...] otherwise let me tell you that your google link on gouv.fr is worth nothing to me, I told you 1000 times this lobby ment. your PDF dates from 2003. [...]
What is good with Jonon is that he tells such huge stories that it is difficult for him to be a credible interlocutor, after ... Laughing Laughing Laughing

Without messing around, this kind of talk is absolutely ridiculous, don't you realize it?

what exactly do you think is ridiculous?

I have no confidence in the nuclear lobby and I am not alone, we have our reasons. I don't think I'm hovering, but just being very realistic.

whenever you have to talk about nuclear, Cmoa displays gov; fr links that promote nuclear!
I have other sources of information on the net that just give you access to other information.

I have put all the articles that showed you how the lobby had downgraded the seriousness of the incidents that took place in Tricastin:
https://www.econologie.com/forums/tricastin- ... t5820.html
https://www.econologie.com/forums/tricastin- ... t5718.html

this is just an example.

gouv.fr is ASN, the same people who lied in 1986 and history has just shown us that they have not advanced, ditto on leaks in Belgium etc ...

You just have to see how ASN does its public consultations on waste treatment, and how it happened in 2006 when they changed the law, each time contrary to the opinion of the population! It's a shame.

I refuse to be naive and confident, I do not see what bullshit I tell otherwise I invite you to explain it to me; moreover the only bullshit of naive eco-gurus who stuff my slack it is here that I hear them.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 156 guests