Electric toasters, the big comeback!

[yves35]

Good evening,

from an accounting point of view, for moderate consumption, there is nothing stupid about heating with a toaster (or better still with a small heat pump). The gas solution which is favored by RT 2012 when there is a gas network nearby (via the EP / EF coefficient) is equivalent for a heating consumption of the order of 2000 kwh. This is what I consume with my toaster + DHW. More details there (post 159):
https://forums.futura-sciences.com/habi ... que-6.html
If I had a small heat pump the cursor moves to 6000 kWh roughly in the same way as the wind does not produce electricity if we do not put wind turbines in its flow, ditto for photovoltaics

Then nuclear (which, except in France is used to make electricity) is not a fossil fuel like gas, coal, oil. These can be stored but are destroyed when they are used. These are stock energies. While nuclear fuel degrades if it is not used (radioactive decay). And that uranium ore emits radiation whether it is in the ground or conditioned to heat a turbine.

Incidentally, rather makes people work in France, avoids force-feeding tyrants, produces very little CO² compared to the fossil ... is that a detail?
And there is little point in counting the primary Kwh of wind or solar ...
same reasoning for nuclear

yves

[Ahmed]

It is clear that beyond the quibbles used to justify this "adjustment" that energy efficiency has been sacrificed on the altar of CO² and that the comparisons of the real heating costs will be distorted in the context of the DPE influencing the decision of future buyers or renters of housing. Moreover, the veil which is thus worn on the insulation has serious consequences, especially in terms of CO², which this reform claims to improve.
Yves35, when you talk about nuclear power like this: "avoid feeding on tyrants", I think you skip a bit quickly on beautiful democracies, like that of Niger?

[sicetaitsimple]

It is clear that beyond the quibbles used to justify this "adjustment" that energy efficiency has been sacrificed on the altar of CO² and that the comparisons of the real heating costs will be distorted in the context of the DPE influencing the decision of future buyers or renters of housing. Moreover, the veil which is thus worn on the insulation has serious consequences, especially in terms of CO², which this reform claims to improve.

It already seems more understandable than your first post "By a sleight of hand due to intense lobbying, the coefficient taken into account is no longer the primary energy, but the final energy, which changes everything"

[Ahmed]

This is just another way of saying the same thing ... Maybe less journalistic? ... and that does not detract from the lobbying action that was necessary for the establishment of this standard, there should be no illusions, it does not fall from the sky of Ideas ...

[sicetaitsimple]

This is just another way of saying the same thing ...

No, no, let's be serious! You wrote (without writing it) that the coefficient went from 2,58 to 1, while it would go (to my knowledge, the RT2020 is still just a project) from 2,58 to 2,3.

[sicetaitsimple]

It could not be a coefficient of 1 in the RE, since there are still transport losses.

I had noted "to illustrate" ... There are losses of a few% indeed, I do not know if and how they are taken into account in the coefficient.

That said, gas, fuel oil, wood ... do not arrive on foot at home either.

[Ahmed]

You do well to ask for clarification, because in my introduction there were 2 different things (which go in the same direction, where this meeting) overlapped: the new DPE and the future RE2021. In the first case, only the final energy will actually be taken into account, which constitutes a major regression in terms of the transparency of real consumption and therefore of efforts in terms of its control. In the second, the regression is less marked, but hardly in line with the reality on the ground, as the article by Que Choisir:

So that the new dwellings pass in all-electric as of next year, the executive does not stop at nothing. On the one hand, it melts CO2 emissions from electric heating, reducing the 210 g / kWh retained for the E + C label - to only 79 g / kWh, while the consumption peaks it causes each winter impose to use fossil fuels. On the other hand, it lowers the electricity conversion coefficient to 2,3, although its own services evaluate it to 2,74 - therefore up compared to the statutory 2,58. This difference is explained by the decline in thermal power plants in favor of nuclear power, which offers a lower yield: 3 kWh of heat are necessary to produce 1 kWh electric. Regardless, the government assumes to be based on "the average expected over the next 50 years". Unheard of for regulation!

It is clear that the definitions of standards and coefficients are major strategic elements for influencing consumer behavior and modifying it for the benefit of the companies concerned ...

[sicetaitsimple]

Regardless, the government assumes to be based on "the average expected over the next 50 years". Unheard of for regulation!

On the contrary, I think that basing a regulation applicable to new construction from 2021 on the forecast elements which have just been decided under the PPE is at least showing a certain coherence. To choose!

[Ahmed]

... consistency based on a forecast taken from the hat, but more likely from interests well understood!

[sicetaitsimple]

... consistency based on a forecast from the hat

Nothing more to add, it's bistro level .... I had been used to a little more solid arguments from you.