After 3 months I finally received a polite response from the Walloon environment minister Paul Magnette to whom I pointed out that his pla solwatt was a shame, that it would have been 1000 times better to allow economically weak households to invest the half or a third of the money to save energy.
Quantified example:
10.000 euros invested in a dilapidated house (change of boiler, new frames, 20 cm of glass wool + aluminum in the attic, thermostat with clock): saving 1000 euros per year on the energy bill
22000 euros invested in PV: savings of 350 euros on the electricity bill + double in green certificates + around 6940 euros in premiums. Find the mistake
finally, I deliver the text in its raw state:
Blow of mouth of an engineer responsible EDF concerning the 20 h on TF1
An illuminated gave us a series of lessons on energy saving.
Taking us for deep mental retardation or precocious senile, he explained to us that by cutting all the night lights of our electrical devices,
we could save 15% of our consumption.
False, we would save 2 to 3%
The same explained to us that by replacing our traditional lamps with energy-saving lamps, we could save 30 to 35% of energy.
False it is 4 to 5% that we can save
It is obvious that if the house is equipped like that of the great-grandfather, that is to say just lamps and no fridge, microwave, washing machine, dishwasher, dryer and so on. , because compared to the consumption of all this equipment that of the lamps is "peanut".
To top it off, a brilliant journalist from TF1 (what an informative channel) took over and made the total savings that could be made according to these enlightened criteria: 15% on the night lights + 35% on the lamps = 50% savings of energy! ...
She did not go so far as to say it, but we who are particularly stupid, Guessed that tomorrow, if we followed these instructions scrupulously, we could shut down half of the power plants! ...
We almost died idiots, but why haven't we been told all this before!
To continue in the deep debility, the TF1 girl's then clarified to us that for the remaining 50%, we could power them with solar panels
that produce 'green' electricity, illustrating his point with a photo of a beautiful house with a small solar panel behind.
There, I almost looked for a weapon, because we had never seen such a level of misinformation, such monumental nonsense.
Indeed, to produce this remaining 50%, if we base ourselves on an average consumption of 6 Kw (a conventional subscription without electric heating), it would be necessary that each house has 140 meters of solar panels for a cost of 89 628 *
Calculate the return on investment.
In the chapter 'it's good for the planet', it should be added that solar panels, we don't know what to do with them when they reach the end of their life,
because they contain lots of silicon and other heavy metals that are very polluting.
Do not think above all that I am against saving energy, I am 100% for, when they are realistic, but please no poisoning of this type in the middle of listening, it borders on indecency or malice.
To continue in the intox, do you know Biville sur mer in Seine-Maritime?
It is a small coastal village near Dieppe, where 6 wind turbines have recently emerged from the ground.
Six latest generation machines which occupy 4 km of our Normandy coast and whose blades peak at 85 m in height.
Each wind turbine has a maximum power of 2 megawatts ... when the wind is blowing hard.
It's not much compared to the 2600 megawatts that come out of the nearby nuclear power plant all the time, but it's always that, especially when it's very cold.
Too bad all the same that this renewable energy is so expensive and uncontrollable (4 times more expensive than that of the atom), but that's okay, EDF has to buy it (and expensive).
But back to our 6 wind turbines; since a few days ago there is only one wind turbine turning, the other 5 would be they deprived of wind?
No, there has been no wind for several days, which is generally the case when it is very cold, or very hot.
It is nature, man does not yet dictate his law to him.
But then, if there is no wind how to explain that one and only one wind turbine turns?
The answer is very simple: We want to be made to believe in renewable energies, so we do not hesitate to cheat to hide the bad side.
Well yes, it would not do well for the inhabitants of the region who have not yet accepted this in their landscape, to see all the wind turbines stopped when it is - 4 degrees
So, quite simply, we run a ... motor (yes it is possible, by giving it current!).
It consumes a little electricity, but it makes you believe that it produces energy.
It's time to stop harping on the weather every night 'it's good for the planet', because there, we know too much or is good and bad, and we will end up thinking that those who giving advice is, in addition to being dishonest or incompetent, the most dangerous.
'Clean' electricity without smoke, without CO2, without atoms, available when we need it, at a price that does not destroy our jobs and our comfort, it does not exist, apart from hydro power plants .
In 20, 30 or 50 can be ....
In my entourage, I do not know anyone who cleans laundry, or who starts his empty dishwasher ...
So it is high time that the media and their servile striped vests that serve us, stop taking us for the dead, with oriented, truncated reports and lessons in good citizenship that do not hold water.
Ah yes, I was going to forget it: I even heard "the innocent Evelyne Délias", tell us, after her weather page, "that we must not put too much heating in the car because it consumes fuel. and "it's not good for the planet".
Evelyne, if you had taken mechanical lessons, you would know that the heating of the car recovers the heat of the water from the engine cooling circuit and this hot water, it is absolutely necessary to cool it by passing it either through the radiator main (the one behind the radiator grille), either in the radiator of the passenger compartment heating, otherwise the engine will die!
If this water is not sufficiently cooled, it is even the fan of the cooling circuit which must take care of it by consuming electricity to turn!
And that ... 'it's not good for the planet' by cons!
We could also mention biofuels, presented as Green fuels while engaging in this path, is an ecological disaster and
human in the short term: smelling the windfall, large agro-food groups, are currently clearing entire forests and replacing crops intended for human consumption with these Plantations intended for the production of 'green' fuel (50% of the production of corn of the USA will have been diverted this year for this production, or famine in Mexico, first buyer of this corn).
Did you suspect this perverse effect of biofuel?
But this is another debate and I have palpitations already just thinking about it ...
Above all, especially, please ... INFORME!
Overall, this text is consistent with what I have said several times about these forums: let's stop worrying about saving the candles: let's start with big budgets!