Abuse of companies and direct sellers in solar PV

Forum solar photovoltaic PV and solar electricity generation from direct radiation solar energy.
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




View aerialcastor » 14/11/10, 20:10

http://sauvonsleclimat.org/new/spip/IMG/pdf/plaquette_SLC_final-2.pdf

Page numbered 25 in the doc (page 26 in acrobat)
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.
It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




View aerialcastor » 14/11/10, 20:12

Do not tell me that I relayed information from a "pseudo" environmental pro nuclear association?



In your opinion? : Cheesy: : Cheesy: : Cheesy:
You would have been made that it would not surprise me
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.

It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79616
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11183




View Christophe » 14/11/10, 20:25

Well yes it looks like ...

I got the info by a copied / pasted mailing + link to their site without trying to find out more ... Promised I would do more.

However, there is some truth in their arguments (see the insulation and solar comparison: https://www.econologie.com/comparatif-en ... -3858.html ) but to defend an association that defends electro-nuclear heating ... what the hell!

In any case I will answer the author of this moldy mailing ...

Help me write the answer? (apparently he is a retired engineer ... we will have to play it fine!)

Anyway, congratulations to you for having seen the similarity with ventdecolère which is an association of lobby pro edf (pro nuke?) Composed of retirees from edf or erdf rte in particular ...

ps: I lock or else?
0 x
aerialcastor
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 865
Registration: 10/05/09, 16:39
x 21




View aerialcastor » 14/11/10, 20:32

Still there is truth in their arguments


Always the same technique we give two three easily verifiable truth, to lure the customer then after we assert bullshit on
bullshit.


For the solar / insulation comparison, is the calculation technique more detailed elsewhere than in the link? Because I am skeptical.
0 x
Save a tree, eat a beaver.

It is no use to succeed in life, what it takes is to miss his death.
sspid14
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 141
Registration: 28/12/08, 22:11




View sspid14 » 14/11/10, 20:42

Christophe wrote:Do not tell me that I relayed information from a "pseudo" environmental pro nuclear association?

By reading your post I thought you were making us a joke christophe, even see that you had received a mysterious financial windfall ...

How can you write bullshit like that ... they contradict each other!
- how PV can represent 1% of production and be the cause of 6% increase in the price of electricity, as well as being the problem of pollution peaks.
- how PV can be a source of pollution in China or in Germany, and propose to invest rather in heat pumps or in electric cars (which are neither one nor the other suitable for construction and use)...
- ... and I stopped there so as not to be disparaging ...

It reminds me of the recent ad that went to Belgium recently, for or against nuclear power http://www.nuclearforum.be/fr/
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




View dedeleco » 14/11/10, 20:47

She should be called let's save the climate with nuclear menu.org !!

There is not a gifted hacker to transform names and remove this pure hypocrisy !!

Nothing strictly nothing in the brochure on the storage of summer solar heat for the winter, which works, without CO2, without oil, wood, gas pollution, without nuclear and Chernobyl, without wind turbine noise, which works in perpetuity for an investment amortized in 10 to 20 years !!!!

So once again we are going to miss the right perfectly ecological solution, with our nuclear until the next Chernobyl, inevitable sooner or later !!
This brochure is clear for saving nuclear power:
http://sauvonsleclimat.org/new/spip/IMG ... inal-2.pdf
and hypocritically, for a Chernobyl sooner or later, with a nuclear which cannot be infallible in perpetuity for centuries !!
WHY SHOULD YOU BUILD THE EPR,
AND QUICKLY BUILD IT IN SERIES?
> To prepare for the replacement of the current reactors which will arrive
most likely at end of life before the commissioning of
4th generation reactors; and face an increase
the use of electricity in transport, in particular
for the road (Annex 13) and in the habitat to replace the
oil and gas (Annexes 10 and 11).
> Because before industrially developing reactors
4th generation breeders, you have to accumulate enough
of plutonium to make their hearts. This is how it takes 16 years
of operation of a 2nd and 3rd generation reactor for
make the plutonium needed to make the heart of a
breeder of the same power with 6000 tonnes of molten sodium which catches fire at the slightest gram of water which leaks in the exchangers and blow everything up in a huge Chernobyl which makes evacuate the whole Lyon region in one night and without returning for centuries! !!.

> Because the EPR is a very good project, which benefits from the best
German and French experiments on water reactors
pressurized operated exemplarily since now
more than 30 years in our two countries. It benefits from the progress made
on a considerable achievement in all areas, in particular
safety and security, the entire fuel cycle
including waste, fuel economy and protection
of the environment.
> Because electricity production is, as of now, insufficient
as shown in the Multiannual Programming of
Investissement (PPI) which proposes the construction of 17 GWe
of wind and 6,4 GWe of thermal flame (It would be better
replace these with 4 EPR).
> Last major reason to build the EPR: industry
nuclear industry is one of the world leaders in a sector
now called for a very important development. This position
of France owes a lot to the political courage of the past and to the
scientists and engineers who have forged research tools
and industrial. Today, again, France needs
mobilize all its resources to meet economic challenges
of tomorrow. Nuclear power is one of them, at the forefront. The
political courage will be essential for its future.
CONCLUSION
Getting out of nuclear power, as some people claim, would be, for the
France, a triple environmental, economic and strategic decline.
Faced with the risks of climate change and scarcity of
oil and gas it is urgent to carry out the construction of
the EPR seed in Flamanville and to launch the
construction of 3 to 4 additional EPRs and rush towards Chernobyl for sure sooner or later.
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1

Re: Abuse of companies and direct sellers in solar PV




View bernardd » 14/11/10, 20:58

A beginning of answer:


These companies "forget" to tell their customers that the electricity produced by photovoltaics will represent only a very small part of the needs (photovoltaic electricity produced by the 5,4GWp planned for 2020 at the Grenelle of the environment will only represent barely 1% of needs).


Indeed, France is and will be even more behind European countries, following EDF's orientation towards nuclear power, without democratic debate.

They “forget” to say that this electricity is produced at the least useful periods (summer at noon).


Because the low price marketing policy directs consumption without time constraints to the night.

And because the storage technology means have not been developed as they are in other countries, following the monopolization of research budgets on energy towards nuclear.

They “forget” to say that, when consumption is at its maximum (winter around 20 p.m.), photovoltaics produce nothing and that it is therefore necessary to have in parallel adjustable means of production (gas plants generally) which contribute the greenhouse effect.


Because EDF subsidized electric heating and electric domestic hot water.

The deployment of thermal solar collectors with hot water storage would meet most of the heating needs, the rest being able to be provided by wood or biomass co-generation, with electricity production.

They “forget” to say that the additional cost due to the purchase of photovoltaic and wind power is the main cause of the increase in the cost of kWh, current (more than 6% over one year) and future (2020 objectives of the "Grenelle").


This is false and it has been denounced: it is gas cogeneration which explains most of this additional cost (figures to be found)

They "forget" to say that photovoltaic collectors are not clean energy collectors since their manufacture (in China generally, sometimes in Germany) is generally very polluting.


Yes, since EDF, which had the monopoly on electrical production, did not order from the French industry, which nevertheless had interesting patents. It is now a question of working hard to catch up, in particular for the combined thermal / electric production via concentrated solar and biomass.

They “forget” to say that, contrary to popular belief, photovoltaics create few jobs in France (with the exception of jobs in construction which could be better used in the insulation of buildings, for example) since almost all sensors are imported.


Still the consequence of EDF's industrial choices which have stifled the sector.

They "forget" to say that the cost to the community over 20 years (duration of the EDF commitment) will represent more than 60 billion Euros which would be much more useful for other actions that would really reduce the impact of gases greenhouse effect (insulation of housing, development of heat pumps, development of electric vehicles, etc.). Part of this huge sum should also be used to develop research on the photovoltaic sensors of the future.


If the same amount was invested to buy solar collectors, there would be no problem in the sector.

They “forget” to say that the explosion of this type of intermittent means of production (5,4 GW, as we have seen, or even 17 GW as predicted by the “Charpin report” if nothing is done to cap it ), combined with that of wind power (25 GW in 2020) will contribute to “peaks of production” which will weaken the national electricity network, already facing “peaks of consumption” that are difficult to absorb.


This is false: the existing meteorological and real-time monitoring means make it possible to forecast precise productions, particularly for photovoltaic solar energy.

Local storage also needs to be developed.

An advantage of renewable energies often put forward by their promoters is their relocation. So why not subsidize only the self-consumed electricity produced?


In fact, out of the 32 million dwellings in France, an electrical production of 1 to 3 kW per dwelling is enough to exceed 90GW of overall power and thus be able to shut down all of the French power plants, while reducing losses transport and consumption of the energy sector.

We could therefore arrive at 100% sustainable decentralized production, without foreign imports or the human horrors that arise from oil or uranium exploitation.
0 x
See you soon !
User avatar
nonoLeRobot
Master Kyot'Home
Master Kyot'Home
posts: 790
Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
x 13




View nonoLeRobot » 14/11/10, 21:00

aerialcastor wrote:They are strong:
To save the climate, you need electric heating.
I think this is the first time I hear it, it is very good.


It is clear but that said when we are made to believe (and it is very fashionable) that the electric car, hydrogen or even compressed air will save the climate we are in the same barrel and yet we do little offended ...
0 x
dedeleco
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9211
Registration: 16/01/10, 01:19
x 10




View dedeleco » 14/11/10, 21:19

Heck, we can save the climate with the summer solar heating stored for the winter which works to the point:
http://www.dlsc.ca/borehole
htmhttp: //earthshelters.com/
http://earthshelters.com/
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post165308.html#165308

And it costs infinitely less than an EPR to develop to lower its cost price more for CO2-free heating in perpetuity !!

We are all crazy with our nuclear and our false arguments without real imagination !!!
0 x
bernardd
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2278
Registration: 12/12/09, 10:10
x 1




View bernardd » 14/11/10, 21:27

And simpler, hot water tanks in the house: the losses heat the house.
0 x
See you soon !

Back to "Renewable energy: solar electricity"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 112 guests