a) I produce my own electricity; there, your shcméa is a way for someone who is still average DIY and sufficiently "young" (I hear myself: there are people who dread changing a light bulb, I am not talking to you about dismantling an electronic device - moving to change a damaged electrical connection! There are also people who are physically impaired ...)
b) I rather return to a scheme "electricity producer / smart grid / contribute to the nuclear phase-out ...; I have the means (why buy a new car at 15 euros?), etc ...
So I would like to install a photovoltaic roof, without feeling able to do it myself ...
We will only advance in the output of the nucleiare if the two "work together".
So a) is not THE solution. It is ONE solution for a certain category of people ...
We must also move on b) !!!
Me, if I found a "reliable" installer for a 3 kWp roof at around 12 to 13 euros incl. Tax connected, it would be sufficiently "profitable" for me to go there (tax credit deducted and guaranteed purchase price at almost 000 cents).
I could clear the funding.
It is the "headache" with companies and the risk that still makes me hesitate. Okay, let's be honest, I have other "jobs" on my mind - a bathroom; my "gardening method" in a deckchair with a glass of beer in my left hand and a good book in my right hand "... [many observations to be made; some pictures !]
I'm not waiting for the progress you mentioned, because obviously, the subsidization will "compensate" (this is the very principle of the current system, with price revision every quarter depending on the cost of the kWh - therefore depending on the cost / performance of spaniels). As in computing, you pex always wait for the next progress! You will never have a computer or a tablet! Or as soon as you buy it, you realize that you have been fooled since there is better cheaper ...
I don't think I'm the only one to experience this problem like that.
But I think you are also right: there are people who "wait" for this progress (as for IT ...).
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6834
- Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
- Location: High Beaujolais.
- x 720
But I think you are also right: there are people who "wait" for this progress (as for IT ...).
If there is indeed one area where we expect meteoric progress, it is in the area of PV.
Many multi-layer PV projects are in development.
The "big leap" will certainly be achieved by solar coatings capturing the sun during the day, IR at night ... we even talk about solar painting, and we can even dream of seeing solar road surfaces, anything is possible!
Yes, the subsidy system distorts everything and drives consumption at the expense of energy efficiency. Still beautiful principles leading to counterproductive effects
Philippe Schutt wrote:people just know how to make profitability estimates.
Let's go back to my figures:
- TTC installation connected 12 euros
- you deduct the tax credit of 11% on an amount capped at 9 euros, therefore 600 euros
- 11 euros remain at your expense
- 3 kwp, in our region, it is an average annual production of 3 kWh, at 000 cent / kwh, let's make it round, that's 29,69 euros per year.
- so over 20 years, that would be 18 euros.
Enough to "reimburse" me for the down payment, replace an inverter, and earn a little something (as much as my booklet A)! If it's European material, there is a "bonus" ...
The "key" is therefore a well-done installation (without a glitch), at the indicated price ...
When the new panels are released, the redemption price will drop proportionately, profitability will be unchanged ...
[I'm talking about the option "resale to EdF"; obviously, in a "full self-consumption" scheme, the increase in performance / lower price will be interesting; and indeed, currently, "profitability" is not there; at the above price, you have to add the batteries for storage ... The cost of revenue per kWh will be closer to 40 or 50 cents - against 13 if you buy from EdF TTC]
Philippe Schutt wrote:Yes, the subsidy system distorts everything and drives consumption at the expense of energy efficiency. Still beautiful principles leading to counterproductive effects
A subsidy almost always has this effect, since if it is necessary to subsidize, it is because it does not work.
Over 25 years there is almost a 100% chance that the government's “small budgetary problems” will lead it to cut heavily in the feed-in tariff, those who have built their business plan on it will have it very deep. It will teach them to want to live off theft.
Investors in photovoltaics therefore complain that the socialist government has changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game. According to data from associations in the sector, of the 50.000 photovoltaic installations found in Spain, 48.000 correspond to individuals or small or medium-sized enterprises, for power less than 100kW. So these are no longer big companies that go bankrupt or have to dismiss staff, but countless families who relied on government promises (and often on the basis of this promise, embarked on financially unsustainable projects) and who find themselves ruined.
http://www.contrepoints.org/2010/10/21/ ... e-espagnol
Philippe Schutt wrote:Or a 12-13 year old payback. There are better and less risky ...
I try to help "do something" so that my ecological footprint is reasonable ...
I already have a CESI, a pellet boiler (condensing), two LPG cars, a garden without fertilizers, without pesticides (almost) and without tillage, I change my household appliances for A ++ or A +++, lighting for LEDs or compact fluorescent lamps, I keep watch ...
I am not looking for "economic profitability": I am trying to reduce my footprint with a given budget. Shade.
Knowing that, what were you thinking? [it's in the first degree! If you have a good idea, I'm ready to think]
To be complete, I am (from the verb follow) the question of electric cars - but that only seems to me to be a solution if we produce our electricity, because the EV at the cost of "more nuclear", no thank you!
The PV therefore seems to me to be a compromise where I do not act completely (I do not have this leisure), while acting in the sense of what I think is essential to maintain a future for our children ...
[I thought for a moment to embark on the construction of another "quasi-passive" house, but my heart attack greatly reduced my capacity for physical work, at height, in heavy weather ... It therefore remained a project ...]
I explained myself elsewhere on the subsidy: yes! Since it is in fact a question of taxing "80% nuclear" electricity. I think we have to get out of cheap electricity to finance savings, make savings measures "profitable" ... So we have to "use" this system, which will bring about the convergence of the selling price of the electricity. electricity with its renewable production ... So I accept this system (as I accept the system of "taxing" everyone to treat those who are sick - this is called social security, and it is the famous "charges" - finally a part - so much decried). I know that we are far from being in agreement on this. It's my choice.
And so I stumble particularly on the question of "the risk of getting caught ..."!
Over 25 years, there is almost a 100% chance that the government's "small budgetary problems" will lead it to cut sharply in the feed-in tariff,
Well, I dismiss as a framework for reflection, the idea of the big crack, everything collapses, nothing exists anymore ... Or the war ...
a) IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT !!!
[It's crazy how difficult this idea is to get accepted!]
b) the subsidized feed-in tariff guarantee is based, financially, on the CSPE
c) paid by everyone, on his electricity bill (look at the lines at the bottom, towards the end)
d) managed by the Caisse de Dépôts et Consignation
e) and donated to EdF (not only for renewable energy at subsidized prices; also for equalization - artificially low tariff in poorly served regions; islands, etc. ... And other uses: subsidy for cogeneration
It is EdF who pays you the subsidized tariff (and therefore recovers after the CDC the additional cost - difference netre its production cost and the guaranteed price which has been granted to you.
The State is therefore the law. But not the implementation! He does not touch anything (well yes, the VAT on the CSPE - rare case of a "tax" which is "taxed" - there is also the TIPP!), Nor don't subsidize anything !
On the other hand, yes, the CSPE risks increasing a certain number of times. This is why the real price of electricity paid by the user can only increase, beyond the cost of production by EdF (or other operators). Who will surely increase! There is therefore uara an increase on an increase! Hence the delusions of those who think that we will stay with our cheap electricity and invest full of naivety in ... PAC (for example).
And normally, except for the big crack that I dismiss as a working hypothesis, the price guaranteed at the time of connection is for 20 years. By the user! It is even revised (upward) because indexed. At work, we charge more than 60 cents per kWh for a 2009 installation (from memory). While today the price for this type of installation is around 17 cents! And everyone pays, via the CSPE ...
On the other hand, I think that the system will be ended in the not-too-distant future, because the total slate to pay is an arithmetical progression. The tariffs revised quarterly downwards in a slippery fashion are already a first step towards more realism!
[however, realize that the gap is shrinking quickly: if we start from an average production cost of around 5 cents per kWh, the subsidy was 55 cents per kWh less than 5 years ago; it is only 12 cents for large installations; the "household" tariff of about 30 cents - of which a subsidy of about 25 - weighs little; because if there is a lot of installation, production is very limited]
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 11 guests