Christophe wrote:It must have pleased EDF, RTE and ERDF but apparently not ... because they want to keep the "hold" on their network ... or some obscure excuse ...
Christophe wrote:
It must have appealed to EDF, RTE and ERDF but apparently not ... because they want to keep "control" on their network ... or I do not know what obscure excuse ...
When Voltalis saves energy, EDF must be paid. Why ?
WRITTEN BY: YVES HEUILLARD IN INDUSTRY, UNDERSTAND JULY 23, 2009
There is a scandal: why compensate EDF for the savings made by its customers! What is it about ? Diffuse erasers that install a box in your home to cut off some gourmet electrical appliance during consumption peaks. And EDF demands to be paid for this energy that you do not consume. This crazy story can be explained quite well.
You may have read it in Le Monde, "EDF wants its customers to pay for its energy savings", or in Liberation, "Why compensate EDF?", Or in Actu-environnement "Make energy savings pay , a bonus-malus in reverse ". And of course you are indignant. What is it about ? Diffuse erasers, mainly Voltalis. These companies promise a saving of 5-10% on your bill in exchange for installing a box in your home, to, from time to time, shut down one or two energy-hungry electrical devices. And when you save energy, EDF says, I want to get paid. Have we fallen on our heads? We will surprise you but we show here that EDF is right. And the eraser is also right not to want to pay for energy that it has saved.
Explanations
Suppose you are an EDF customer. You have subscribed to the Voltalis offer. This means that Voltalis can decide to stop a heater at your home. If he does so, it is to render a service to the network operator when the latter is in imbalance (more requests for electricity than offers).
The whole point of "unplugging" a device for a few minutes is that the electricity that EDF would have supplied to you is used precisely to balance the network. It is therefore well charged by EDF. Otherwise the diffuse eraser would be useless: it erases one consumption at home to satisfy another, without forcing to buy electricity outside the borders, to draw on hydraulic reserves, or to charge a thermal power plant. gas. And this for just a few minutes, whenever it's needed. This is the added value of the diffuse eraser and it is great, because it avoids in the least expensive possible way, the generalized failure of the network.
First case : EDF is the source of the network imbalance (due to demand greater than its instantaneous production capacity). In this case everything is fine, the eraser has done a great service to EDF by lowering demand at the right time. Service that the eraser will charge the national operator. Until then everyone agrees. Note also that according to us - but this is not the position of Voltalis (1) - there is no shortfall in EDF, because consumption is simply shifted in time: for example, the heater -electric water cut off 15 minutes, will rise in temperature (a few fractions of a degree) a little later.
Second case : the imbalance comes from another operator (which is more likely given EDF's capacities). The electricity removed from you, an EDF customer, is used to balance the production deficit of an EDF competitor. And EDF says, "wait, I want to get paid". Well Named ; since it injected current into the network for the customers of a competitor.
Limit of our explanation. We could very well have imagined a situation where it is the customers of an alternative operator, Poweo for example, who would be mostly “erased” and where the network imbalance would be caused by overconsumption by EDF customers. In this case, it is Poweo who would ask to be paid. But due to EDF's very dominant position, this will very rarely be the case.
What you need to understand. In all cases, the network is balanced (to within a few%), otherwise it will trip. All the current injected is consumed. The diffuse eraser allows network balance without additional production. The erasure of consumption allows reallocation of the consumption temporarily saved by the consumers of an operator (generally EDF because of its position), at the consumption demand of the customers of another operator, who otherwise would not be able to assure.
So where is the problem ?
Let us stay in the most common case. Voltalis has deleted EDF customers; the "saved" current was used to supply the consumers of another operator. You say to yourself "it's easy, EDF just needs to invoice the third-party operator for the current supplied". Still, you have to count the kWh erased here, and invoice them there. And assuming it is simple, it takes investment and effort. Add to that regulatory, competition, and market transparency issues that we will not go into here.
As a result, without going into details, the CRE (Energy Regulatory Commission) says "no, it must be the diffuse effector that makes producers pay for the balancing service of its demand, and adds the kWh to it. erased ". The latter refuses, we understand, on the pretext that he manufactures energy saving, and that we ask him to bill kWh! Hence a complex debate in which we will not enter, the main thing being to understand that EDF is right to want to be paid for energy savings, made by its customers of course - but we forget to say it - for the benefit of its competitors' customers (in most cases).
The less expensive, the more I waste
Finally, associating the problem of diffuse erasers - which are operators of savings - with the controversy over the price of electricity is a contradiction. The best way to encourage energy saving is to sell it more expensive, at least at its fair price. And precisely, what is the right price for electricity? We will come back to this soon.
(1) Voltalis argues that its measurement statistics show that cutting electrical devices does indeed save 5 to 10%. He also rightly argues that if there is an economy, there is no reason why a shortfall should be paid to energy suppliers.
jlt22 wrote:I think that by consulting the following RTE site,
http://www.rte-france.com/fr/developpem ... -francaise
It is enough to install a programmer to cut the electric heating, fridge, freezer, etc ... during the expected rush hour.
It's always at the same time.
This should replace the voltalis system with less precision,
but would be just as effective.
Obamot wrote:Note after the hour in question, the fridge will row for a while to restore the temperature. So we should qmm calculate the real gain ...
jlt22 wrote:http://www.echo-nature.com/inf/actu.cgi?id=3644
There is an interesting graphic
jlt22 wrote:How do we use electricity (without heating):
Computers, TV ... 2nd source of electricity consumption in France
jlt22 wrote:http://www.rte-france.com/fr/developpement-durable/maitriser-sa-consommation-electrique/consommation-production-et-contenu-co2-de-l-electricite-francaise
It is enough to install a programmer to cut the electric heating, fridge, freezer, etc ... during the expected rush hour.
It's always at the same time.
This should replace the voltalis system with less precision,
but would be just as effective.
Christophe wrote:This "analysis" reminds me of what I read yesterday about an electricity bill:
an average economical household (2.4 people) consumes 2000 kWh per year ... (NON-HEATING, NON-DHW, NON-COOKING)
I don't want to count the heating, but the other 2 are almost untrue ... So to be economical, you must neither wash nor eat ...
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 131 guests
