Photovoltaic and wind turbine association

Peter F · by **Peter F** » 04/05/09, 17:09

In a construction project of a house is it rational to associate the use of photovoltaic solar energy and wind turbine by selling only the surplus of unused electricity how the regulation between the 2 productions is done ?

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 04/05/09, 17:14

Resale sucks ...

Hasardine · by **Hasardine** » 04/05/09, 18:04

I don't agree with you, Christophe, let's not be so categorical.

Resale, why not for a possible surplus, it's a way like any other to fight nuclear power! why not, what sucks is to sell and buy back !!!

but everyone sees as they see fit, I hate waste, so if there are too many, it is better for others to take advantage, right?

elephant · by **elephant** » 04/05/09, 18:05

Since Christophe doesn't: welcome Pierre F.

Christophe, sorry, financially it is often interesting. It's artificial, we all know, but I'll answer the question anyway.

The answer is: we place 2 different inverters (duly approved) and they manage!

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 04/05/09, 18:25

Sorry I was a bit terse and categorical but you know what I think about it.

Buying "sustainable" energies above the market price, do you think this will be "sustainable" for how long?

The only winners are the hardware installers whose Business Plan is entirely based on subsidization. There are more and more ...

It is more communism than capitalism and overcharging is common.

The big losers are all consumers who will never have the money to install this equipment and who pay these subsidies on their bill ... and the planet since the growth of the market is totally linked to political will (and therefore the oil companies behind) ...

Finally yes it is communism: the majority trimes for a minority ... : Mrgreen:

We have a complete subject above: https://www.econologie.com/forums/arnaques-e ... t5520.html

Hasardine · by **Hasardine** » 04/05/09, 18:37

what cynicism! I seem to read my husband!

No, I'm still not as cathégorique, really only resell the superfus seems honorable to me.

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 04/05/09, 18:55

Precisely it is NEVER the superfluous which is sold otherwise the installation would never be profitable ...

In other words: you sell 100% "green" and you continue to buy 100% "nuclear" ... there is generally no "internal" use ... between the 2 there is a "learned" calculation of redemption. ..but you never earn more than 6 to 7% per year ...

In short, this "business" is the complete opposite of my future paddle wheel ... which will hopefully produce the equivalent of: 300W 24/24 that's therefore 7.2 kWh per day or 2600 kWh per year!

This energy is that produce in our latitudes (1000 kWh / m².year of radiation): 2600 / (0.15 * 1000) = 17 m² of solar PV at 15% efficiency! Or an investment of roughly 17 euros (000 € / m²)!

My paddle wheel will cost, with a new alternator, around € 500 ... and I could have done better on the recovery side!

But inevitably, DIY and recovery neither the politicards, neither the financiers nor the banksters like it!! They prefer to sell shit ecologically speaking and PV panels is shit on the economic point (except in a subsidy system that takes from the poor to give to the rich ...) !!

Do you understand my aggravation and cynicism? So now our wheel has to turn too ... : Oops:

What do I mean by that?

That there would be much better to do with the subsidy money than to invest it in solar PV which should be reserved for isolated sites or specific applications. If solar were so "great": where are the EdF plants? It is a waste of money that could be used in research or in the development of other much more energy-efficient solutions. Solar concentration for example or even thermal solar panels, which are much better in terms of saving primary energy ... but whose market is almost as pipoté by the communists (hihihii) as PV ...

Christophe · by **Christophe** » 04/05/09, 19:20

To complete my idea, read this: https://www.econologie.com/comparatif-en ... -3858.html

Take a good look at the "CO2 reduction" and "public aid" columns:

For the lazy, here is the conclusion of this reasoning:

When reading the table, we see that 1 € invested in the insulation of the wall is 6 times more energy efficient than if it is invested in the installation of solar panels thermal or photovoltaic.

However, the insulation of the wall is frankly less attractive from a financial point of view than the acquisition of photovoltaic solar panels when public funding is included.

This contradiction stems from the fact that disproportionate public aid is granted to the least effective measures. It is ironic that the most effective measure is ultimately the least financially attractive.

Now I'm REALLY pissed off : Mrgreen:

elephant · by **elephant** » 04/05/09, 21:01

Christophe! Stop getting angry about all the "business".

Official business = jobs = money that goes into the coffers of the state = money that is used for a lot of things that the capitalists do not want to do

with, of course, all the nuances of use.

day to mark with a white stone

I said good of the state.

So don't throw the baby out with the bathwater : Cry:

Join an algorithmic censorship-free community of enthusiasts, technicians, scientists or engineers. Ads removed after registration.

Photovoltaic and wind turbine association