forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

We will very soon switch to a green electricity contract (finally green at least in part it's better than nothing).

I therefore asked myself the following question which will surely surprise some of them: consuming green electricity means promoting the development of renewable energies, so the more I consume, the more I pay and therefore the more I favor the development of green electricity .

So we come up with a somewhat paradoxical situation: the more energy i use the better it is for the planet

So where do you sign?

I would say even more :

A donkey has two ears
Christophe has two ears
So Christophe is a donkey

Pffff I was serious ... so I do not see the report ... and I remind you that it is YOU who pays the electricity bills ...

there is no electricity that is good for the planet. eventually it is a little less bad.
ah, yes, we should be able to recover that of thunderstorms ... stretch a wire between two raised points. fix by piercing.

Well, I formulated badly and nobody understood my stupid "humor": the more I consume green electricity, the better it is for the development of renewable energies ... so for the planet in the long term ...

Is it better like that or not?

to say of a syllogism that it is valid or conclusive is to affirm that its form is valid. Its material truth, however, does not matter. So the syllogism

All toothed creatures are kleptomaniacs,
Now chickens have teeth,
So chickens are kleptomaniacs

is formally valid. On the other hand, it has no material truth value.

Source: wikipedia


As we do not have the same perception of the world, I wanted to draw your attention to a case where the logic could not be validated (with a little aproximation, I agree):
To consume is to favor the development of renewable energies
Enr are good for the planet
So consuming is good for the planet

I thought that you could have enough distance with your own speeches to end up finding humor there (which would be nice) ... I had forgotten the essential parameter, your personality.

Hard hard ...

do you see why we shouldn't educate women?

The syllogisms, there are much more fun than that! (which also mix with fallacies ...)

Two make me laugh:

All cats are deadly,
Now Socrates is deadly,
So Socrates is a cat.

Eating ham makes you drink,
Or drink quenches,
So eating ham quenches your thirst.

Christophe wrote:We will very soon switch to a green electricity contract (finally green at least in part it's better than nothing).

Beyond your tautology (I believe?) That if it is a joke it is boat and that if it is not a joke I did not understand it! I don't think it changes much. It's marketing.

Today (I speak for France, but your Belgian supplier, it isil), distributed a mix of 80% of electricity of nuclear origin, x% of hydraulics, y% of thermal, epsilon% of wind, and again epsilon% of solar ...

It was called electricity, sold according to your subscription.

Now, some of them sell the "renewable" part under the label "green electricity" (more expensive ???? I don't know, I suppose) and the others will have 100% nuclear power. Theoretically. But since the electrons do not know where they come from, that in the end anyway, they do not even travel, nothing will have changed.

Pessimistic conclusion: overall, energy question: nothing changed at first. I suppose on the other hand that the revenues of EdF increase (if not, I doubt that they are doing their best to make all the hype, the advertising campaigns, etc ...).

Optimistic conclusion: if the demand is strong, and the benefits interesting, EdF will have to find more and more "green energy", therefore invest in renewable energies (I suppose that out of intellectual honesty, they have a certification body verified that 'they don't sell more green energy than they produce or buy). Directly or indirectly, this will promote the development of these energies ...

So yes, why not "invest" by paying for the same more expensive electricity (well, I still don't know! Maybe EdF is altruistic and they really care about the planet).

Did67 wrote:Today (I speak for France, but your Belgian supplier, it isil), distributed a mix of 80% of electricity of nuclear origin, x% of hydraulics, y% of thermal, epsilon% of wind, and again epsilon% of solar ...

No if you choose EnerCoop, the greenest of the alternative suppliers, you do not have a JOULES of nuclear power even if your remark on the electrons is true: it is a compensation mechanism

At Essent (this is probably where we are going to go) it is the one that is best rated by the greenpeace ranking.

But you're right in the sense that the "suppliers" confuse green electricity, therefore of renewable origin and electricity without CO2 ... that saddens me ...

ps: pkoi the receipts would increase? Here it is strictly the same price as you consume green (renewable) or neon green (nuclear) ...