Green electricity and energy savings: paradox?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
andre-34
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 31
Registration: 06/02/07, 11:50

Re: Green electricity and energy savings: paradox?




by andre-34 » 23/01/09, 17:43

Yes? I have a photovoltaic roof !!!
If you want I connect you on it by making you pay the EDF price and by adding its margin, the various taxes etc ...
Must not be far from a euro

At this price would surprise me that you incense green electricity :D


Christophe wrote: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?

: Cheesy:
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2

Re: Green electricity and energy savings: paradox?




by Woodcutter » 14/02/09, 10:11

andre-34 wrote:Yes? I have a photovoltaic roof !!!
If you want I connect you on it by making you pay the EDF price and by adding its margin, the various taxes etc ...
Must not be far from a euro

At this price would surprise me that you incense green electricity :D
The goal of the game is to consume as little as possible ...
The redemption price does not correspond to a production price, since solar PV is a very profitable financial investment.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Corpse Grinder 666
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 148
Registration: 17/11/08, 11:54




by Corpse Grinder 666 » 18/07/09, 05:10

enercoop: sorry but that doesn't mean anything:
"green" energy (we call it what we want) arrives at your place? Prove it ! Enercoop cannot prove it.

who says green says social right? Is there a subscription rate for the poorest? No !
However enercoop is well linked to the French administrative system because although it is the only one to buy wind power it buys a mouthful of bread and resells it much more. On the other hand it buys much more expensive the energy produced by photovoltaics because the law provides for the redemption of this type of energy (since as we know it is the polluters who have the large share of the photovoltaic market and which sits at l 'Assembly ) .

Developed the so-called "renewable energies? Not sure since as I said enercoop is linked to the French administration (moreover only for the bad parts because the said" social has gone by the wayside) therefore when the state will make tax credits or that edf will buy wind energy from individuals: enercoop will follow the same movement.

So it's a beautiful dream that goes up in smoke (without renewal).

It reminds me of biocoop (which has nothing more "coop" besides: although some hold out) which always wants more percentage on the turnover of their signs (on Theix they released their sign because they had fed up) or the NEF which recently wants to be a European ethical bank ... on the other hand when you think about it, an ethical bank that has something to laugh about ... the NEF like that which is linked to the banking system but which only keeps the bad advantages ...

However I am a biocoop client and I am at the nave (maybe more for a long time: my experience, their last report and too many meetings proving to me that this turns to something that stinks).

So anything that is coop with a national intention I am wary of it.

for an energy solution, I see only one valid: production be the same and the surplus offered to the neighbors ... but maybe there is something else ....
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 18/07/09, 14:36

Corpse Grinder 666 wrote:enercoop: sorry but that doesn't mean anything:
"green" energy (we call it what we want) arrives at your place? Prove it ! Enercoop cannot prove it. [...]
: Shock: : Shock: : Shock:

Must evolve a little!

Do you still believe that electrons are "marked" by those who produce them ??? :?:

Electricity is an electron movement in a conductive circuit: there may very well be no NO relationship between the source of production and the place of consumption ...

When you buy "green" electricity, you are not buying electrons, but a movement, which is produced anywhere! We have to get out of this "ownership" scheme ...

For the rest, I don't understand your charge speech against Enercoop? :|

What exactly are you blaming them for?
In the form of the structure, it is a SCIC and not a private company whose purpose is only to make a profit. For me, the social aspect is there, not in pseudo-aid to the "most deprived" ...

In addition, Enercoop campaigns for a reduction in energy consumption and makes low consumption pay less: that is concrete "social"!
Finally, I can not understand the rest of your theory very "muddled" in its construction ... :?
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Corpse Grinder 666
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 148
Registration: 17/11/08, 11:54




by Corpse Grinder 666 » 18/07/09, 15:35

I agree that the electrons are not "marked" and that is what I was saying.
Leave the property. Okay, although there is something to say about this word .... but here it is not a question of ownership but of service.

Now what are we paying for? a service right? or a development of so-called renewable energy?
the 1st: a service: as you say it is better not to look at the property because already it has nothing to do and on the other hand we meet there is no proof of "green" energy arriving at us.

enercoop you say that he militates for a reduction of consumption, what they do, but you used the right word: to militate and for that there is other association and movement which militates for that: then why pay more expensive (even if I know very well that the KW is cheaper than expected;)) is better to give your money to other movements which also militate for that, because it is not those who will go to enercoop who are to convince them are already.

when I speak of social: I simply say thatercoop is linked to the French administrative system and that we do not find the advantages of the latter other aid ... you can consider that it is not social (and actually I could join you), but today and now, for a lot of people and I was part of it, it’s good when you are on the top of the dips at the level of money to be able to get your nose out of the shit (even if you stay in it).

You talk about social to lower the price of those who consume little I would be "for" if we all had the same ability to reduce our consumption, which is not the case. When you are a tenant, you do not choose your energy to heat yourself and even less the quality of your insulation (I would also like to remind you that the mandatory thermal balance did not lower the price of certain accommodation, but increase those who were better), you take what we offer you because your situation means that you cannot claim more ... if you want to decrease and be more autonomous, this forces you to leave the current habitats which means that you cannot will not go through enercoop or even EDF, limit you will have the dogs of the service of the Ministry of the Interior to your ass or those of the municipality.
So this choice is limited to the owner, unless it already exacerbates the current problem of a lot of tenant, who does not heat up and who is in a damp housing and harmful to their lives.
So social can be for the employees of the box then that would be understandable.

so for me enercoop is not a solution because precisely as biocoop and also the nave too linked to the system and for me it is a fundamental problem, and that on an individual point of view the common goods: water, electricity air, there is a limit and that only a whole and deep movement for a change of the system can make things happen.
Because after lowering its electricity and water consumption there are no other solutions: even looking at the self production of electricity or water recovery this at a significant cost for the environment if these acts were to be multiply by the number of inhabitants: only the common can be interesting (of course by reviewing the current statism and the centralization of its common goods).

This is why enercoop is far from being a real solution for me.

For the rest, I notice that Biocoop and the nave have changed a lot, that's why I take tweezers with cooperatives with a national brand, this does not jeopardize cooperation but only, the fact that it is obvious that 'at a time people who get into it become disinterested in the future (either because of other things to manage, or out of habit of current consumption or we go somewhere and then we don't care) who lead who rightly lead ...

I think that cooperation must be in large numbers and small.

Because what will happen is gradually an energy oligarchy as before: http://www.france.attac.org/spip.php?article1839 .
It would be good in my humble opinion to change instead of redoing what has already been done because it is on, as the NEF wants to be soon the European bank of ethics or whatever, tomorrow there will be l '' teaches nuclear, hydroelectric and nuclear, renewable, wind and nuclear with a mixture of made in germany (which is not a concern yet for neighboring towns) or made in Spain.


And to finish I specify that I do not reproach anything in enercoop as such but that it would be good to verify the choice, when in reality I think that these are false choices.

The positive point of Enercoop, the nave and Biocoop is to prove that cooperation, at least at the start, is really interesting.


hoping to have been clearer.
;-)
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 18/07/09, 16:06

Corpse Grinder 666 wrote:[...] the 1st: a service: as you say it is better not to look at the property because already it has nothing to do and on the other hand we meet there is no proof of energy " green "that comes to us.
Again, I think you don't quite understand what electricity is ...
We must get out of this notion of "proof of what is happening to me"!
You pay (to Enercoop or others) the fact of having a "movement of electrons" at home. This movement could very well have been created by anything: who cares! What matters is that you pay yourself so that someone, somewhere, creates this movement that you use with a "green" means (hydro, PV, wind, biomass, etc ...)

Corpse Grinder 666 wrote:[...] enercoop you say that it militates for a reduction of consumption, what they do, but you used the good word: to militate and for that there is other association and movement which militates for that: then why pay more (even if I know very well that the KW is cheaper than expected;)) is better to give your money to other movements which also campaign for this, because it is not those who will go to enercoop who are to be convinced they are already.
Why pay more ? Simple, to get the "real price" of energy!

Corpse Grinder 666 wrote:[...] when I speak of social: I simply say that Enercoop is linked to the French administrative system and that we do not find the advantages of the latter other aid ...
I don't understand what that means ... :?

Corpse Grinder 666 wrote:[...] When you are a tenant you do not choose your energy to heat you and even less the quality of your insulation (I would also like to remember that the compulsory thermal balance, did not bring down the price of some housing, but increase those that were better), you take what you are offered because your situation means that you cannot claim more ... if you want to decrease and be more independent this forces you to leave current habitats which means that you will not go through Enercoop or even EDF, limits you will have the dogs of the service of the Ministry of the Interior on your ass or those of the municipality.
I don't understand anything in the second part of your paragraph ...

I am a tenant, no choice of heating (radiant) and apartment redone but poorly insulated ...
I made the choice to heat less, and to drive out all the useless conso (with a wattmeter). I am at a consumption level in EF well below accepted standards ... (and EDF will reimburse me for pennies!)

Corpse Grinder 666 wrote:[...] therefore for me enercoop is not a solution
And EDF is one?

Corpse Grinder 666 wrote:[...] hoping to have been clearer.
;-)
Sorry, but not really :? (clear or clear?)
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Corpse Grinder 666
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 148
Registration: 17/11/08, 11:54




by Corpse Grinder 666 » 18/07/09, 17:54

I repeat myself hoping that this time you will understand: I have nowhere said that EDF was a solution ... thinking for a long time that it is the drop in consumption which is the greatest solution.

now I take point by point the answers you gave me in order:

Considering that you are paying a service that the movement is created in "GREEN" I could also pay EDF which also produces in wind and hydroelectric power much more than in Co-op (I do not think I am too wrong) ... ie the state and / or AREVA promote uranium, which enercoop does not do.
Yet the latter pays its suppliers (individuals or companies) according to the obligations of French law, which is also why in wind energy enercoop buys at a very low cost the Kw / h wind power to resell it much more (that is, is very business not?) ... yet since you linger in talking to me about said "ethics" I ask you the question of ethics to buy at a low cost the Kw / h wind power and more expensive for PV when the latter is linked to the polluters of the planet? On the other hand, I would like to point out that this low cost at the wind level is done in agreement with the producers (since that's how they are called). If enercopp does it, it is because they are linked to French laws: no (he would buy it maybe more expensive)? If this is the case (and it seems to be) why not benefit those who have little money and who go in a decreasing process by reducing the subscription?

Why pay more? Even if the price is distorted (that's what I said before and I'm not hiding it) by EDF it does not prevent everything from increasing (the price of 1 organic egg on the market, increased by 6 cents in 2 years, that's for example) I don't see the point of paying more for an identical product and an equivalent service. This SERVICE which is to create a vibration of the molecules by "green" energies ---> the wind turbines multiply (with the same excess as at a time for the power stations) and the repurchase of the energy PV by EDF is well installed (despite the first years where EDF benefited greatly).


You seem to be below accepted standards, but it all depends on what we call standards.
You seem to be rented but you quickly realize that you have not made the choice of the insulation of your accommodation (you may have taken the best but depending on your means) and that the heating you do not l didn't choose.
What is happening now and that the associations denounce is that the disadvantaged tenants (financially) limit their consumption of heating to the inevitable consequences for health.

The fact that EDF reimburses you money does not mean anything having already rented € 10 / month to pay to EDF the latter had reimbursed me the 1st year but after that it was almost fair every month.
Still, you are talking to me about money on a consumption: it is better to speak of consumption in Kw / h for compared compared to an average.

For EDF their biggest flaw is not so much uranium, since I would say that it is secondary (although VERY dangerous), but:
whether it be centralized production and decentralized consumption
that the costs are not real
and ESPECIALLY the most important that it is not the people who choose the direction of a real public service .... because it is obvious today that the nuclear would be trapped ....

This is why I think that Enercoop is not a solution since linked to the system of law (for the purchase of energy).
And that after having made its decreasing approach, it is at a national level that the change must be made because changing gear no longer really makes sense ...


PS: thank you for not paying attention to my spelling mistakes which come to interfere in my words ;-)
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 135 guests