Miscanthus in Alsace, pellets and solar!

[Christophe]

So there, sorry but these are not the same levels of arguments: you were talking about snacking on food and I am talking about the fact of monoculture ... it's not the same thing !!

My remark remains hypothetical precisely and if it is found it poses no problem ...

In addition, miscanthus being a very low demand plant to grow well! So very little fertilizer, pollution and depletion of zero soils ... I bet 99% of intensive agricultural crops (Alsatian corn) are much more harmful to the environment than miscanthus!

As for the last remark I prefer to ignore it because of an engineer I never had that diploma ...

Good, I will have to do this biomass file for you to convince you ... I have the impression ...

[Christine]

So there, sorry but these are not the same levels of arguments

yes, I forgot that your level is higher and mine is lower well let's move on

you were talking about snacking on food and I am talking about the fact of monoculture ... it's not the same thing !!

If because everything comes together. I mentioned food because he is obviously a farmer who makes cereals which he plans to replace with miscanthus.
You were talking about replacing the forests with fields of miscanthus. In either case, these are spaces that are essential to us, in one case to feed us, in the other to preserve the little biodiversity that remains.

I am not saying that there will never be any room for miscanthus which is indeed a very interesting plant from the energetic point of view. But I say that you have to be very careful before embarking on your culture and do anything.

In addition, as you point out yourself, it is a rather invasive foreign plant. I believe that the mistakes of the past can help us: recent example the ladybugs of China which were imported with the very laudable intention of biological control against the aphids and which prove to be harmful for the endemic species and which begin to pose problems of overcrowding etc. I am also thinking of the Japanese knotweed about which you posted on this forum : https://www.econologie.com/forums/plante-a-c ... t3582.html

These are also priorities of life and society: according to you, the energy (and I think especially of travel) is it worth that we destroy everything around us in his name? Can we not think about rationalizing our consumption?

Good, I will have to do this biomass file for you to convince you ... I have the impression ...

Certainly, but the question is: convince us of what? As far as I am concerned, I am totally convinced of the extraordinary energy potentials of miscanthus (to speak of it again) but I am not convinced of the need to make it a miracle plant that could replace our vegetable gardens and our forests.

[jean63]

Christo - Christi ....... it heats this am !!

[Christophe]

Christo - Christi ....... it heats this am !!

You said puffy ... and not only on the forum... pfff the chicks !!

ps: you have a private message!

[Christine]

... pfff the chicks !!

Sure, it's better when they stay in their kitchen and say amen to everything men say. We'll end up complaining, come on.

[jean63]

Christo - Christi ....... it heats this am !!

You said puffy ... and not only on the forum... pfff the chicks !!

ps: you have a private message!

you have an answer to your MP.

[Did67]

Didier you are tough, I think his question is more than legitimate and it is not extremism!

Affirmative. I beg those who may have been shocked to accept my apologies.
I'm talking about the passage on a "teenager" attitude, which "dreams of an ideal". Totally moved. And pan!

On the other hand, the basis of the thought which consists in saying: it is not enough to oppose a criticism, ... I claim it. Nothing is ever perfect. Everyone will be discouraged at this rate, if at each step full of good will from some, we unleash a "massive argument" ... without situating the "large masses" and reproaching that the solution mentioned is not perfect ...

I think, for example, that the gray energy contained in a solar panel or a wind turbine is a false debate, when the alternative is a nuclear power plant ... I say that, but I do not have the figures, I will so maybe take me a blower!

This is not the case if it is bioethanol or diester produced in intensive agriculture (with tractors, plowing, fertilizers and pesticides) in place of crops intended for human consumption.
This becomes again if it is a question of crude rapeseed oil produced without inputs (fats, pesticides) on fallows ...

It just goes to show that since "all oil - all cheap gas" is gone, there are no more simple solutions like "yaka" and "hawk" ...

[Christophe]

I think, for example, that the gray energy contained in a solar panel or a wind turbine is a false debate, when the alternative is a nuclear power plant ... I say that, but I do not have the figures, I will so maybe take me a blower!

It's exactly the same as for organic ... if the overall energy yield <1 over the life of the panel ... what good is it?

Precisely about PV we have a serious doubt since we found a curve that seems too good to be true: https://www.econologie.com/forums/solaire-ph ... t3861.html

It just goes to show that since "all oil - all cheap gas" is gone, there are no more simple solutions like "yaka" and "hawk" ...

Here you agree with the little reflection that I just wrote on the "alternatives" to oil: https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-vehicul ... html#69307

[Did67]

Yes looping but there is worse: they are economically profitable simply because their energy is subsidized ...

Yes. As for wind - you say it.

Two remarks:

1) It is not uncommon for the public authorities to subsidize what is considered positive and new (because very expensive as long as it is not developed in large series - so we subsidize to take off a sector); I am not at all against this principle, on the contrary!

2) As far as I know, it is the client of Edf (or ES in this case) who pays and not the State. And there either, I am not shocked that the customers who use and abuse low-cost electricity [because nuclear] are a little "taxed" to develop less profitable but more sustainable sectors ... It is also in making energy more expensive than the citizen will be encouraged to save. Look at the debate that we have elsewhere on pellet boilers: among those who wonder, it is generally initially only a question of savings, price - and the availability of the resource.

so finally (as for wind) it is indirect nuclear ...

Another "massive argument"! If the panels come from China and the wind turbines from Denmark, they do not "contain" much nuclear. If that's what you meant.

If you mention the fact that the tax that finances the additional cost is based on electricity consumption, 80% of which is nuclear in France, OK. But that does not become nuclear, any more than the retirement of civil servants becomes oil on the grounds that it is paid by the State from the TIPP !!! In Germany, it is the same principle, without their electricity being of nuclear origin. It does not make sense that we go nuclear and that, in addition, we cannot get out of it on the grounds that everything we can do is done with nuclear power. Yes. Let's not stand still by wanting to immediately find an ideal solution !!
[/ Quote]

[Christophe]

Another "massive argument"! If the panels come from China and the wind turbines from Denmark, they do not "contain" much nuclear. If that's what you meant.

No, what I mean is that the subsidies are paid, as you say, by EdF customers who pay for nuclear kWh ...

For example: enercoop who wants to sell green electricity at the real price, cannot seem to offer the supplier tariffs as advantageous as EdF ... is that a shame?

If you mention the fact that the tax that finances the additional cost is based on electricity consumption, 80% of which is nuclear in France, OK. But that does not become nuclear, any more than the retirement of civil servants becomes oil on the grounds that it is paid by the State from the TIPP !!!

I don't quite understand the analogy with retirees ... what do you mean maybe say that old people should be recycled into oil? By liquefying them it should be possible! No con say so ... 2 problems solved at once!

Well without laughing what I want to say is that if there is no more nuclear kWh sold there is no more tax nor therefore, of "profitable" project ... and again for profitability will have to come back, see my nervousness about the SOLWATT plan in Belgium ...

https://www.econologie.com/forums/plan-solwa ... t4729.html

In Germany, it is the same principle, without their electricity being of nuclear origin.

Except that in Germany, the price of kWh is much higher and above all the largely liberalized market ... some consumers can therefore choose (more or less) green electricity contracts ... at "real" prices. .

Let's not stand still by wanting to immediately find an ideal solution !!

This is precisely what I answered in the link I gave you above ( https://www.econologie.com/forums/le-vehicul ... html#69307 ) ... but as much we can make fairly accessible choices regarding heating (wood, pellets ...) as much on electricity it is difficult ... and I'm not talking about vehicles ...