Regismu wrote:
but it would be necessary to refine ...
the problem is the brutality and especially the retroactivity of the laws that hurt ...
... while some much smaller individuals have left their companies there ...
we must also put the photovoltaics in the right place in the CSPE and publish the figures of those who benefit ...
at the last poll 75% did not want nuclear: mrgreen:
1) Like any jerk, he was in reaction to what preceded. And not an objective synthesis. Otherwise, it would not have been a joke, but a summary at the moment t!
So of course, you have to refine.
2) I agree, this is a last-minute reaction,
with almost "retroactive" texts, which is against the law. Hence the dispute over the moratorium.
We can therefore challenge the legitimacy of the violence of the brake. I did it elsewhere, in its time. In what preceded, it is rather the brake that was questioned.
3) The particliers who have left their skin, must see too.
To my knowledge, they are those who thought they had found the vein not of gold but "of gold balls.
Those who had made even 600 sqm panels still draw the fruits predictable today.
Those who had created companies installing or even manufacturing panels, with annual growth rates of 3 figures (turnover, number of employees) were quite ignorant of some basic rules of the economy.
Sorry. Even if I am for photovoltaics, and they too, we were not for the same reason! [There too, I know a personal case of a company created ex nihilo - from scratch - and who had 2 years later, more than 100 employees; today, it is on the verge of bankruptcy actually; I find it quite normal and ... predictable! Those who like me also work for a salary almost stable, it would have been sacred cons!
3) I know the figures (actlets) of the CSPE, where photovoltaics do not weigh much yet.
Resume what I wrote: if we had continued with the subsidy to 60 ents for individuals / 47 I believe for the inviters, and a growth of installed pharanoinic siurfaces, all this added years after years would soon become unbearable. [I'm not saying it's today.]
In addition, the other uses of the CSPE, again related to the public electricity service (equalization, cogeneration, rural electrification ... etc) will not disarray. So the exponential growth of the solar would be added!
And there too, it would have taken a day:
- be retroactively less generous, which in law is impossible
- either charge subscribers, with an explosive growth CSPE, becoming the main part of the bill! It would have been a very very bad promotion of solar!
Let's be clear, this would have been a disguised subsidy to EdF's subsidiaries [which were a little slow to react, but which would come in force with projects in terms of tens and hundreds of ha; a hunt for unprofitable farms was open for that!]. What would we have written here against that !!!
4) 75% against the nucleiare but 90% to berate against any change in the CSPE or the price of energy and ... 1 on 10 000 of those who put 15 000 euros in a new car to put 13 000 euros in a photovoltaic roof ???? [these last figures are invented]
I spend my time "preaching" the go ahead (with the contradiction mentioned above); "you won't lose money" (you won't make a fortune either!). In the private sector, apart from "professional" projects, I know only one person who has done it.
No no, much too simple, your 75%. It all depends on the question. "Are you against nuclear power?" perhaps ?
It's like "Are you against cancer?" 97% of yes. But who eats well? How many smokers stop smoking? Etc .. [it's made up]
I am not cruel or mysogine. Just a little "old" ... a little "con" therefore a little "old con".
there are still some companies with pelin order books that have remained on the floor .. more than 15000 employees who are unemployed .. without anyone speaking or polemic the top ...