Solar or insulation? ecological and economical comparison

Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ... short thermal comfort. Insulation, wood energy, heat pumps but also electricity, gas or oil, VMC ... Help in choosing and implementation, problem solving, optimization, tips and tricks ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79304
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11037

Solar or insulation? ecological and economical comparison




by Christophe » 03/07/08, 13:48

Some time ago I had received an excellent reasoning on public subsidies. I have finally made an article to discover here:

https://www.econologie.com/comparatif-en ... -3858.html

Some passages for those who do not want to read the full article:

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 state aid is granted to the least effective measures. It is ironic that the most effective measure is ultimately the least financially attractive.



For those who wish to go further, the author of the reasoning (an employee of the Belgian energy administration !!) also sent me his chart excel calculating Comparative profitability of PV that you can adapt to your case which here is an appercu to show the rigor:

Image
Image
Last edited by Christophe the 16 / 05 / 11, 15: 45, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6

Re: Solar or insulation? Ecological and economic comparison




by bham » 03/07/08, 14:42

Christophe wrote:
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 state aid is granted to the least effective measures. It is ironic that the most effective measure is ultimately the least financially attractive.


Well shit! I must say that it pays less p'têt companies too.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79304
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11037




by Christophe » 03/07/08, 15:01

Above all, it means that those who make the subsidies have only little intention to solve energy and climate problems.

If I were paranoid I would say that it is the tankers who pull the strings. But I'm not paranoid, huh, I'm not? : Mrgreen:

The height is that it is an energy employee of the Walloon Region who made his calculations.

New correspondent: https://www.econologie.com/salon-2008-de ... -3860.html
0 x
djo59
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 36
Registration: 08/09/11, 01:03
x 5




by djo59 » 01/07/13, 11:43

If I were paranoid I would say that it is the tankers who pull the strings. But I'm not paranoid, huh, I'm not? Mr. Green


Me neither me either : roll: !
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79304
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11037




by Christophe » 01/07/13, 12:29

Beautiful digging of almost 5 years to the day !!

Waaaw !! JoeXumX hat! 8)
0 x
djo59
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 36
Registration: 08/09/11, 01:03
x 5




by djo59 » 01/07/13, 12:58

: Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 01/07/13, 14:44

this kind of digging is not useless!

but there is a problem: we can not say that an expense in isolation is always better than a solar collector expense: everything depends on the level of insulation already existing

in a greeting strainer the first expense to embellish is necessarily more profitable than any solar collector

then when we already have good insulation, spending to do more becomes less profitable, and it's time to think about solar

if all the prices were simple the customer would naturally choose the best solution

alas the insulation work is handicapped by the price of labor, and the installation of solar collector was heavily subsidized

even more unfair, the subsidies that help the sun can only be used by those who have good financial means ... while it is the poorest who suffer poorly insulated housing who need help!
0 x
djo59
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 36
Registration: 08/09/11, 01:03
x 5




by djo59 » 01/07/13, 15:18

How not to read the dates can sometimes be useful : Mrgreen:

Regarding your reasoning I absolutely agree. There in the example he left a house without insulation.

Then concerning the subsidies of the PV there is in my opinion another debate. Decrease our consos or the always more.

With the insulation we lower our consos (we reduce our imports), we create local employment and consume materials with large majorities French or European. Not to mention the lifetime that if properly done is that of the frame.

With the PV, we mainly import panels so employment for these is created elsewhere (and we increase our trade deficit), qd to the local workforce for installation it is much less than for insulation. As for the lifespan is about thirty years max. In addition as it lives that with a grant, it is we who pay a part for the wealthiest who can afford it and we pay for created employment abroad.

I am not against the PV but who say disproportionate investment subsidies, so I would prefer that subsidies go towards insulation creating jobs at home and running our factories, rather than spending our public money to finance our imports.
0 x
MB
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 16
Registration: 27/06/13, 10:14




by MB » 01/07/13, 19:25

If the government subsidized insulation and not solar panels, ten years from now people would be asking, "What has the government done over the past ten years to promote the production of renewable energy?"
0 x
C moa
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 704
Registration: 08/08/08, 09:49
Location: Algiers
x 9

It's too easy to make complicated




by C moa » 01/07/13, 19:32

Hi everybody,
it's been a while that I have not posted and I feel that I will not make me friends but it's not graaaave.

For me PV has never been a green investment but simply a financial investment (provided as demonstrated on other posts that the editing is done win-win and not by crooks).
The proof is, in some countries, which have developed the PV (and the wind turbines by the way), there has never been so much consumption of coal and gas (no I have not talked about the Germany, they are all ecologists there : Cheesy: )

On the other hand, a point that seems to me to be at the center of the way of thinking of our technocrats (and of certain entrepreneurs, let's be honest) is: "why make it simple when you can make it complicated?"

To isolate (or regulate it works too) properly a house, certainly it takes skilled labor and good materials but we know all we need to do since the loss ratios in a home are well known to all and easily accessible.
But once we have:
- Insulate the roof;
- Isolate the soil;
- Insulate the walls;
- Change windows, skylights;
- Put a regulation in place ...

There is nothing more to do for at least 20 years (lifespan of AMHA windows but many isolated parts will be good for a few more decades) then certainly we will have made a lot of savings but no annual technical visit, no risk fire, no complicated connection to the public network, no complicated management of periods of over / under production, more serious, no risk of failure .... Missing more than it is possible to close nuclear power plants easily thanks to these savings ( remember that 75% of new homes are equipped with all electrical, there's the margin).

For my part, when I returned to my house, we had a consumption of 1400 kg / year LPG (identical to the previous owner). I followed the advice of a thermal engineer (without thermal camera by the way) and today, we consume between 750 and 800 kg / year of LPG (we have a wood stove too and it does not consume much ).
Given the soaring oil prices, our work was quickly amortized and our boiler is aging slowly.

Would we have made the same choice if the LPG was not so expensive ?? I do not know but Janco is right when he says that energy is not expensive enough.

If the government subsidized insulation and not solar panels, ten years from now people would be asking, "What has the government done over the past ten years to promote the production of renewable energy?"

+1

we need to create an indicator of energy efficiency and evaluate our public policies (housing and industrial) on that.
0 x
It is difficult to single !!!

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Heating, insulation, ventilation, VMC, cooling ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 292 guests