By Michel Negynas.
In a society where everything must be neat and clean, where the elite have completely forgotten that some still get their hands dirty, diesel and fuel oil are a horror.
For transport, their elimination was already recorded. For heating, their ban was already an objective; it becomes a regulatory obligation, and in the very short term. The factual analysis of the technical and economic elements does not matter.
Haro on domestic fuel oil
Government announcement at the end of the Ecological Defense Council, delivered to the press and transcribed as follows by all the newspapers:
There are still 3 million oil or coal boilers in France. Those that break down will have to be changed from January 2022 by a more virtuous boiler. Their installation will be prohibited in new housing. The most modest households will be able to claim aid of up to 80% of support.
And Ms. Pompili’s entourage adds:
It is impossible to force households to change their oil or coal boilers by 2022 […] We therefore prohibit replacements and new installations: if tomorrow, your oil boiler breaks down, you will have to replace it with a heat pump, a gas or pellet boiler. But in no case by such polluting equipment.
This measure is among the proposals of the Citizen’s Climate Convention, but like many of these proposals it has been more than suggested by so-called experts.
The quack of replacement on breakdown
We will avoid the issue of coal boilers in private homes: we do not see what can break down in equipment whose most sophisticated element is the bimetallic strip which regulates the opening of the draft …
What about an oil-fired boiler from the 1960s / 1970s, the case with most of the existing boilers in the many individual pavilions built at that time, and not connected to gas? Well, it’s a box with water circulating in front of which has been placed a burner. Along with the fuel pump, it is the only component that can fail.
It is not clear how the State could prohibit you from replacing a burner …
In fact, Ms. Pompili rectified the situation following a tweet from Ms. Le Pen:
Do not relay false information. In 2022, it will be forbidden to install new oil-fired boilers, not to repair models already installed. And to help switch to ecological and economical heating, the state supports up to 80% of the installation cost. https://t.co/0qTE52zzQn
– Barbara Pompili (@barbarapompili) July 29, 2020
And on the website of the Ministry of Ecology, we can read the exact text proposed:
“PROHIBITION OF THE INSTALLATION OF OIL AND COAL BOILERS FOR NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS IN JANUARY 2022
This measure is the immediate implementation of a proposal from the Citizen’s Convention for the Climate which called for the prohibition of the installation of this highly emitting equipment in the event of overall renovation and construction as soon as the law is promulgated. The government decides to go even faster and further by generalizing the ban in January 2022 for the renewal of fuel oil or coal boilers reaching the end of their life. Households, especially the most modest, who will be forced to replace their existing boiler, will benefit from aid such as MaPrimeRénov ‘and the heating aid (energy saving certificate schemes). »
It should therefore be understood that if your boiler is really ruined, unrecoverable, if for example it is leaking from everywhere… you cannot replace it with another oil-fired boiler.
Phew! The council did not give birth to a measure that was impossible to put into practice. But obviously, his spokespersons did not see the question well… For them, breakdown and end of life, it is the same thing. Not very circular economy, is it?
Is the measure justified?
The problem arises in households that are not connected to gas, ie around half of the users of oil-fired boilers.
In this case, the alternative cited by all members of the government is either wood heating or the heat pump. There is also propane, ignored: delivered by truck, it requires the purchase of a pressurized tank and it is overpriced. But in addition, if we take a full account of CO2 throughout the chain, it emits only slightly less than fuel oil. And the gap is reduced in absolute value if we consider condensing boilers.
Heating with wood is reputed to be ecological, but it is more by a care-bear view of the forest than by analyzing the facts.
Its production is limited: some French municipalities are already importing their pellets from Canada … Then, the calculation of the zero CO2 balance of the pellets is based on the assumption that the combustion emissions are offset by the growth of equivalent trees somewhere in the area. world… which in general is a profession of faith. Finally, the combustion of wood is among the most polluting.
Heat pumps are not a panacea either: they run quickly, and therefore wear out. Their lifespan hardly exceeds 10 years; they make noise, except to add expensive equipment; and they operate on electricity, which requires delivering the necessary power to the inhabitant. We quickly end up with the need to build nuclear power plants if we generalize (eight Fessenheim according to some calculations).
Another ideological decision
As we can see, the situation is not as simple as what they want to show us. Each system has drawbacks and advantages.
Modern oil-fired condensing boilers have nothing to do with their predecessors. And to prohibit means to stop the search for progress. In addition, fuel oil is an energy storage. With him, we don’t care about the peak of consumption, which is not the case with gas or electricity.
Thus, this ideological decision hides the real issues: how to have low-polluting heating that meets the needs of citizens, spares the nation’s resources and maximizes our energy independence.
Nuclear power is obviously the answer: electric heating with storage, heat pump, even district heating powered by small, secure reactors as we are starting to see on the international markets.
But the subject was taboo during the Convention… Gas heating will be king, for the benefit of Qatar, Russia and others…
Diesel and fuel oil, same nonsense
Diesel (or diesel) and domestic fuel oil are almost the same thing. We should therefore not be surprised to see them attacked together. However, some diesel pollutes rather less than gasoline, and a good oil condensing boiler can be better than a bad gas boiler …
The two stories are perfectly superimposable.
Setting environmental standards to respect is legitimate since it is a matter of public health. Whether the means are imposed instead of, or in addition to, the results has no legitimacy.
Contrary to the denials of our policies, it is indeed a world of punitive ecology that is being prepared for us, without foundations other than a deadly ideology based on received ideas.
Especially since on the economic level, the subject is not well bordered either: for equipment of at least 6000 euros, 20%, it is still 1200 euros, unacceptable for a minimum wage. Positive ecology would consist of the state paying everyone for the work in full. Where to find the money?
Well, we plan to build 30 GW of wind turbines, or around 50 billion in investment, which will be useless since it will still be necessary to build the conventional power stations in parallel for the winter nights without wind. What if we used it to install boilers?