Internat Energy Solutions is commited to the protection of the environement, we are passionate about what we do and each of us follow these principals in the way we work and live. 

Independence, neutrality, objectivity

Internat Energy Solutions is completely indendant of installers or hardware manufacturer, which enables us to guarantee a total objectivity in our recommendations. The objective of Internat Energy Solutions is not to sell renewable energies, but to accompany our customers, and direct them towards the most relevant enviroenmental and economic solutions.

 To act for the future generations

Worried by the current scientific observations and various scenarios established for the end of our century, we have chosen to invest ourselves in favor of energy efficiency.

It is not a question for us of “surfing the green wave”, and to grow rich thanks to this new fashion “solar panels – heat pumps”. It is rather a question of developing the most efficient solutions (well beyond the current regulations!) allowing to reconcile social, economic and environmental considerations, the 3 pillars of sustainable development. It is a question of making up for lost time which we have on our European neighbors, and to repair, without resentment, the errors carried out during 2nd half of the XXe century. It is especially a question of acting on the culture/the sensitivity/the level of knowledge of the people whom we meet in order to help them realize that our planet is small, that it is unique, that it is fragile, and that our resources are limited. It is finally a question of demonstrating that certain solutions are absurd and that others can be very interesting from an economic and environmental point of view.

Return on investment

“To preserve the environment is expensive, doing nothing will be much more expensive” (Kofi Annan)

This indicator is systematically studied by building owners when it is a question of investing in renewable energies or energy efficiency.

Before presenting the limits and the relevance of this concept, we make a point of specifying that many expenses do not present this notion of return on investment (car, TV, etc).

In the case of a school establishment, from which the finality is to educate future generations, many expenses do not present, in fact, any return on direct investment (installation of the classrooms, purchase of teaching equipment, etc). The return on investment is however real, while reasoning in global cost and on a community scale (by keeping the assumption, established since Jules Ferry, that the school makes it possible to enrich a country). But this equation is so complex that it is never solved: how could one quantify the return on investment related to the organization of a culture or the purchase of teaching equipment?

Within the framework of work of safeguarding heritage, times of returns on investments can be evaluated: if the rough-casting of the frontage of the Town hall is not carried out, this building of the XIXe century risks to fall in ruin, and thus to lose value. Thus the million euros spent in this type of action can be regarded as profitable.

Within the framework of energy saving, it is possible to reason in the same way: a solar installation on a school can have beneficial contributions for society, in terms of sensitizing students to sustainable development, the interest carried by the future generations with the energy problems, and possibly in teaching term (certain installations being conceived for practical work). In this case, it is only about political good-will, and the return on investment in question is just an additional bonus. In other words, if a project is necessary for the general interest and that it can in addition prove to be profitable financially, it becomes doubly interesting for the decision maker.

Why so much prudence before investing in renewable energies, whereas a simple not quantified argumentation is sufficient for other investments? It is apparently about a lack of sensitivity to the energy and environmental questions. The safeguarding of the monuments is, in our current culture, more important than the safeguarding of the natural resources. We are more sensitive to the artistic aspect of a building, than with its energy performance, our short-term desires weigh heavier than our long-term needs.

By reasoning in “global cost”, it is clear that the solar panels save money. Whereas the recent study of Mr. Stern evaluates to 5 500 Billion euros the impacts of climat change, we should ask ourselves the question of the total cost associated with the extraction and the combustion of an oil barrel.