ᐅ Gas Prices – Where Is Gas Still Affordable?

Steven schrieb:

Hello Deliverer,
I’ll explain step by step:
Fossil fuels are so expensive because the government has raised taxes and fees to extremely high levels.
One liter of gasoline costs, without taxes and fees (the raw material costs, profit margin, transport costs, etc. are already included), roughly 1 Euro. The rest is imposed by the government.
Electricity costs significantly more because subsidies for renewable energy are paid from this. And, of course, there are taxes and fees as well.
Steven

I have rarely read such complete nonsense. Electricity is (among other reasons) so expensive because for about 60 years we have heavily subsidized nuclear energy, and for a long time no consensus was reached to phase out coal mining in Germany. The few cents from the Renewable Energy Act—by the way, how much went to that again? Ah yes, now 0 cents (zero!). Unfortunately, we recently also took on government guarantees for the proper disposal of nuclear waste. I’m just saying: an incalculable risk.
Of course the government taxes gasoline. Unfortunately, these have not been earmarked for infrastructure development such as roads and bridges for about 30 years.
The Green Party was the only one to point out a way out of this mess decades ago, but we have been / are doing too well.
The conservatives, far-right parties, blues, yellows, and even the social democrats completely messed this up.
Not that the Greens do everything right—real politics is no pony ride.
I still have a lot to say on the topic, but I’m extremely annoyed right now that such nonsense has spread here for a long time without comment, so I have to go to sleep.
P.S. I’m lying here in the hospital with a hardcore COVID denier, conspiracy theorist, Bill Gates system controller thinker, and today he talked so much that my head is buzzing. So please don’t take anything personally; everyone is welcome to express their opinion, as I just did.

Marvinius schrieb:

The reality is that we now maintain two electricity generation systems: the non-baseload and very limited storage “renewables” and the fossil fuel reserve capacity. Since renewable sources can sometimes produce 0.0 kWh over several days or weeks in winter, the fossil fuel reserve capacity must cover 100% of the electricity demand. This inevitably means that electricity will always be at least twice as expensive here as in a country that relies on just one, but baseload-capable, power generation system. And if you think “from the end,” renewables are actually just costly and completely unnecessary for the paying consumer, but a real cash cow for the subsidy recipients (!!!Renewable Energy Act surcharge!!!, which after its abolition is now just less visibly funded by tax money).

The fossil fuel reserve capacity must be very quickly adjustable when there is a high share of strongly fluctuating power generation from “renewables.” Gas power plants meet this requirement very well, coal power plants less so, and nuclear power plants hardly at all. This — besides ideological blindness — is the main reason why the Green party is so vehemently against extending the operating life of the last three nuclear power plants, as it would strongly highlight the redundancy of “renewables.”

In fact, the “GERMAN ENERGY TRANSITION” has been driven into a dead end by the supply problems with gas, but here it just takes a little longer for everyone to realize that. 🙂

By now, there are sufficient technical options to solve the base load and peak load problems in a fully renewable supply system (yes, 100%). It just needs to be truly wanted politically and enforced against a legislature weakened by lobbyists. Time is currently running a bit short thanks to slackers, doubters, and brakes 🙄

Steven schrieb:

Hello SumsumBiene

Is there going to be an argument too?

Steven

No. If I had felt it necessary, my choice of words would have been different. Besides, I get the impression that you are someone who likes to have the last word, and before any more far-fetched theories arise here, I’ll leave it at that.
Reasonable discussions hardly happen online anyway….

i_b_n_a_n schrieb:

There are now sufficient technical solutions to fully cover base and peak loads with renewable energy (yes, 100%). It would just require real political will to implement them despite the corrupt legislative influenced by lobbyists. Time is running out a bit because of the slackers, doubters, and blockers 🙄

Xi and Vladimir are happy about the "believers" who keep their cash registers ringing...

Marvinius schrieb:

Xi and Vladimir are happy about the "believers" who keep lining their pockets...

More nonsense. Given the current situation, we (Germany) are of course trying to quickly produce enough energy by any means necessary—coal, gas, wind, hydro, solar, and so on. Major cutbacks will still happen in my opinion, so I give about a 50:50 chance that Nord Stream 1 will be reopened. It's tragic (or perhaps tragicomic?) that our somewhat Russia-friendly policies of the past decades are now coming back to bite us (literally puking at our feet).

But: in the medium to long term (if only, if only... we would already be there), we must and will rely on energy sources that are cheap for end consumers, environmentally friendly, and climate-neutral. Anyone who doesn't see this very 😉 clear 😉 path is short-sighted, foolish, or blinded. I am neither "devout" (more of an agnostic) nor particularly anti-Russia, but simply scientifically and technically interested, and I trust the majority scientific consensus on this topic. I don’t hide my left/green convictions either, but I am of sound mind (accountable!), which some others here might well doubt (feel addressed if you want).
But despite everything, of course my crystal ball is no clearer than anyone else’s...

Reinhard84.2 schrieb:

Installing photovoltaics on the roof currently doesn’t make sense since the roof can’t support the weight and will need to be re-roofed in the medium term.

A more practical approach would be: remove the tiles, add insulation, and install metal roofing. This is more durable, cheaper, currently available, and best of all: it’s so lightweight that even with full-area photovoltaics, the roof will be lighter than before. Oh, and installing photovoltaics on metal roofing is also cheaper than on tiles.

Reinhard84.2 schrieb:

That’s why a heat pump doesn’t make sense either.

There are very few cases where a photovoltaic-heat pump combination supplies more than 15-20% of the heating electricity. So it’s not decisive—these systems should be considered separately. You install a heat pump to keep warm and photovoltaics to produce green electricity.

Reinhard84.2 schrieb:

This winter, I am massively upgrading fireplaces.

In my opinion, that’s the wrong approach.

• It’s becoming increasingly difficult to get new wood stoves approved.
• Ecologically, it’s also bad: it produces more CO2 than burning gas. (No, in Germany nothing has been regrowing for years.)
• Fine dust and odor will affect your neighborhood as well. On a winter morning, it’s almost impossible to cycle through the village because of this.
• Then firewood becomes scarce and, if available, extremely expensive.
• The same goes for seasoned wood—you really need good contacts to find dry firewood before winter.

In my opinion, it would be better to retrofit one or two air-to-air heat pumps (also known as split air conditioning units). This would have the following advantages:

• The “fuel” is more readily available and relatively inexpensive.
• Ecologically, this is the only sensible choice.
• During transitional seasons, the gas heating can be turned off completely, and in deep winter its workload can be greatly reduced.
• They also run at night, which is inconvenient with a wood stove.
• They cool the house economically in summer—as a clear mind makes it much easier to plan how to future-proof your home.