Good morning,
I just received a steep price increase from my energy provider enercity, raising the cost to 15 cents per kWh starting in August. That’s really tough, and I think prices will rise even further.
It’s a strange feeling to be thrown back so quickly into an energy supply situation where you have to figure out how to keep the house warm. It seems to me that the government has given up on the goal of enabling everyone to adequately cover at least their basic needs.
Goodbye central supply structures; now the winner is whoever has solar panels and a heat pump in their new build, while the others are left out.
Welcome back, coal heating 😕
Frustrated regards,
I just received a steep price increase from my energy provider enercity, raising the cost to 15 cents per kWh starting in August. That’s really tough, and I think prices will rise even further.
It’s a strange feeling to be thrown back so quickly into an energy supply situation where you have to figure out how to keep the house warm. It seems to me that the government has given up on the goal of enabling everyone to adequately cover at least their basic needs.
Goodbye central supply structures; now the winner is whoever has solar panels and a heat pump in their new build, while the others are left out.
Welcome back, coal heating 😕
Frustrated regards,
M
motorradsilke15 Jul 2022 07:52x0rzx0rz schrieb:
The problem is that there are lots of old stoves. Even a new stove, if operated incorrectly—whether knowingly or unknowingly—can become a major source of fine dust emissions. Besides, the certification limits—like with most things—are based on ideal laboratory conditions that end users never actually reach.
If you visit countries where fireplaces are still heavily used in urban areas, you might change your opinion about the "pleasant smell."
If you like the smell, just light an incense stick indoors 😉 at least that way it won’t affect your neighbors.Old stoves haven’t been approved since 2014.
This is not about other countries.
And don’t worry, our fireplace is new and doesn’t bother the neighbors; our chimney had to be positioned far enough away.
M
motorradsilke15 Jul 2022 07:58chand1986 schrieb:
YES!
Oil and coal were once wood or animals that formed over a few decades, just like it still happens today. So during those few decades, the CO2 was absorbed, just like wood absorbs CO2 while growing today.
The fact that it was transformed over millions of years and then stored underground for millions of years does not change that. The CO2 was already captured earlier.
In the end—just to make it simple—people claim that burning fresh wood is better in terms of CO2 emissions than burning old wood.
That is logically wrong. Both are the same. So either both are bad or both are okay. We need to be honest about that.
(I also sometimes burn wood. But I know it’s not better). But that doesn’t help. It takes a very long time to create oil and gas.
If you cut down trees that have reached the end of their natural life or use dead wood anyway, and then reforest, you immediately have new CO2 uptake. And you have new fuel in 20 to 30 years. You don’t get any of that with oil and coal.
M
motorradsilke15 Jul 2022 07:59x0rzx0rz schrieb:
You can also work with beetle-damaged wood. Wood is not only cut into premium parquet flooring. As far as I know, nobody wants to process that.
M
motorradsilke15 Jul 2022 08:01Deliverer schrieb:
First, that is incorrect (keyword humus formation); second, the wood didn’t have to die in the first place; third, the wood could have been used effectively for another 500 years rather than being burned directly. However, wood does naturally die on its own. Just walk through the forests and see what is lying around.
C
chand198615 Jul 2022 08:03motorradsilke schrieb:
But that doesn’t help. It takes a very long time to form oil and gas.
If you cut down trees that have already reached the end of their life or use deadwood anyway, and then reforest, you immediately have CO2 absorption again. And you have new fuel in 20 to 30 years. You don’t have any of that with oil and coal. The first part is wrong. How do you come to that conclusion?
Oil and coal take just as long(!!!) to bind CO2 as trees do, because oil and coal formed from trees at a time when the necessary microorganisms for decomposition did not yet exist.
That is why the second part of your comment is correct: oil and coal will never form again.
motorradsilke schrieb:
But wood does die, even on its own. Just walk through the forest and see what’s lying around. But decomposition takes decades, while burning takes hours. That is THE difference.
I’ll ask openly: in your opinion, how many trees must be planted to compensate for one burned tree in order to be CO2 neutral? And how many for one naturally decomposing tree?
(I have heavily edited this)
D
Deliverer15 Jul 2022 08:09chand1986 schrieb:
I’ll ask openly: In your opinion, how many trees need to be planted to offset the CO2 of one burned tree to be carbon neutral? And how many for one that decays naturally? Correction: "planted 50 years ago"
Although this is a very simplified view – a proper forest needs 500 years to effectively bind CO2. This is because the trees must be able to decay naturally on site for the process to work. If you remove them from the forest, the forest dies and the CO2 storage capacity of the commercial forest drops to nearly zero.
Why does this need to be proven anew in almost every second "energy" thread? It’s all published daily in various (non-Springer) media outlets...
Similar topics