ᐅ Gas Prices – Where Is Gas Still Affordable?

Don’t always bring up poor, old grandma. Either she has enough money or she doesn’t. Heating costs won’t be the issue.

And by “reasonable subsidies” you surely mean more than the current 50%, right? ;-)

I fully agree with your last point.

Deliverer schrieb:

Don't always use the poor, old grandma as an example. Either she has enough money or she doesn’t. Heating costs won’t be the issue.

And by "reasonable support," you probably mean more than the current 50%, right? ;-)

I completely agree with your last point.

Yes, for some people, heating costs will be an issue. Even with a 20% annual increase. And this affects many of the people who helped build our country.

No, by support I mean a fair feed-in tariff and an end to the unreasonable taxation for private individuals. Rather, support for energy storage systems so that everyone can use their own electricity first (from my non-expert perspective, this is more efficient than feeding in electricity and then buying it back), and for example, approval for cars that can store and supply power.

Is there generally a 50% support for renewable energy? As far as I know, there is nothing for photovoltaic systems.

motorradsilke schrieb:

Yes, for some people it will come down to heating costs. And it would still be a problem even with a 20% annual increase.

Maybe the perspectives in the country need to be adjusted a little. I would prefer a cap of 20% per year. That may seem high, but at least it provides a clear roadmap. And even though we currently have 300% per year, my suggestion is seen as bad. Well then, no cap. Then no socially responsible policy. Good luck to everyone alone, but please don’t complain if half the people (especially grandma!) get left behind.

motorradsilke schrieb:

No, by support I mean a reasonable feed-in tariff and an end to the pointless taxation on private individuals. Rather, support for storage systems so that everyone first consumes their own electricity (from my layman’s perspective, that is more effective than feeding in first and then buying it back), and for example, the approval of vehicles that can store and supply energy.
Is there currently a general 50% subsidy for renewables? As far as I know, there is nothing for photovoltaics.

Without the last sentence, I would have almost considered your call for more support for photovoltaics to be cheeky. But obviously, you really don’t know the facts:
Photovoltaics have been supported via feed-in tariffs for 20 years. The support amount was always somewhere between 100% and 300% of the purchase price. In addition, there have been significant tax breaks and reliefs (which admittedly have always involved effort, and unfortunately still do).
Up until six months ago, every photovoltaic system was subsidized at about 100%. Due to the price spiral, this dropped to around 70%, which has now been adjusted back. Currently, medium-sized systems are again supported at about 100%.
On top of that, owners are allowed to consume as much of that electricity as they want themselves. This makes it roughly three times as worthwhile.

I don’t think there is any urgent need to demand even more subsidies now. After all, we are talking about homeowners who tend to be among the wealthier half of the population. There is hardly any need to pay even more than everything already does, right?

Be careful, this concerns only photovoltaics. Storage systems receive little to no support because there is no public interest in having inefficient small storage units in basements. They don’t help the grid, nor the operator, and they harm the energy transition as they destroy about 20% of the best green electricity on average during operation. These systems are more of a hobby and have never really paid off.

Deliverer schrieb:

I wish for a cap of 20% per year.

I think that was a misunderstanding. I initially understood it to mean that, in your opinion, gas prices should increase by at least 20% so that switching to renewable energy gradually becomes more worthwhile. However, that was apparently not what you meant.

Deliverer schrieb:

Perhaps the perspectives in the country need some realignment. I would like to see a cap of 20% per year. That might sound like a lot, but it is a clear roadmap. And even though we currently have 300% per year, my proposal is still considered bad. Well then, no cap. Then no socially responsible policy. Good luck to everyone on their own, but please don’t complain when half the population (especially the elderly!) get left behind.

Without the last sentence, I would have almost considered the call for more subsidies for photovoltaics to be outright cheeky. But clearly, you really don’t know the facts:
Photovoltaics have been subsidized through feed-in tariffs for 20 years. The subsidies have always ranged somewhere between 100% and 300% of the purchase price. On top of that, there have been generous tax benefits and reliefs (which admittedly always required effort and still do).
Until six months ago, every photovoltaic system was subsidized at around 100%. Due to the price spiral, this dropped to about 70%, but it has since been readjusted. Now, medium-sized systems are again receiving subsidies near 100%.
As a bonus, owners are allowed to consume as much of their own generated electricity as they want. That is roughly three times as cost-effective.

I don’t think it’s urgent to demand even more subsidies here. After all, we are talking about homeowners who generally belong to the wealthier half of the population. There hardly is a need to pay even more than everything already costs, right?

Be careful—this concerns only photovoltaics. Batteries receive little to no subsidies because there is no public interest in having inefficient small-scale batteries stored in basements. They don’t benefit the grid, they don’t benefit the system owner, and they harm the energy transition by averaging about 20% loss of the best renewable electricity during operation. These are hobby projects that have never been financially viable.

Then please show me where these subsidies exist. To my knowledge, there is a feed-in tariff of around 6 cents. Nothing else. That is worlds away from a 100% subsidy given the current prices of photovoltaics. It also has not been adjusted. On top of that, I have to pay tax on the electricity I consume myself.
I am always referring to private consumers who have photovoltaic systems on their roofs.

I can no longer listen to the complaints about rising costs for fossil energy. Of course, it is expensive and inconvenient, but what is the alternative? Am I supposed to tell my son in 30 years, "Sorry, the planet is basically ruined, I'm stepping down now, but renewable energy was just too inconvenient for us"? Honestly, some people might lose their homes, but that way humanity still has a chance.