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,
P
Pinkiponk31 Jul 2022 18:59Could we perhaps start refraining from insults and offensive remarks against other forum members and possibly political opponents? That doesn't help us move forward. Let's please be idealists, not ideologues. ;-)
C
chand198631 Jul 2022 19:20From a physics perspective, nuclear power is a double-edged sword. It reliably provides baseload power, and in its most modern form, a worst-case accident (beyond design-basis accident) is not only less likely but also less severe than before. It is virtually CO2-free during electricity generation. However, this does not apply to investment and waste disposal. Wind turbines also share these disadvantages in those areas.
Nuclear power has a very high energy density, which makes it efficient.
Nonetheless, the waste disposal issue remains unresolved, even with the latest technology.
Reactors that could use former nuclear waste as fuel in molten salt reactors and convert it into non-radioactive residues are currently only theoretical. There is no commercially ready technology that meets our safety standards. The time horizon for this is 30 years or more. Nuclear FUSION is completely out of the question for the next two generations.
Nuclear energy has hidden costs because expenses for storage facilities, managing possible worst-case accidents, etc., are not reflected in the electricity price. Therefore, it appears artificially cheap. This must not be forgotten.
There is a trade-off here: reducing global warming at the expense of long-term waste storage problems and a non-zero risk of worst-case accidents?
I find this hard to decide, but only in principle. In practice, for the question above and also for energy security in the coming winter, it is a red herring because nuclear power is not available in the short or medium term anyway. Whoever already has it has it, and those who do not cannot “quickly build” it now.
Nuclear power has a very high energy density, which makes it efficient.
Nonetheless, the waste disposal issue remains unresolved, even with the latest technology.
Reactors that could use former nuclear waste as fuel in molten salt reactors and convert it into non-radioactive residues are currently only theoretical. There is no commercially ready technology that meets our safety standards. The time horizon for this is 30 years or more. Nuclear FUSION is completely out of the question for the next two generations.
Nuclear energy has hidden costs because expenses for storage facilities, managing possible worst-case accidents, etc., are not reflected in the electricity price. Therefore, it appears artificially cheap. This must not be forgotten.
There is a trade-off here: reducing global warming at the expense of long-term waste storage problems and a non-zero risk of worst-case accidents?
I find this hard to decide, but only in principle. In practice, for the question above and also for energy security in the coming winter, it is a red herring because nuclear power is not available in the short or medium term anyway. Whoever already has it has it, and those who do not cannot “quickly build” it now.
KingJulien1 Aug 2022 13:36You really believe anything that fits your ideology (if you can call it hate), huh?
And you don’t even recognize irony or sarcasm if it jumped right into your face with its bare backside.
And you don’t even recognize irony or sarcasm if it jumped right into your face with its bare backside.
T
Trademark1 Aug 2022 13:39Steven schrieb:
Hello
Mr. Danilo Zoschnik, Green Party candidate for the state parliament, offers some interesting advice on saving energy:
"Why have heaters when you can warm yourself by burning German flags."
This is how the Greens hope to overcome the gas crisis.
Steven Wow, dragging someone who is undergoing psychiatric treatment into this is quite something.
A
AllThumbs1 Aug 2022 13:40KingJulien schrieb:
You really believe everything as long as it fits your ideology (if you want to call hatred that), huh?
And you don’t even recognize irony or sarcasm when it hits you right in the face. He just copies that from his Telegram groups. My ex-neighbor from the same environment has also been feeding me slogans for the past few days. But today he was faster than Steven 🙄