We have chosen the two energy sources mentioned above as our favorites. Now we need to decide which is suitable for us. Our house is about 143m² (1,539 sq ft).
What would you recommend? What are the pros and cons of each? Are there any details on average operating and installation costs? Lifespan, etc.?
Thank you.
What would you recommend? What are the pros and cons of each? Are there any details on average operating and installation costs? Lifespan, etc.?
Thank you.
Hi andimann,
"These power plants then mostly run at partial load, where the efficiency is really poor. So the companies naturally try to operate their cheapest plants. After the now-shutdown nuclear reactors, these are the lignite coal power plants."
Do I understand you correctly—you believe that nuclear reactors generated cheap electricity? That might be true based on the official costs paid, but the storage will cost money for generations without producing any electricity or even one kWh of usable power. I don't even want to open the topic of the risks associated with nuclear reactors.
You are certainly right that our electricity dependence has increased further due to heat pumps and that electricity has a poor efficiency in terms of the CO2 balance. I completely agree with you on that. Looking at the emissions issue with cars, though, another problem becomes clear: for many people, this is such a complex topic that they have to trust the manufacturers’ and regulators’ (e.g., technical inspection authorities) statements, and if the incentives aren’t high enough, cheating happens. Did anyone really believe that an SUV burns less fuel than a Golf?!? Unfortunately, real commitment and effort usually only come when things get critical.
For this reason, it certainly makes sense to rely on gas temporarily. Nevertheless, we should not forget to continue pushing research and development in renewable energy sources with great dedication.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to respond to this, but I am firmly convinced that sooner or later we need to make a transition, and that will only succeed if people also accept that it will incur costs.
Best regards,
Mirko
"These power plants then mostly run at partial load, where the efficiency is really poor. So the companies naturally try to operate their cheapest plants. After the now-shutdown nuclear reactors, these are the lignite coal power plants."
Do I understand you correctly—you believe that nuclear reactors generated cheap electricity? That might be true based on the official costs paid, but the storage will cost money for generations without producing any electricity or even one kWh of usable power. I don't even want to open the topic of the risks associated with nuclear reactors.
You are certainly right that our electricity dependence has increased further due to heat pumps and that electricity has a poor efficiency in terms of the CO2 balance. I completely agree with you on that. Looking at the emissions issue with cars, though, another problem becomes clear: for many people, this is such a complex topic that they have to trust the manufacturers’ and regulators’ (e.g., technical inspection authorities) statements, and if the incentives aren’t high enough, cheating happens. Did anyone really believe that an SUV burns less fuel than a Golf?!? Unfortunately, real commitment and effort usually only come when things get critical.
For this reason, it certainly makes sense to rely on gas temporarily. Nevertheless, we should not forget to continue pushing research and development in renewable energy sources with great dedication.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to respond to this, but I am firmly convinced that sooner or later we need to make a transition, and that will only succeed if people also accept that it will incur costs.
Best regards,
Mirko
B
Bauexperte14 Nov 2015 18:15andimann schrieb:
Unfortunately, I can’t upload an Excel file; it only accepts images and PDFs...
So what now? Convert it into a PDF or send me a private message, and I’ll do it for you.
Regards, Bauexperte
Bauexperte
Hello,
No, I never said that nuclear power plants produced cheap electricity. They were just very cheap for the operators because they were heavily subsidized overall. And so far, the operators haven’t had to seriously worry about the final disposal; they probably won’t have to in the future either. That responsibility is smoothly passed on to the taxpayers.
Until a few years ago, I would have even said that as an engineer, I was convinced nuclear power could be operated safely if there was enough will. Since Fukushima, unfortunately, I have to agree that this is not the case, or rather, that people are simply not capable of it. There will always be some genius who—trying to improve the balance sheet—cuts maintenance, disregards safety regulations, or, as in Fukushima, tried to save money during construction and failed to properly protect the emergency power generators. If those had been installed 100 m (330 ft) higher up on the hills, nothing serious would have happened in Fukushima. But foolish decisions like this will always occur, and for that reason alone, phasing out nuclear power remains the only right path.
Best regards,
Andreas
Bialbero schrieb:
Do I understand you correctly – you think nuclear power plants produced cheap electricity? Maybe that’s true for the official costs, but the storage will cost money for generations, and those future costs will never have generated a single electron, let alone a kilowatt-hour of that electricity. I don’t even want to start on the risks associated with nuclear plants.
No, I never said that nuclear power plants produced cheap electricity. They were just very cheap for the operators because they were heavily subsidized overall. And so far, the operators haven’t had to seriously worry about the final disposal; they probably won’t have to in the future either. That responsibility is smoothly passed on to the taxpayers.
Until a few years ago, I would have even said that as an engineer, I was convinced nuclear power could be operated safely if there was enough will. Since Fukushima, unfortunately, I have to agree that this is not the case, or rather, that people are simply not capable of it. There will always be some genius who—trying to improve the balance sheet—cuts maintenance, disregards safety regulations, or, as in Fukushima, tried to save money during construction and failed to properly protect the emergency power generators. If those had been installed 100 m (330 ft) higher up on the hills, nothing serious would have happened in Fukushima. But foolish decisions like this will always occur, and for that reason alone, phasing out nuclear power remains the only right path.
Best regards,
Andreas
Hello again,
to address the original poster’s question, here is a sample calculation (unfortunately only as a PDF) comparing different heating systems. Depending on the current offers for various heating systems, the results might vary, but I think it is clear that heat pumps still have a hard time economically competing with gas boilers.
Best regards,
Andreas
to address the original poster’s question, here is a sample calculation (unfortunately only as a PDF) comparing different heating systems. Depending on the current offers for various heating systems, the results might vary, but I think it is clear that heat pumps still have a hard time economically competing with gas boilers.
Best regards,
Andreas
The values are missing the connection costs for gas, which typically range from 1500 to 2500 euros (or more), depending on the location and provider. Otherwise, 6000 euros for gas seems too low to me; after subtracting those connection costs, only about 4000 euros remain, which might be tight for a gas condensing boiler with chimney and inspection.
On the other hand, I believe the maintenance costs for heat pumps are lower since there is no chimney sweep or similar service involved. I’m not sure where those costs would come from or why they would be more expensive than the chimney sweep and exhaust gas measurements required for the gas boiler.
On the other hand, I believe the maintenance costs for heat pumps are lower since there is no chimney sweep or similar service involved. I’m not sure where those costs would come from or why they would be more expensive than the chimney sweep and exhaust gas measurements required for the gas boiler.
Similar topics