I understand my post was not confusing. I was questioning why you need to pay twice for a service…

That the delivery was scheduled at that time is a whole other level. Crazy stuff!

Maybe give me the benefit of doubt and don’t interpret things? I meant that the service was already paid for by the sender and now somebody has to pay again? Seems strange to me at least…

I mean the sender already did, right?

Yeah in what world do you need to pay to get your parcel delivered ???

Looks like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenocissus_tricuspidata

Our family home in Germany is completely covered in it…

If you are comparing gas to heat pump efficiency, it is more like 85-90% vs 350-500% efficiency.

Because in the gas furnace efficiency they only calculate the efficiency of burning gas but miss to include the auxiliary electricity that is needed to run the system.

In a heat pump system everything (running fans etc.) is included in the efficiency calculation. The efficiency itself is depending on the source of the heat pump. In a really harsh climate a ground / geo thermal source might make sense. But usually the average temperature is higher than you might think.

And for the environmental effect: modern gas power plants run at 50-60% efficiency so with a heat pump you are always burning less gas even if the gas plant is less efficient then the gas furnace.

It would be interesting to know what extreme cold means.

While I agree that it would have been better to phase out coal before nuclear power plants, I also think that those decisions have to be viewed in context and are more nuanced than ‘pretty stupid’.

For example, as other in this thread pointed out, nuclear power plants can be pretty safe to operate IF there is a good culture of safety and protocols in place. Which of course need to be followed and supervised by a strong regulatory body. Two of nuclear power plants in Brunsbüttel and Krümmel were missing this kind of safety culture in the opinion of the regulatory body. They were both operated by Vattenfall. If you lose trust in the operator of such critical infrastructure, then a decision to shut down nuclear power plants has to factor in all the arguments at hand.

Yes, of course, hydrogen is not an energy source (neither are batteries). Sorry if I was not clear about that, I thought it was clear from the context. I was talking about hydrogen and batteries as means of balancing fluctuating output from renewables.

I tend to agree that 44% fossil fuels are still too much, the transition could have been faster and needs to faster in the future. Not a lot of countries have done the successful pivot from fossil energy to renewable energy. The only example that comes to mind is Denmark, where they have great policies (and great wind resources). So I guess everything needs to be viewed in context.

Hmm I think what you mean is that some coal plants have been put into active maintenance. IIRC this was rather a countermeasure in case of absence of gas supplies. They are not part of the regular energy market.

Anyway, I think there is not only one way forward. Countries like France choose to use a big portion of nuclear, Germany does not. And every way has its own challenges. What is important is that energy supply should be independent of oppressor states and moving into a direction of carbon neutrality.

I hope this is a serious question, obviously this depends on your baseline. In 2013 Germany had a 56% share of fossil fuels, 27% share of renewables and 17% share of nuclear power generation. In the current year, the shares are: 59% renewables, 39% fossil fuels and 2% nuclear power generation. So in the last ten years there has been a switch in generation from both nuclear and fossil fuels to renewable generation. Could it have been better in the wake of the looming crisis of both climate and energy? Yes, I think it would have been better to keep some newer nuclear power plants running. But Cpt. Hindsight always has it easier.

In the long run every successful economy will generate its major share of electricity from renewables. Some countries will choose to generate a part with nuclear, others will choose to use a mix of hydrogen, batteries etc. to complement renewables. We will see what works best.

Germany has not build any new coal plants. At least not in the last five years.

Edit: Why are people down voting a factual statement? Go ahead and provide better info if you got it.

While in hindsight not all the decisions of the German energy policies seem right and it would have been better to keep the nuclear power plants operating for a few years, there was never the plan to replace nuclear with coal. All of the nuclear power generation has been replaced by wind and solar power generation. In fact, the plan was to phase out nuclear and replace the remaining coal generation with natural gas power plants. This definitely got more difficult in the time of LNG. The plan in any case is to phase out coal as well and with 56% renewable generation in 2023 Germany is on track to do so.

Ofc there is a xkcd for this… Great thing is that I did not know this one yet, so thanks!