Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
District Heating Paradox – When Cheap Green Energy Makes Heating More ExpensiveIn response to my question in the city council and the article in the Bürgerstimme about whether there are other concepts regarding the conversion of district heating in Hohenmölsen, city council member Jan Förster (CDU) spoke up via Facebook in the group “Ulrich Siegmund”. 
Why Jan Förster (CDU) is speaking out in this particular group despite the firewall will probably remain a mystery for the time being. His argumentation did not convince me, however. Jan Förster wrote with a certain arrogance regarding the article Million grave “Green District Heating” – Heating becomes more expensive – Energy transition failed: “For the person who simply has no clue: The district heating in Hohenmölsen has to be converted because we will soon no longer have lignite available. That would have happened around the year 2035 ANYWAY, regardless of the lignite phase-out.” However, this presentation is disinformation. If further areas were developed, mining would be possible into the 2050s. That is certainly not forever either, but temporally later than the politically fixed year 2035. He continued: “Even before 2022, supposedly cheap gas from Russia would simply not have been a solution for Hohenmölsen, because there is neither a pipeline (that is the most expensive part of the project) nor a gas burner for this gas. Therefore, district heating costs would have risen either way. If we had had to bear the investment costs ourselves, further purely ‘fossil’ district heating would have become unaffordable.” The paradoxical thing about this statement is that now a switch to natural gas is nevertheless planned – just not Russian natural gas. So a pipeline has to and will be laid. My argument is that lignite or hard coal could also be imported from other parts of Europe – for example from Poland. Jan Förster claimed that this is not possible because there is no rail connection. However, lignite is also transported to Leuna by rail. So a rail connection does exist after all. He did not address this further in the discussion. He wrote: “From the pure energy price alone, district heating this year would cost 9.85 ct per kWh plus basic fees. Due to the emissions price, it is 13.14 ct per kWh. Note: These prices are completely without major investment costs, which would have been incurred either way.” By way of reminder: According to the “Green District Heating” concept, whose investment costs rose within a few months from an intended 50 million euros to now 66 million euros, prices are set to rise above 20 ct/kWh. So if one were to refrain from this conversion to 25 % electricity plus 75 % gas for the time being, this price increase would not occur. If politics truly had the well-being of the people in mind, it could also waive the emissions surcharges. But politics does not do that. Jan Förster then wrote the following remarkable lines: “One reason for the high district heating costs in Hohenmölsen is, for example, that the current redundancy is called heavy fuel oil and is once again significantly more expensive than lignite. But lignite is no longer available all year round because its power generation is too expensive, while renewables supply electricity cheaply.” I think this is likely disinformation as well. The coal trains run every day from the opencast mine to the Wählitz power plant. According to his presentation, lignite is partially not burned because it is too expensive for power generation. Instead, heavy fuel oil is burned, which is even more expensive than lignite? The logic escapes me there. How is the heavy fuel oil delivered? Possibly by rail as well? I pointed out that it was once claimed that renewable energies would be significantly cheaper; Jan Förster had also explained that – the famous infamous ice cream scoop. Förster replies: “Wow… shall we perhaps quote sentences from 50 years ago now? I think a lot has happened in the last good 20 years and therefore the quote is unsuitable for a meaningful debate, especially since Trittin was referring to the EEG surcharge, which has no longer been levied since 2022. The fact that the generation costs of renewable energies are already cheaper than fossil ones today is simply a fact.” So what does he care about yesterday’s chatter? I do care, because it is also about the credibility and foresight of politics. Because we, the citizens, bear the costs of wrong decisions. The EEG surcharge may have been abolished, but the CO₂ pricing has been steadily increased as politically desired. Förster wrote: “Coal is ending faster than a complete renewables alternative exists, so one has to make do with bridge technology…” I know it is always difficult for one or another politician (even if it is “only” a regional politician) when someone doesn’t just ask but also questions. According to his own statements, Jan Förster does not see the cost increase of district heating as a problem or considers it inevitable. He partly supplies his heat pump with electricity from his solar system. So he is not affected by these price increases. That makes it easier for him to overlook them. But I am missing the logic and the commitment of regional politics to the citizens. Many questions arise for me: Lignite as an energy source ensures cheaper prices than after the switch to gas and green electricity. The argument came up that there are subsidies now. But the question is: Who decided that? Why is it not decided that there can also be subsidies in 10 or more years? Politics can redefine that if it wants to. It is constantly said that Germany must become independent of imports, including energy sources. Yet the use of domestic coal is to be discontinued. Instead, reliance is placed on gas imports. The term “bridge technology” was used. But to which technology is natural gas supposed to be the bridge? If wind and sun are supposed to be so much better and the future anyway, why not switch completely to wind and sun right now? Why still rely on gas-fired power plants? Why not cover every square metre in the city of Hohenmölsen that is not needed for nature with solar panels? There are quite a few areas available. Why not surround Hohenmölsen with wind turbines right now instead of switching to natural gas? What is supposed to improve so much about wind turbines or solar systems in the coming years that their deployment cannot already be pushed now? The efficiency will certainly only improve marginally. Smart alecks would probably argue now that the politically arbitrarily set climate targets must be reached quickly. But I like to refer to the graphic from the article Million grave “Green District Heating” – Heating becomes more expensive – Energy transition failed. Germany’s CO₂ share is so small that it hardly registers. Increases in CO₂ emissions by other countries are many times higher. Whether Germany would emit CO₂ for a few more years is therefore irrelevant. One could therefore switch directly to wind and sun instead of gas and continue operating coal-fired power plants until wind and sun can actually stably cover the entire energy supply. That would definitely be cheaper in any case. Unless in political circles it is secretly known after all that sun and wind cannot ensure energy supply. Or not at lower prices, because huge overcapacities are needed to additionally fill storage facilities during periods of low wind and sun to secure supply during dark doldrums. One might suspect that this is why the switch to gas is planned. It does drive prices up, but if tax money continues to be invested to convert to sun and wind, making everything even more expensive again, the price gap to gas would no longer be so large that people would accept it. The usual salami tactic. A PwC study concludes that Germany would have to invest a total of around €13.2 trillion for complete greenhouse gas neutrality by about 2045–2050 (including all sectors and grid systems).If sun and wind really were the ultima ratio and cheaper in all areas, why are developing or emerging countries in more southern regions then relying on fossil energy sources? The city council members of Hohenmölsen might want to give this topic some thought. Perhaps intensive communication takes place with higher authorities and political circles. Perhaps it is pointed out that this conversion to the not really green “Green District Heating” is driving prices up. Perhaps it is pointed out that this is bad for the population in Hohenmölsen. Perhaps alternative concepts are being sought after all. Perhaps pressure is being applied to continue using lignite for longer. Perhaps Hohenmölsen is being plastered with solar panels to see whether this energy transition can really work. Especially since Jan Förster himself cannot fully operate his heat pump with solar power. And soon everyone is supposed to drive an electric car instead of a combustion engine. So endless wind turbines are needed for it to somehow work at all. And electricity storage, lots and lots of storage. Really, really big storage. So: Why not skip the switch to gas, save those costs, if wind and sun are supposed to be the final solution anyway? Green hydrogen? Well, MIBRAG has put that idea on ice for the time being. Green hydrogen is more expensive than hydrogen from natural gas. So one can say goodbye to the dream of producing hydrogen from wind and solar power to use for heating. The costs would probably be even higher. If it were otherwise, that is exactly what would be pursued. The discussion about the participation of solar parks and wind turbines in grid expansion also shows that green energy cannot be produced so cheaply after all and only makes economic sense if it is massively subsidised. If it were otherwise, participation in grid expansion would not be an issue. Jan Förster wrote: “And of course climate change is real. It is all the crazier not to acknowledge it when you only have to turn on the television to see the consequences. You don’t even have to engage with such far-fetched things as empirical science.” Empirical (definition: gaining knowledge based on experience, observation or systematic data collection from reality instead of merely arguing theoretically) for me is that prices are rising due to politically arbitrary decisions and that the climate has always changed (quite without human influence). I don’t trust the television quite so readily. Empirically, the public broadcasters are quite a source of disinformation in the sense of politics and enforced narratives. The past 6 years have shown me that very empirically. Why should it be any different with the climate issue? Author: AI-Translation - Michael Thurm | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | CDU Minister-President Sven Schulze recommends: Never vote CDU, SPD, FDP, or Greens again!What an appearance. What words. What a stage. Sven Schulze (CDU Minister-President) stands in the central warehouse of the food bank, nods approvingly, speaks of “humanity,” of... zum Artikel |
 | There Are Only People Left You Don’t Want Anything to Do With – Just Because They Have a Different Opinion.Sabine Saupe and Hartfried Pietz in conversation about their view of things, their experiences during the COVID era, the division in society, current politics, the climate ...... zum Artikel |
 | Election Campaign Turmoil: Political Statement or Risky Maneuver?Just before the state elections in Saxony and Thuringia, Edeka is causing a stir with a drastic political appeal. The supermarket chain places a bold statement against the AfD in a... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |