Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Ultimately, the monetary perspective is irrelevant. The population has voted for parties that (with one exception) have promised certain CO2 reduction targets. In this respect, one can assume a general consensus on CO2 reduction. However, this is neither free nor available at cost price. If all the ambitious goals like net-zero in 20-30 years are even to be approximately achieved, then a strict renovation obligation must be introduced for existing buildings. Regardless of whether it is financially worthwhile or not. The issue has been known for at least a decade, and accordingly, my understanding is limited when buyers of old houses now call out to the state instead of factoring renovation costs into their purchase from the outset. I have more understanding for people who have owned the house for 40 years. But something must happen here, too. We have a stock of about 40 million housing units. If half of these are unrenovated old buildings and we want to be done with this in the 2040s, at least one million units must be renovated per year. That is a lot of work.

Ambitious goal...and who is supposed to do the work? Skilled labor shortage has been known for years and is not just a temporary phenomenon. I actually don't see any party that has a coherent overall concept ready. I find that really disappointing!

...

What are the current construction costs in the area of ETICS installation (on existing buildings)? I still have €150 /m² gross in mind - 2020.

- 20cm EPS 032 - €160/m² gross
- 22cm mineral wool 035 - €180/m² gross

Complete/without own contribution. So including scaffolding, gluing and doweling, 2x plaster and 2x paint. Rural Bavaria.

Hello,

Translated it means: It will still take a very long time before usable energy can be generated with it. We will probably not live to see the widespread deployment of such reactors.

Nuclear fusion sounds really great, but it's something like the holy grail... many very smart people have been searching for solutions for a very long time, and there hasn't been much progress. If I understand it correctly, the message has basically been that finished power plants would be ready in 20-30 years since the 1970s. That would be nice, but it seems to be somewhat more complicated.

Best regards,

Andreas

Nuclear fusion sounds super cool, but it is something like the holy grail... many very smart people have been searching for solutions for a very long time, and there hasn't been much progress. As far as I can see, the message has basically been that finished power plants would be available in 20-30 years since the 1970s. That would be nice, but it seems to be somewhat more complicated.

I would imagine the path to nuclear fusion like balancing a pencil on your finger. There are infinitely many positions where the pencil falls again and exactly one where it stays upright. Many methods and experiments were necessary to even get the pencil upright in the first place; now countless small steps are needed to get it into balance. But until it is balanced, it always looks like a complete failure... judging how close you are to balance is very difficult. The facilities required for this are so complex and enormous that an extreme amount of time passes just for that alone. The "real" scientific work/progress is then achieved in a comparatively short time. And then you have to wait for the next generation of facilities.

And if you managed to do the whole thing with a pencil, you have to do the whole thing again with a big marker.