Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

Wind power is also just a difficult-to-calculate "gap filler"

Until storage technology is advanced enough, a gas power plant is the ideal gap filler because it can be regulated very quickly (unlike coal and nuclear power). Unfortunately, the mechanics of the Renewable Energy Act do not allow gas power plants to "play along." Technically, there are no problems, and there are plenty of power plants available. In NRW, by the way, hydroelectric power plants are kept operational for emergencies by taxpayers but do not have general approval to participate in electricity production. At the time, this was a concession to coal burners. There is still a lot amiss.

One option would also be to store the excess energy in pumped-storage power plants. Or to produce e-fuels (if sufficiently developed) from the surplus. Or hydrogen for trucks, or so on. I do not think that there is one single idea or technology here that will accomplish the energy transition. Rather, it will have to be many small building blocks.

The most important point, however, is that Germany does not lose its prosperity as a result. Otherwise, we would only set a deterrent example for the world.

The most important point, however, is that Germany does not lose its prosperity as a result. Otherwise, we would only set a deterrent example for the world.

Only if we came to a new definition of what prosperity is. Our current concept of prosperity is largely based on an understanding of individual property, which claims the right to do whatever one wants with it without bearing the consequences. The intensification leads to such a departure from thinking about the common good that helping people become victims, as the phenomenon of attacks on paramedics or firefighters in rescue operations shows just as multifaceted as impressive. If someone were to publicly disclose that they had, for example, paid a CO2 offset for the concrete in their house, they would not only encounter incomprehension but also be subject to attacks. Protecting our "prosperity" in its current form is a problem in itself; for that, no climate catastrophe is needed. Possibly, that is even the cause of our climate challenge. Just thinking one step further.

Let's just say, friends of ours had to reduce their house planning by a quarter after the price adjustments became known. That was about 150,000 more. There won’t be a garage for now either. And the equipment will also be significantly cut back. At one point, selling the plot was even considered because the homeowner said she wouldn’t be happy in such a house.

Many are probably in the same situation. Exorbitant land prices, financing already tight, and then these price increases. I believe that these days some people are saying goodbye to their Pinterest- and Instagram-style dream house and rather entering into a "marriage of convenience," if they don’t have to give up on it altogether. In the long term, I see less frills and more a return to simple and small. For this reason (+ generally few plots of land), I also don't see the trend towards a second or even third house emerging. That will probably remain a niche.

What would be the best climate protection. It would be if you didn't build at all. 150 sqm for 3 people is completely unecological. And then houses with open galleries. That is just not acceptable. And each CO² footprint there is extremely bad. I think the green prohibition party is not entirely wrong. Maybe single-family houses should even be banned. It's like with a corona vaccination mandate. Actually, 15 square meters of living space with 2 m ceiling height is enough for everyone. That saves a lot of heating costs. And of course also energy. And usually the biggest show-offs are also the ones who waste the most energy. Those who invested in photovoltaic 20 years ago probably did so publicly for environmental protection reasons. Yes, of course we produce clean electricity, we are the best in the world. But they like to keep quiet that it was rather the 60 cent feed-in tariff as motivation. Yes, and who paid for that. The little man with his electricity bill.

What would be the best climate protection? It would be if you didn't build at all. 150 sqm for 3 people is totally unecological.
And then houses with open galleries. That is absolutely unacceptable. And in that case, every CO² footprint is extremely bad.

That is factually correct. That is why I already stated: Better to be the evil one than the stupid one who is the only one to make sacrifices. I confess to being the evil one. I have built too.

I think the green prohibition party is not so wrong. Maybe single-family houses should even be banned.

Whatever a "prohibition party" is – it is obvious that we have to come to different regulations so that it doesn’t go badly wrong on all levels. Maintaining the current behavior and bluntly regulating would be extremely stupid.

But gladly keep quiet that it was rather the 60 cent feed-in tariff as motivation.

No, nobody keeps that quiet; that was a central element at the start of the switch to renewable energy and – in my opinion – pretty smart to trigger greed. No one would have done that without significant personal benefit and no salesperson would have entered this industry without excellent earning opportunities. It’s still like that today – as you can read in the photovoltaic discussions here.

Yes, and who paid for it? The little guy with his electricity bill.

The much-cited “little guy” primarily paid for the exemption of large consumers from the Renewable Energy Act surcharge. This is the actual breakdown of solidarity. You don’t need to start a front against a photovoltaic system owner who is still happy about 50+ cents/kWh today. He certainly did not behave against the common good, even if he achieves a good return.