Installation of a gas heating system in new construction 2023/2024

All heat pumps are, with a few exceptions, namely the new devices using propane as a refrigerant, extremely environmentally harmful and should also be more or less banned.

Quick question. Which of the homeowners already have a modern heat pump with propane?

There is also a lot of comparison drawn with Norway or Denmark. Cold winter temperatures and electric heating. But that is not a problem there. In Norway, electricity costs 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Here we are above 40 cents.

Incomes in Norway are significantly higher than in Germany and yet they only pay one tenth of the German price for their electricity. We are talking about completely different conditions here.

At 4 cents electricity price for heat pump electricity, a flow temperature of 60 degrees heated electrically is of course feasible and would also be economically viable.
You could leave the radiators in. But then the interest of climate protection from the government side ends very quickly.
Besides, for such electrical consumption orgies, we neither have the grids nor sufficient electricity.

Heat pumps also only have a limited lifespan of +/- 15 years. Insurance for heat pumps also only runs for a maximum of 15 years. Above that it becomes difficult.

And of course, I have underfloor heating in my bathrooms. That is also pleasant. But I simply do not want underfloor heating in the other rooms. I just do not feel comfortable there. Likewise, I do not feel comfortable in these new airtight insulated houses.
The living climate in most new houses is a disaster. Of course, no one admits this.

The whole climate discussion is a shadow discussion. When it comes to electricity storage for photovoltaics and wind power, nothing substantial happens.
Actual reduction of emissions globally? None at all.

There are still senseless cheap flights (flying to Rome for 20 euros), alternative transport concepts are still missing, cruise ships emit exhaust fumes without end, and our gas, wood and coal are shipped in. Instead of coming from Russia, the coal now comes from Australia. Environmental protection? What is that?

I have a water property with a stream in the back part of my estate. Am I allowed to build a small hydropower plant there within the framework of renewable energy production? Completely emission-free to save CO² as demanded by the government.

It is not possible. Or try applying for a proper photovoltaic system with more than 100 kWp. Renewable energies are not very advanced here.

And to make it clear and straightforward with typical AfD slogans. The economic location Germany and also the citizens shall and will be cold expropriated.

Quick question. Which of the homeowners already has a modern heat pump running on propane gas?

Here, me.

There are still senseless cheap flights (flights to Rome for 20 euros), alternative transport concepts are still missing, cruise ships are constantly spewing emissions, and our gas, wood, and coal are shipped in by boat. Instead of coming from Russia, the coal just comes from Australia. Environmental protection? What is that?

You’re right, only the conclusion that therefore every other step in that direction would be wrong is just not correct.
By the way, this form of argumentation is called sophistry. It’s a Schopenhauerian trick of dialectics. In contemporary terms, it's also called whataboutism.
That might work in talk shows or with the educated underclass for sensational headlines, but it’s not a productive way to discuss things.

I have a waterfront property with a stream in the back part of my estate. Am I allowed to install a small hydropower plant there within the framework of renewable energy generation? Completely emission-free to save CO² as demanded by the government.

It’s not possible. Or try to apply for a proper photovoltaic system with more than 100 kWp. The situation with renewables is not that great.

Oh really, have you tried both? With photovoltaics you can still argue about the power grid and safety.
But I really don’t understand a small hydropower plant on a stream. What is the legal background there?

But it only annoys me secondarily. My oil heating year of construction 1992 works perfectly. I bought the heater once for 14 euros. I need 1000 liters of heating oil for my 180 sqm and I do the maintenance myself. I can also manage boiler cleaning, changing the nozzle, and occasionally replacing the ignition electrode myself.

then you are no longer allowed to operate it, as it is older than 30 years... My parents have an apartment in a multi-family house, year of construction 1995, gas heating year of construction 1992 (no idea why the heating is older than the building). At the last owners' meeting, the administrator said that the heating must be replaced because it is older than 30 years. Regardless of whether it works or not... Question to the group, is that correct? What happens now with all the gas heating systems in the multi-family houses from 1993-1995 (last major building boom)??? Do they all have to be removed now because they are older than 30 years?

Year of construction and commissioning are two different things.

Heaters older than 30 years must be replaced. However, this actually refers to the commissioning.
The heater is commissioned by the chimney sweep as part of a fireplace inspection. From this point, 30 years apply.

My oil heater was built in 1992. It was then installed in a house and only ran there for 2 years. In 2006 I bought it and dismantled it myself. In 2012 it was installed in my home. So it can still run for another 19 years with me. And what is supposed to break now?
The burner can be completely replaced, the control system can be replaced, or the boiler. It is very unlikely that the boiler will break. Even in the worst case, if the boiler cracks, it can be welded. And if not here, there will definitely be corresponding spare parts in Poland for another 20 years. I see absolutely no problems here.

With gas, it is certainly a bit more difficult, as safety-relevant components come into play here. The law has not yet been passed, so for now, we just have to wait. Otherwise, the best business for the next few years will be trading spare parts for used heaters.

That would be the text I am referring to, but admittedly it was only googled and not thoroughly checked to see if there is a newer version, which I did not find quickly: "Contrary to subparagraph 1, the placing on the market of parts of equipment required for the repair and maintenance of existing equipment is permitted for a period of up to ten years from the date on which the placing on the market was prohibited, in accordance with Annex IV, provided that the repair or maintenance does not lead to an increase in the capacity of the equipment or to an increase in the amount of fluorinated gases contained in the equipment or the fluorinated gases used."

That sounds somewhat different, although in trying to find it in the original I also found a variant that does not include the 10 years. So there are definitely several versions. And 10 years after 2030 would still be only 17 years for my heating system. As a diesel driver, I’m just a burnt child when it comes to existing rights protection.

This appears to be the current version:
"The ban on placing on the market of equipment components that are prohibited according to this regulation should not apply to components required for the repair and maintenance of existing, already installed equipment, in order to ensure that these installations can be repaired and maintained throughout their entire service life, thereby avoiding the unjustified replacement of existing energy installations and infrastructures, which could negatively impact decarbonisation efforts."