Newly built single-family house - gas or air heat pump + photovoltaics + storage?

without wanting to actually join the discussion, I just want to note for the record that we wanted to install a brine heat pump long before we knew there was a subsidy. Admittedly, we were happy to take advantage of the subsidy, of course. But, and that's what I want to point out, there is at least one (you wanted to have one shown) who would have installed the pump, even the brine one, without any subsidy. And now I'm out again :)

I hereby appoint myself as the official reporting point for such "cases of suspicion." From now on, you will be listed as "free of suspicion" :D.

Jokes aside, there is nothing wrong with receiving funding. I once received one for designing special living space and now I have applied for one again. What concerned me here was the general finger-pointing and stigmatizing in this case.

It's the SUV, the diesel, the long trip, the wood stove, the meat, and much more. I keep reading more and more of this stigmatizing good-bad, which immediately takes away any chance of development in the discussion. At some point, the heat pump owners with deep drilling will wag their finger at the ecological porcupines with a "normal" air-water heat pump, or the owner of a German heat pump will insult the owner of the Asian heat pump because of the long transport route, etc. There's always something to find, in the end even the unnecessary, toxic substances in Rezo's blue lock... completely unnecessary and socially and health-damaging.

Here I often read that the real driving force behind the heat pump is the state funding, which is completely understandable. However, one should not wave the ecological finger too much but admit that they did it because it was free and that it happened to be ecologically quite okay. I find that honest and understandable.
Additionally, the fact that with verbal attacks or strange comparisons to prostitutes, etc., one certainly cannot convince anyone of my, albeit worthy, position: "If you do that, you are an eco-pig."

In fact, our decision for a brine heat pump was influenced by two points. We wanted a) and most importantly under no circumstances fossil fuels (ideology) and we wanted b) to reduce running costs as much as possible.

By the way, in many cases I very much agree with you.

with such provocative statements, hopefully you haven't built a single-family house, don't own a combustion engine vehicle, don't fly, and don't have children who would further burden the environment... Let's keep things in perspective. Gas is also a legitimate way to heat nowadays. Electricity is becoming more expensive too. More and more electric vehicles are further increasing demand. Most homeowners will probably choose the "sweet spot" between cost and ideology.

Here I often read that the real driving force behind the heat pump is the government subsidy, which is completely understandable.

Without wanting to get too involved in the discussion here, I would like to offer a new impulse for thought:

Why does the government promote heat pump technology and here only particularly efficient ones? Whereas building with gas in a new building is made more difficult by laws (only still legal with compensatory measures).

Once these questions have been answered, one should know what is currently societal consensus through the society via the elected representatives and thus a majority in the population.

with such provocative statements ...

Which of my statements exactly do you mean?