 Autarky
| Solar panels alone aren't enough for the proponents of self-
sufficiency. But please read to the end. |
This is the biggest nonsense since Emperor Caligula appointed his horse as consul. An often very small but reasonably wealthy group of people (a family) lives in a spacious house connected
to what is arguably the safest power grid in the world.
And yet, they feel they have to do everything they can to leave as quickly as possible. Is this a playful instinct or a thirst for adventure? Do they have nothing else to do? Is this even helpful in
the fight for the energy transition?
Lawmakers say 'yes,' and sometimes even add tons of money. They see that this will stimulate the economy and are already having great difficulty adapting the power grid to the millions of
electricity producers that might be expected.
That's where people like these, who obviously want to leave the network, come in handy. Unfortunately, one still has to keep it open for them, because he doesn't know if they won't come back
at some point and ask to be included. It saves nothing; it just increases costs.
This seems to be typical of Germany. Costs are far too rarely the focus. But they should be, especially in the fight against climate change, because otherwise we'll eventually run out of steam
and catastrophe will prevail.
Yes, the costs are high, because every expert you bring in costs either your own money or the state's money, and usually also incurs further costs. Very often, the costs involved are five-
figure sums, even for the state, even if there may only be one person living in the house.
If you distribute these amounts of taxes among the number of citizens, it turns out that they can only benefit those who can afford the enormous investments, i.e., a very small group: a lot of
money for a few people, poison for the fight against climate change.
| If something is as expensive as converting to a heat pump currently is,
then it is not suitable for combating climate change. |
And once you've managed to be self-sufficient in winter too, a huge surplus appears in the summer. Then you are once again dependent on the grid in order to take off your electricity.
Because no one can know exactly how much energy they'll need next winter.
And then the grid runs into additional difficulties and has to do something with the additional power it didn't expect: provide additional storage or transfer it abroad along with payments.
There can be no talk of self-sufficiency here, because the grid is ultimately still needed. Unless, of course, you heat up a swimming pool in your garden, thereby depriving it of its refreshing effect. Ultimately, only those profit
who supply and install all the devices.
We would define autonomy completely differently. In our opinion, it is achieved when the price one receives for electricity corresponds as closely as possible to what one pays for it. The investment costs then serve to
achieve this state.
| Reorientation of state funding seems necessary . . . |
That would provide real incentives for everyone. Tenants could also participate. It would be nice if at least some of the investment costs were eventually recouped. Of course, this would require increasing the fee for
electricity fed into the grid and quickly upgrading the grid.
| 
