I am still not convinced. I am a big fan of heat pumps (especially the large one they have in Denmark), however not everyone has the luxury to choose their heating solution. Greenpeace doesn‘t make the laws which make landlords not transition away from fossil fuels.

So Greenpeace is offering the best in-class “green” natural gas product. You didn‘t name another provider, which is better. May be there is one. You can‘t really critize the best for not being even better, because there are obviously reasons for it or someone else would have already done better.

Secondly even though we we will not need that green gas infrastructure for personal heating in the longterm, because there is much better option available (the heatpump), there are certain industries which need it badly. These are the steel, chemical and aviation (in that order). Therefore it is important to bootstrap green hydrogen generation additionally to what is already being done.

At last let me emphasize that what Greenpeace is doing is not ideal. Ideally the government would follow a plan where personal natural gas heating would not be needed, because heat pumps would be installed everywhere.

Thank you for your reply. I was not aware of that. However I do think that there is a nuance between a selling natural gas product (for heating) vs. electricity produced with natural gas. Greenpeace did the former, because there was/is no way to get enough green gas at the moment. I think this is legitimate, because at the moment that’s the case for every natural gas provider. Then in the future they can transition with their already client base. To be clear Greenpeace never sold non-renewable electricity.

Nonetheless is extremely disappointing that it takes so long and I also understand if current customers feel betrayed.

Does anyone know if there is a better natural gas provider with a higher percentage of green gas in the mix?

This is simply not true. The shutdown of all nuclear plants (second attempt) has been decided by the CDU after Fukushima. The last government where the Greens were part of actually postponed the shutdown for a couple month because of the energy crisis cause by the war in Ukraine.

Germany also decided to shutdown all coal power plants until 2038. Yes, Germany has historically a lot of coal power plants, but the future is renewable. Let me remind you that my comment was in response to someone saying the oil industry started the grass roots anti-nuclear movement.

Here ist good chart of Germany‘s energy mix:

https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-strompreis-gaspreis-erneuerbare-energien-ausbau

Source? Most if not all in “anti-nuclear crowd“ (in Germany) are also against the burning of fossil fuels. Instead they really like renewable energy like solar or wind. See the history of the German Green party for reference which was founded out of the anti-nuclear grass roots movement and they are also opposed to the burning of fossil fuels. I don‘t know if that‘s different in other countries.

I‘ve actually when something like this will happen. A few years ago German energy providers and distributors needed to split, because it gives you an unfair advantage if you own both. Whole companies were split in two. People working for years together would no longer work together. In the end consumer were much better off after the split. I feel the same way with internet browser. It is unfair if you own the infrastructure (Chrome, energy grid) and the services that run on it (YouTube, power plants).