Looks like @eon_de has its own information desaster. A short thread why last weeks press release about a "study" on heat planning and on green gas is a desaster in many perspectives. (1/n) https://twitter.com/EON_de/status/1352225681795543041

First of all, by calling its findings a "study" eon provoked expectations that the data could be checked and the findings reviewed by the scientific community. Asked to provide the "study", eon answers that they cannot publish it for "reasons of privacy"/ "data protection". 2/10

After some pressure, they came out with some slides and an abstract - still with very little data, but at least some information on the findings and presumptions. Why not publish this in the first place? Mistake no. 1 (3/10) https://twitter.com/EON_de/status/1353307828191186946

Publishing would convey private data of heat demand of specific buildings, they claim. However, it would be easy to aggregate data to the level of blocks or quarters - no privacy issues then. Not to do so, makes it look as if e.on wants to hide something. Mistake no. 2. (4/10)

Looking deeper into the summary, more mistakes turn out. Judging from the press coverage, the story was obviously given a spin that is not substantiated by the paper: Green gas makes heat transition cheaper for poor housholds - particularly in comparison to heat pumps. (5/10)

This claim is not only in sharp contradiction to the scientific consensus, represented i.e. by studies from @BrianVad @RegAssistProj @AgoraEW or many others. You can't go out with such a message, unless you really have good data and a profound study. Mistake no. 3. (6/10)

It still get's worse, though. When you look at the thin published material, it turns out that the main technologies to make a city's heat transition affordable are not "green gas" but district heating and heat pumps - in some cases in hybrid solutions with synthetic gas. (7/10)

Ok, pretty much in line the science - but not what eon communicated. Selling green gas as the top & cheap heat transition solution is simply misleading. Expand district heating and deploy heat pumps are the top priorities - even eon's material supports this. Mistake no. 4. 8/10

There are also many things in the pubished material that I would question, such as the time line and the price tag of the phase-in of H2. By not publishing more and by communicating in a biased way, eon does not pave the way for discussion and science based heat planning. 9/10

Communication with openness and acknowledging also the limits of green gas would have been the way to go, @EON_de If you are interested in information on heat planning in Germany, check my article (in German) here https://www.hamburg-institut.com/images/pdf/fachbeitraege/Aufsatz_ZUR_2020_01_Maa.pdf (10/10)