Gas prices - Where is gas still affordable?

I'll start and set the polemics aside. Our common wishes and goals regarding energy supply are actually clear. When and how we want to achieve them and, above all, can achieve them is rather not clear. The suitable way to get there is rather not, as before, to sensibly do everything centrally with a few large power plants of a few large corporations. There will have to be many small demand-oriented solutions. Adapted to regional conditions. The political framework conditions also still have to be created beforehand, but it seems to me that this is currently happening quickly. I appreciate many technically excellent contributions here but would like to point out that each of us is only a part of the whole and certainly will not write down the world-saving theory (practice) here. As has already been said elsewhere, there is a wide gap between the real person and the ideal person. We will not be able to solve this here in the forum either, but as said, he is glad about everyone who looks beyond the horizon because of these discussions and arguments and takes a look into the future with renewable energy instead of throwing a log into the fireplace (but I also like fireplace fires, it must be some primal instinct).

Depending on the source (from studies of the last 10 years), you need between 3,000 and 9,000 kWh of cumulative primary energy in the production chain for 1 kWp module capacity. In sunny regions (so not in Germany), you ideally reach an energy payback time of around 2 years. Here it is rather from 3 years or more.

However, since production would probably have to grow exponentially to ensure a significant increasing share of photovoltaic capacity, self-production of photovoltaic and its local installation over many years will ultimately represent an energy guzzler and not an energy producer. Only when entering the saturation range does a macroeconomic net gain occur. Before that, we pay extra. But we hardly have anything left right now anyway... Simple math, but Greenpeace just doesn’t tell you that;)

By the way, wind power is much better in this regard; the energy payback in northern Germany is only about 6 months.

Yes, and that’s why we need to start quickly so that by 2035 we have exactly passed this point.

And according to current studies, we are actually between 3 and 9000 kWh, namely under 5400 kWh since 2019 for monocrystalline, which have an 80% market share.
My small 6.5 kWp system produces extrapolated (running only since November) more than 6000 kWh per year because I am currently already at exactly 4912 kWh for the year 2022 alone. So amortization is under one year. This is not a satirical reality but my personal facts.
And yes, we currently rather have no energy left, but want to pump 100 billion into the Bundeswehr. How much energy does the production of a damn tank cost? (Yes, I am in favor of helping Ukraine with weapons deliveries too before anyone here thinks I’m just turning the other cheek.)

By the way, our secretary has a photovoltaic system that is about to expire very soon and will probably complement it with another photovoltaic system and a small wind power system (rural, hill, farm...)

Almost all of us have some possibilities—wake up and use them, please. Your children and grandchildren will thank you. Have I already mentioned that I have 3 children and 7 grandchildren?

Honest question: do you have any Google term or something where someone calculates how many "emergency fossil fuels" might still be needed? So far it seems to me a bit like exaggeration (but what do I know). The other thing is to what extent a Europe-wide calm is a realistic scenario (and even in winter and with clouds photovoltaic yields are not zero, but yes, of course significantly lower, which is certainly a problem if more heating is done with electricity). But do you have anything where one can read something about that?

Otherwise, do I understand your suggestion roughly right as "nuclear for the base load, fossil for peaks"? (And the Greens are dumb because they don't want nuclear) I find nuclear problematic in that there are only humans operating it and mistakes are fatal, and we similarly still simply have no plan where we want to put the waste for the next millennia. That we right now (with exploding gas prices) might probably have fewer problems is presumably the case (although as far as I know, fuel rods also partly come from Russia...)

We ourselves live in a low-energy house with a heat pump and a 10 kWp photovoltaic system, including a green electricity tariff, etc. However, the current planning can certainly be critically questioned. Gas is practically out, coal is unfortunately massively incompatible with our CO2 targets, and no one wants nuclear power. So once again, the question to the [dasfunktionierteasyfraktion], how do we do it concretely and socially acceptably?

"for the base load nuclear, for peak load something fossil"?

I don’t want to preempt Scout’s answer, but nuclear is the last thing you want in connection with renewables, since it is the least flexible way to generate electricity. This is currently hitting the Grande Nation hard. (Besides the overwhelming costs and the decades-long propaganda that is hardly reversible.)

In fact, gas is the best combination to run together with renewables.

Now one might think, "Yeah, what a crap, there’s no gas, so it won’t work, I’m going home!".

But wait! ;-)

The amounts of gas needed to buffer the fluctuations (others call it dark doldrums because that sounds scarier) with renewables, we can get quite comfortably from other sources. It’s not that much, compared to the amount we currently burn for industry and heat generation.

The path (also ) therefore starts first with an enormously rapid expansion of renewables. In the worst case, we’ll have a bit too much for a short time, then we just save France for a while longer and Poland doesn’t have to burn as much coal. And to the same extent as gas consumption decreases, we can take coal power plants off the table. We do this because gas burns a bit more flexibly, but above all cleaner. In terms of climate impact, there isn’t much difference.

Oh yeah: It won’t be “easy” at all. This is a massive effort! But a look at the alternatives and the motivation follows naturally. ;-)