More crap. In the current situation, we (Germany) of course try to do everything in the short term to produce enough energy no matter how. Coal, gas, wind, water, sun, etc. In my opinion, there will still be major cuts, so I give us a 50:50 chance regarding NS1 that it will be reopened. Tragic (or tragicomic?) that our rather Russia-friendly policy of recent decades is now coming back to bite us (vomits at our feet).
But: Medium to long term (would have, could have ... we would have already arrived there) we must and will rely on energy suppliers for end consumers that are ridiculously cheap, environmentally friendly, and climate neutral. Anyone who does not recognize this so ;) crystal clear ;) path is shortsighted, stupid, or blinded. And I am neither "believing" (rather agnostic) nor a particular Russia basher, but simply technically and scientifically interested and trust the majority scientific opinion on this topic. Of course, I do not hide my red/green heart, but I am of clear mind (sane!) which some others here may well doubt (consider yourself addressed if you like).
But despite everything, of course my crystal ball is no more accurate than others ...
The words of the believers
In Germany it is: to have 1 kW of renewable electricity you need almost 1 kW from fossil power plants. That’s just how it is. Storage (also pumped hydro) on such a scale does not exist and is not foreseeable except for PowerPoint presenters ("digitalization," "demand-oriented," "virtual power plants," etc.). Again, hardly anyone understands the needed scale. That’s the crux.
So you have to operate a gigantic shadow power plant park, which is then only in operation depending on the plant for some to a thousand hours a year. Out of 8,760 hours a year. Since renewables have priority. It doesn’t help if you can produce wind power for 5 cents/kWh. Because there are huge lines behind it (most regions in Germany are supplied regionally with electricity, and the high-voltage lines are only for balancing to reduce the number of reserve kW).
And secondly, a correspondingly dimensioned conventional power plant that must be built and maintained. But only for a few hours of operation, thus with a utilization rate in the single-digit percent range or below. Now if you write off the investment in such a power plant over the years and divide it by the number of generated kWh, of course crazy numbers come out, that’s clear! But this is not the "fault" of the conventional power plant, but due only to the erratic generation of the wind power plant.
Why were these 40 new gas power plants planned for the energy transition? Which have been obsolete since February 24th. If sun and wind alone are so great and can produce electricity for a cent. Are the investors stupid? A little tip: Because of the few earnings due to the low utilization, they would not have been built anyway, simply because they are unprofitable – I have this firsthand from Uniper. So the energy transition would not have been successful anyway.
If those are the renewables, then explain to us why the spread between the EEX futures of July and January of the same year has increased more and more in recent years? Electricity has always been relatively more expensive in winter due to demand, but now that supply (photovoltaics) also decreases, the (due to the few operating hours more expensive) conventional power plants have to move from reserve into production and now preferentially sell their energy, made more expensive because of renewables. Hence the rising spread! What renewables may reduce in price in summer will be causally blown out again in the winter half-year because of them.
Very well explained, thanks!
And my electric car runs on coal power. The brainless result of the energy transition