we agree on that. Only the different conclusions we draw from it differ "a little bit" :oops:
I can gladly explain my conclusions once again: The "energy transition" was built on gas, as gas power plants can particularly well compensate for the strong fluctuations in photovoltaic and wind energy production. Realistically, we are affording two parallel electricity generation systems: the "renewables" and the fossil backup. Since the output of the "renewables" can drop to 0.0 kWh during the notorious dark doldrums, the fossil backup system must be able to cover 100% of the demand, so it would actually be sufficient for the entire electricity demand. This actually makes it clear that the "renewables" are completely unnecessary and, in the best case, at least double the electricity price compared to a country that only maintains one "power supply system." In fact, the system has become a subsidy machine for the new green elites and their profiteers and a redistribution machine from bottom/middle to top in terms of society. It used to be called, for example, the Renewable Energy Act, now it is just financed less transparently through the state budget. Subsidies for e-cars are naturally also included. Since the "energy transition" ultimately depends on cheap Russian gas and therefore cannot really be sustainable and "fossil-free," it would now be appropriate and socially much fairer not to pass on the costs of the gas price explosion to all gas customers, but specifically to the "energy transition" profiteers, e.g. the tax advisor you mentioned.....