There is no battery capacity required for the simple effect of substituting gas power plant operation. Any MWh generated by another source will simply remove the need to generate that MWh from gas, where the price of gas is the dominating component.

Not really. This is overly simplistic since it's not accounting for reliability/predictability of supply. Natural gas can be turned into MWh on demand, at night, when there's no wind, during consumption anomalies, etc. It's clearly not interchangeable with renewables MWh for MWh like you're suggesting.

You also have to pay the gas. Gas backups for power are just stupid without any own supply. In winter, we also need the gas for heating, that will not change in the next 30-40 years.

> Renewables are like a trickle at best

Doesn't Germany have a lot of wind power? Denmark sure does.

Let's see, 27.2% wind in 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany

And apparently there's a fair bit of North Sea area that can be used for new offshore wind.

Percentages are misleading when it comes to power sources that only work some of the time.

It would be really fascinating to see hourly/monthly percentages as a stacked bar chart.

That wasn't theoretical installed base, it was actual power produced.

Do you only use electricity only some hours a day?

No it’s usage need to be constant, or you'll get black-outs in regions where the grids 50hz frequency cannot be kept - which a lot of communals in Sweden are dangerously close to.

And if you don't keep the network balanced, you'll get complete blackouts instead of regional blackouts.

Well, speaking for myself, I do use different amounts of electricity during the day. As does everyone in my region. And your region, probably.

But you want to be able to use electricity when you need it, right?

> That wasn't theoretical installed base, it was actual power produced

That's not what I'm saying. On a windy day, then doubling your number of wind turbines will (roughly) double your power output. But if there's no wind, your output drops to zero. Contrast that with nuclear power, where doubling capacity doubles output always.

So with nuclear power you could say that based on what current output we have, if we build X more capacity we could retire all polluting energy sources.

With wind (say) you can't say that.

So, you're saying that if we adopt a stupid wind policy, bad things will happen?

I'd agree with that. Have you considered adopting a good policy instead?

If you read my comments you'll see what I said, which is that such percentages are misleading. Not sure what's causing your newfound silliness.