You accuse other of irrationality, yet you prop up a straw-man that's been debunked over and over again.
Nobody argues that renewables deliver peak power all of the time. The goal is to have enough capacity and intermediary storage to be able to deliver constant peak power with both combined.
The current economic situation would be much better had we spend all our money on renewables and storage instead of nuclear and gas, which ultimately end up fueling the very regimes that give us trouble e.g. saudi arabia, iran, russia, instead conservatives implemented arbitrary constraints like the solar cap and maximum wind farm distance.
Solar is already the cheapest form of energy per watt produced, investing into any other technology than the cheapest and most sustainable one is what's irrational.
"The goal is to have enough capacity and intermediary storage to be able to deliver constant peak power with both combined."
But this is an irrational goal because there is no way to do that intermediary storage on the scale that is required, and as I just pointed out, wind and solar are frequently yielding nearly zero power even when summed together. In your other comments you're talking about pressurized air caverns and other things that are sci-fi projects right now but the crisis Germany is causing with its policies is here today.
This is why greenism is irrational. We're not talking about theoretically perfect power grids here, we're talking about what technologies exist today, to deliver the kind of stability required for a trans-national grid. Renewables aren't even close to this and there's no sign of that changing on the horizon. The refusal to accept that is now more than just annoying, it's becoming flat out dangerous.
All of the tech I mentioned is either operating in pilot studies or full scale systems. Both combined as in renewables + storage, not wind + solar.
You got way too much set phrases and trite political cliches going on for any meaningful discussion.
Solar, wind and storage are here today, they are cheaper than coal, nuclear and gas, even WITHOUT externalised costs of climate change, and long term storage.
The people that are dangerous are the ones that want to make energy politics a political game, and those that want to make as much personal profit from it as possible.
there is no storage capability that would allow europe to work on renewable it doesnt scale just look at how your storage batteries are made! look ar how lithium is harvested please…
Insulated thermal for example is extremely cheap and can be retrofitted to existing power plants. All you need is a insulated steel vessel filled with something inert when heated, e.g. sand.
If you want to go real fancy you could use quicklime, that could be used both as a bulk heat store and additonally releases more energy in it's hydration bonds than lithium ion batteries.
You can actually run a surprising amount of existing coal plants on iron dust, which when burned becomes iron oxide, which can then be recycled to metalic iron.
Northern germany has many salt caverns which can be used as pressurised air storage.
Southern germany also has huge pumped hydro storage potentials.
Batteries are one storage technology, there are plenty others, far cheaper if you just want bulk and dont't care about space.
Nobody argues that renewables deliver peak power all of the time. The goal is to have enough capacity and intermediary storage to be able to deliver constant peak power with both combined.
The current economic situation would be much better had we spend all our money on renewables and storage instead of nuclear and gas, which ultimately end up fueling the very regimes that give us trouble e.g. saudi arabia, iran, russia, instead conservatives implemented arbitrary constraints like the solar cap and maximum wind farm distance.
Solar is already the cheapest form of energy per watt produced, investing into any other technology than the cheapest and most sustainable one is what's irrational.