[thesimon]

> if its so cheap, why is Germany building natural gas pipelines to ship Russian gas for decades to come?

Because Gerhard Schröder, the former chancellor who approved NS1 in his last days, liked Russia, which earned him nice board seats on Russian energy companies. And because Angela Merkel had her constituency in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the landfall site of the pipelines.

And LNG was always associated with fracking in the US, so for environmental reasons it was not very popular.

[macspoofing]

>Because Gerhard Schröder, the former chancellor who approved NS1 in his last days, liked Russia, which earned him nice board seats on Russian ene

Yeah - it's always corrupt politicians and big oil, big gas, big whatever. Alternatively, maybe it means that wind/solar cannot meet German energy needs.

And by the way, this isn't just Germany. It's every country that doesn't have access to hydro or nuclear.

[ikt]

> And by the way, this isn't just Germany. It's every country that doesn't have access to hydro or nuclear.

I don't believe Australia plans on going to Nuclear any time soon.

For those of you interested you can see a complete breakdown of our power generation here: https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1d&interval=30m

Of interest is SA which has a wind/solar/gas mix, Tasmania which is Hydro/Wind, and Vic/NSW/Qld who are all still heavily using fossil fuels.

[macspoofing]

>I don't believe Australia plans on going to Nuclear any time soon.

Yeah, so they'll use natural gas and coal as baseload.

>For those of you interested you can see a complete breakdown of our power generation here: https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1d&interval=30m

Expand the range to more than a day, and yeah, Gas+Imports(Coal?) is ~40%, so you're stuck on fossil fuels forever.

South Australia is also so small that it's almost pointless to use as a data point.