>

But I didn’t think wind and solar every produced any gas?
TIL:  
In 2020, the energy mix in the EU, meaning the range of energy sources available, was mainly made up by five different sources: petroleum products (including crude oil) (35 %), natural gas (24 %), renewable energy (17 %), nuclear energy (13 %) and solid fossil fuels (12 %). >

UK energy sources "live" data from Gridwatch. >

Not sure if I like the layout. Thanks anyway. >

Each to their own but gridwatch website makes my eyes bleed as it looks like it's designed in Dreamweaver in the late 90s near 00s lol. >

Born in the 50's so suits me just fine LOL! >

I joking was going to say about being born in the 60s hehe. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 92%. (I'm a bot)


Wind and solar power produced more of the EU's electricity than fossil gas for the first time last year.
Through the turbulence of 2022 - from cutting ties with Russia to climate-driven drought and soaring gas prices - Europe's clean energy transition soldiered on.
What we can say for sure, with all the certainty of hindsight, was that 2022 was a year of bold action - in which energy insecurity catalysed rather than derailed Europe's electricity transition.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: electricity^#1 energy^#2 per^#3 cent^#4 solar^#5 >

Heating from gas is a seperate issue for example for germany though. Many, and i mean many homes still have gas run heating units installed and a majority can't afford to invest in new heating installations. Still good news though that it is past gas in pure energy production and that the storages are full enough for said heating purposes. >

This is most of the continent.
Unless you're building a new house, chances are you're going to have gas heating.
Electric heating comes with a whole bunch of other stuff that's going to be very expensive.
First you've got millions of people that can't afford to replace their gas heating unit with an electric one.
Then you've got a lot more people that can't afford to actually use electric heating as the cost is so much greater than gas.
Then you've got the problem that electric heating doesn't offer as much power as gas heating and many buildings are poorly insulated and draughty, often problems that people can't afford to fix.
Then you need to upgrade the infrastructure to handle the huge increase in electrical demand that switching over from gas will cause.
Switching from gas heating to electric heating isn't as simple as just replacing the heating unit iself, theres a whole bunch of other associated costs and work that needs performing as detailed above, which people often forget about. >

Heat pumps should be cheaper to run at this point. But installation costs are the highest >

i know this has nothing to do with it, but there was huge spike in solar panel prices, since everybody and their granma bouth them due the energy scare. Even houses are generating small inputs to the grids now. >

European countries have been adding more more intermittent renewable energy generation year after year. 
Showing building grids around intermittent renewable energy backed by gas is a cost effective way in reducing carbon emissions.  
Yet detractors keep saying that the intermittent nature of wind and solar make them unsuitable for mass adoption. >

The intermittent nature of wind and solar is a real problem but not one that would stop them from giving a good average power output for the year.  It instead means we still need a large capacity of energy generation with load following, which Europe had with oil and coal.  A good baseline also helps which Europe has in some places with nuclear. >

Nuclear does hurt more than it helps, since its insane costs could be put into more cost-effective options.
It also cannot be used to compliment renewables because it cannot be used for dispatchable power generation. Thus it directly competes with renewables for every Dollar/Euro being spend on the energy sector.
People who are truly concerned about the climate catastrophy ought to oppose nuclear power in favor of renewables and storage. >

Only the up front costs are insane, reactors pay for themselves in 30 years then keep going for another 30, then get extended for another 20.
Baseline power does support renewables, if it’s not nuclear it’s more fossil fuels.  You need to generate four times as much energy if you are going to store it, for example as potential energy, then turn it back in to electricity again. >

They do not pay for themselves ever if you include all the externalities which currently are conveniently paid for by society. Nuclear power is a taxpayer scam where profits are privatized and costs are socialized.

You need to generate four times as much energy if you are going to store it

Renewables are much cheaper power generators. Nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. 
So if you want to generate lots of energy for storage, you would be a fool to go for nuclear rather than renewables, even from a purely economical perspective. 
And I rather have no electricity at all than nuclear power.