>>64213364
>You don't have to power your entire grid on them. But a small mix is good. It certainly won't be hurting Russia if they had access to few dozen more gigawatts of wind and solar right now.
Sure but even in your scenario. The first thing they ukraine would bomb the oil infrastructure because it is simply a more dangerous target (provide power 24/7 regardless of weather condition). You can have a situation where the solar and wind farms connection have not been bombed at all but because of weather condition those farms are not providing power anyway (or in sufficent amount to meet current day demand)

>You can say the same for all types of power plants
Yes so saying russia might be in better situation if they had more wind and solar is a bit questionable since they also have the same vulnerability when ti comes to the connection to the electrical grid. Once they are done bombing the oil industry they will switch over to the connection point for the renewable industry. It is a lose-lose situation. The only way to win is to have a non-cucked air defense that can intercept attacks before they daamage your infrastructure.

>The catch is that they're less vulnerable to attack and cheaper to replace.
>Transformers and electrical substations are less vulnerable targets than a gas power plant and they are cheaper and easier to replace too.
Define cheap because the initial replacemnt cost is gona be cheap until the point where you run out of spare transformers and need to build new ones or buy some from china. You need trained people to rebuild and reconnect the whole thing just like the oil pipeline and you got a limited amount of trained people. Ukraine is able to replace their transformers thanks to the help of EU and the EU is quite open about their help for Ukraine and even then, the shahed spam (which have much smaller warheads then flamingo) fucked ukraines electrical grid up very hard.

Ukraine is right beside EU, Western russia is very far from china.