As I recall, your original contention was that people would be freezing to death in the winter due to the use of wind power. Is that still your contention?
Then you talk about the need to create a whole new technology to store energy (it’s just physics!) so you will have power when the wind stops blowing. That would be true if you were relying on wind power for 100% of your power needs. I don’t think that Germany is truly planning to get 100% of their power needs just from Baltic Sea wind, though. If you use a mix of wind/solar/hydro/coal/natural gas/nuclear, you can cover those days when the wind isn’t blowing. They should still look at energy storage as much as they can to help cover peaks, but it’s not a requirement.
As for your contention that the only reason they are going to wind is to get rid of nukes, so what? In my opinion, the biggest problems with nukes is that, when they go wrong, they go wrong in big and really expensive ways. What has the cost to the Japanese economy been since Fukushima went wrong? How many decades will they continue to pay for that? If that had been a natural gas power plant (or any other type) would they still be paying for that now? We won’t even talk about Chernobyl!
But, I digress. Your original argument was about freezing babies due to wind power. I still haven’t seen any proof of this. Is there an article from some German newspaper you could send me about that?
see link http://www.britannica.com/topic/Green-Party-of-Germany
Again...no one in the "Green" party gives a hoot about providing affordable power for Germany, or anywhere else, for that matter. After they get rid of nukes they'll concentrate on coal, and after coal they'll concentrate on gas. That's how fascists operate...it's all about control!