If everything works as planned fossil fuel power plant emmits CO2 and pollutants.

Gladly, you don't need to use them

not if you read fraunhofer ise decarbonization pathways report. If you dont like nuclear and have no hydro, it basically means fossils

I don't know how you read this out of the report

When we already talk about Fraunhofer, they with a few other institutes, have been sketching out various pathways over the years for Germany for transitioning to a renewable energy system multiple times, see https://langfristszenarien.de/enertile-explorer-wAssets/docs...

While Germany has some hydro, it's just a tiny amount

I'm talking about this one https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/paths-...

In pessimistic economy growth scenario about 80GW of gas are needed or more otherwise. The hope is to sometime replace it with hydrogen which looks like a gamble https://ieefa.org/resources/germanys-gas-and-hydrogen-gamble

> I'm talking about this one https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/paths-...

again my remark: I don't know how you read this out of the report:

> If you dont like nuclear and have no hydro, it basically means fossils

The report doesn't even aim to make claims about feasibility of energy systems without nuclear, natural gas and hydro power.

> In pessimistic economy growth scenario about 80GW of gas are needed or more otherwise.

1) during the specific paths of which there are infinitely many ... (including the ones I linked)

2) seldom usage

3) replaced over time (when extrapolating there would be no natural gas usage )

The ones you linked too do use gas firming... And the goal there too is to sometimes replace it with hydrogen if ever possible which is more a pipedream than doing a messmer plan over entire EU today

natural gas usage is or is almost (used for a tiny amount of heating) non-existent in the scenarios