But actually it's a good thing.
The providers who (through investment and/or technological superiority) are able to provide cheaper electricity, make more money.
Capitalist progress engine at its finest!
If you are interested in my opinion, I'm perfectly willing to accept that this kind of auction system works efficiently and effectively under normal circumstances. But in this specific scenario, it led to consumer prices rising by about 130% due to a sudden geopolitical shock. I personally find this less than ideal and I would have preferred a system that provides a bit more stability, because electricity is a fundamental need. Price jumps of this nature were unheard of in Germany, so no one was prepared for them, either.
Wind and PV heavily rely on backup power plants. So building a lot of wind and PV increases the reliance on gas plants instead of reducing it.
Even the government’s own energy agency "DENA" makes this claim.
See: https://www.dena.de/fileadmin/dena/Dokumente/Pdf/9262_dena-L... (p. 28f).
That is a very long time into the future, with a very high uncertainty.
So to add 100% to the currently installed electricity generation capacity in Germany, the German government would have to spend less than 5% of its current annual budget each year for 30 years. Let's say 6%, if you add some money to switch out network components to deal with greater variability in network loads.
That seems very achievable, especially because of course most of this money will come from private investments, not the state. If required, industrialized economies could of course spend the required sums to build out their installed capacities by a factor of 2,3 or 5. That would reduce the need for base load capable producers drastically, as well as the need for grid-scale storage.
Diversifying natural gas imports and having more long-term contracts with other producers would have been slightly more expensive before the Ukraine war, but it would have drastically reduced the price jumps thereafter.