Don't read the clearly partisan sources uncritically, they are generally misleading.
"The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein are already operating on 100% net renewable energy, mostly wind. The ‘net’ indicates trading with each other and their neighbours. They do not rely on baseload power stations."
These rather sparsely populated states combined make up for only 4.5 million of Germany's 83 million population. Germany still supplies 50% of its power with fossil fuels, of which coal makes up 35%.
It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast).
Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? It couldn't be a problem of financing, they spent a huge amount of money on subsidizing renewables already.
"In 2014 the state of South Australia had 39% of annual electricity consumption from renewable energy (33% wind + 6% solar) and, as a result, the state’s base-load coal-fired power stations are being shut down as redundant. For several periods the whole state system has operated reliably on a combination of renewables and gas with only small imports from the neighbouring state of Victoria."
Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. To even out peaks from renewables, natural gas is used. The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up.