Maybe I used the wrong word, I didn't mean "unfair" as in morally, but as in "wrong", economically and mathematically.

I'm in Europe too, so I understand the gas-electricity market relation.

My point was that when you make economical calculations you need to know what the future price will be in time. You are not buying all the electricity now at current price, it's not something you can accumulate in your house. You will be buying it in time at the market price. So you will save exactly the difference each time. If now you are saving 50 cent for each KWh, maybe 12 months from now you will save 17 cent for KWh (I'm talking about the energy price only, without grid costs etc). If you make the calculations assuming you will save 50 cent/KWh for the next [insert lifetime] years you are doing a wrong cost analysis, plain as that.

Of course this is not clear with this antique, because with our prices you would get your money back in a few months. A few years with the low American prices.

But take a 350 KWh a year fridge you are considering, and a 450 KWh a year fridge you already have. The new fridge costs 300 euros. Are you sure you will save more money upgrading to the more efficient one? (I'm simplifying and assuming the old one doesn't break) You would reach the breakeven point in 6 years with 50 cent/KWh. But if prices go from 50 to 17 (one third) in a year it'll take 1+5x3=16 years. If it goes down in 3 years it's 3+3x3=12 years, etc. That's why unfair. You are assuming prices will not go down again, as if this was the natural price. It is not, it's a crisis price. It is not about opinions, but economics. 🤷

I won't enter into the environmental analysis because in the schizophrenic society we live in imo it's silly.

Not fair to take prices during a shortage to make long term decisions.

But I agree with the conclusion, in OP's case it would be better if that thing broke or went to a museum.