[pfdietz]

If you go to https://model.energy/ and solve for California, 2011 weather data, 2030 cost assumptions, hydrogen is contributing just 5.9 euro/MWh to the average cost of electricity (less than 10% of the total cost of 68.1 euro/MWh). This is for supplying "synthetic baseload", the best case for nuclear (for varying demand, renewables could only do better, since one could always just swap out the nuclear source with this synthetic source, providing an upper bound on the cost.)

Nuclear will do best in more northerly places that are away from coasts. Poland, for example. For extremely northerly places, like Alaska, the total demand is so small that nuclear is not a good fit.

[trashtester]

> hydrogen is contributing just 5.9 euro/MWh

I'm afraid I don't trust those numbers, or rather, the calculations. For instance, if I select only Wind + Battery, and keep raising the storage cost for battery, the battery cost of the calculations go down, and are replaced by 100% wind plant costs. (Battery capacity is only enough for 1 hour of storage in such a scenario.)

On the other hand, if I drop the cost of battery to almost zero, the battery fraction of production goes to about 30-40%, and storage capacity is about 20 days.

In other words, it seems that the model is optimizing for an extreme overprovisioning of windmills when storage capacity is expensive, compared to when storage is cheap. (Basically, it "constructs" 10x or more windmills than what is needed from a pure energy production perspective.) I suspect that there are some issues with doing that is not taken into account by the model, such as available space at that level of density, risk calculations for completely dead winds, etc.

> Nuclear will do best in more northerly places that are away from coasts. Poland, for example.

Solar in dry, sunny places will likely be able to fully replace fossil fuels way before wind will be, since you do get some sunlight every day, while the wind may be gone for a week at a time. (And you have to plan for the worst case, in terms of available storage.)

[ncmncm]

No, because if wind is predicted to die down for a week, you order liquified ammonia shipped in from solar farms in the tropics. You might even keep a tank of a week or two's worth, banked against the occasion.

You may object that this seems fragile, but it is in fact how we live now. People are importing fuel from dodgy countries all the damn time.

[pfdietz]

I think much of the anti-renewable mindset is white high latitude racism. It's a difficult pill to swallow for some that these mid to high latitude areas are going to become the world's energy ghettos.

[trashtester]

There may be individuals that fit your stereotype, but frankly your statement comes off as every bit as racist as you blame that stereotype of.

Personally, I think it would be great if Africa, India and Mexico could become energy powerhouses. Much better to have energy that can be produced anywhere with a desert or tropical climate than a few monopolist countries, such as OPEC+Russia.

And before you blame that last sentence on racism, keep in mind that Russia is VERY white and also very high latitude. It's not about the race, latitude or skin coloar, but the fact that many OPEC countries are dictatorships that use the profits to wage war on their neighbours, both in the Middle East and Russia/Ukraine.

[ncmncm]

My impression is of post-apocalyptic survivalism. If you are installing renewables, it is because you will not be able to rely on anyone else in the world, for anything, forever; or anyway must never be obliged to.

Dependence upon imported oil, cars, aircraft, microchips, shop tools, home appliances, clothing, and ... everything, really ... has scarred them deeply, and they cannot consider entering into any new such arrangement.

One could ask, but I would expect only sputtering.